← 回書卷目次 · 拉丁教父 › 文集
塔普蘇斯的維吉里烏斯
文集 第 6 章 第 3/5 段
拉丁文原文．37 節．部分字詞可點開查義．本章太長已分段，此段為 6:73–6:109（全章共 165 節）
6:73
i, 15), quasi in ordine factorum primogenitus habeatur, ut ex eo seriem quamdam creandis mundi rebus as signent. Denique sublato ὁμουσίου , id est uniua sub stantiæ vocabulo; ὁμοιούσιον , id est similem factori suo posuerunt, cum aliud sit similitudo, aliud veri tas. Nam et homo ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei factus est (Gen. i, 26), nec tamen Deus est: nec quod Deus est, homo exstitisse credendus est. Ita ct Filium Dei similem volunt, ut eum aliunde similem, non de ipsa una sancta et beata Patris substantia dicant. Qui si de Patris substantia non est, ἐξ οὺϰ ὄν των est, id est ex nullis exstantibus, ut idem Arius tradidit.
一章15節),彷彿祂在受造之物的次序中被算為首生者,好叫他們從祂引出世界萬物受造的某種次序。最後,他們除去了「同質」(homoousion)—即「一體」之詞—卻立了「相似質」(homoiousion),即「與其造作者相似」,因為相似是一回事,真實是另一回事。因為人也是按神的形像與樣式所造(創世記一章26節),然而人並非神;也不可相信神之所是,人竟成了那樣。照樣,他們也願神的兒子是「相似的」,好叫他們說祂是從別處而相似,而非出於父那獨一、神聖、有福的本質本身。但祂若不出於父的本質,就是「ex ouk onton」,即出於全然不存在之物,正如那亞流所傳的。
1:15), as if he were reckoned firstborn in the order of things made, so that from him they might assign a certain sequence to the things of the world to be created. Finally, having removed the homoousion—that is, the term 'of one substance'—they posited the homoiousion, that is, 'like his maker,' since likeness is one thing and truth another. For man too was made to the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26), yet he is not God; nor must it be believed that what God is, man has come to be. Thus too they wish the Son of God to be 'like,' so that they may call him like from some other source, not from that one holy and blessed substance of the Father itself. But if he is not of the Father's substance, he is 'ex ouk onton,' that is, from things not existing at all, as the same Arius handed down.
6:74
Sublato enim eo quod Pater est, undecun- que fuerit Filius, necesse est ut et initium ex nihilo, et ortum ex tempore habeat. Nihil enim sine initio nisi solus Deus. Unde et Filius, sicut ipse Dominus ait: Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joan. x, 30). Quod ideo dixit, ut duarum 509 personarum vocabula in unius deitatis majestate monstraret, sicut et pro pbeta ex voce Dei: Eructavit, inquit, cor meum Veт bum bonum, dico ego opera mea regi (Psal. XLIV, 2). Vides ergo hoc Verbum bonum Filium Dei esse, quem non aliunde quam de paterno pectore et ( ut ita dixerim) de utero cordis Dei credimus natum. Et proinde eum regem appellat, quia ipse est Rex re gum :
因為那作為父的一旦被除去,無論聖子是從何而來,祂就必有出於虛無的開端,以及出於時間的起源。因為除了神自己以外,沒有任何東西是無始的。因此聖子也是如此,正如主自己所說:「我與父原為一」(約翰福音十章30節)。祂這樣說,是為要在獨一神性的尊榮中顯明兩個位格的名稱,正如先知也從神的口中說:「我心裡湧出美辭」,他說,「我論到我為王所作的工」(詩篇四十五篇1節)。所以你看見,這「美辭」(好的道)就是神的兒子,我們相信祂並非從別處所生,乃是從父的胸懷,並(可以這樣說)從神之心的腹中所生。祂因此稱祂為王,因為祂自己就是萬王之王:
For once that which is the Father is removed, from whatever source the Son shall have come, it is necessary that he have both a beginning from nothing and an origin from time. For nothing is without a beginning except God alone. Whence the Son too, as the Lord himself says: 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). He said this for the reason that he might show the names of two persons in the majesty of one Godhead, just as the prophet too, from the voice of God: 'My heart hath uttered forth a good Word,' he says, 'I tell my works to the king' (Psalm 45:1). You see therefore that this 'good Word' is the Son of God, whom we believe to have been born from no other source than from the paternal breast and (so to speak) from the womb of the heart of God. And accordingly he calls him king, because he himself is the King of kings:
6:75
Deum Dominum, cui omnia divina dpera suc cumbunt; qui dixit : Omnia quæ Pater habet, mea sunt (Joan. XVI, 15). De hoc et evangelista : In prin- cipio, inquit, erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Omnia per eum facta sunt, et sine eo factum est nihil (Joan. I) 1). Igitur quod in principio erat, semper fuisse credendum est. Sed nec aliunde esse quam ei eo qui principium non habet, id est de corde Patris, quia eructavit, inquit, cor meum Verbum bonum. Non enim dixit : In prin cipio factum est Verbum, sed in principio, inquit, erat Verbum. Quodcunque principium Verbi signare volueris, præjudicatum habebis, quia in principio, in quit, erat.
祂是神,是主,一切神聖的工作都伏在祂之下;祂說:「凡父所有的,都是我的」(約翰福音十六章15節)。論到祂,福音書作者也說:「太初有道,道與神同在,道就是神。萬物是藉著祂造的;凡被造的,沒有一樣不是藉著祂造的」(約翰福音一章1節)。所以,那在太初就有的,必須相信是一向存在的。而祂並非從別處而有,乃是出於那無始者,即出於父的心,因為祂說「我心裡湧出美辭」。因為他沒有說「太初道被造了」,而是說「太初,」他說,「有道」。無論你想標定道的什麼開端,你都必先已被駁倒,因為「太初,」他說,「就有了」。
God the Lord, to whom all divine works are subject; who said: 'All things that the Father hath are mine' (John 16:15). Concerning him the evangelist also says: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing' (John 1:1). Therefore that which was in the beginning must be believed always to have been. But to be from no other source than from him who has no beginning, that is, from the heart of the Father, because 'my heart,' he says, 'hath uttered forth a good Word.' For he did not say, 'In the beginning the Word was made,' but 'In the beginning,' he says, 'was the Word.' Whatever beginning of the Word you wish to mark, you will have it prejudged, because 'in the beginning,' he says, 'it was.'
6:76
Non quod duo principia ex rerum diver sitate dicamus, sed quia Verbum Filius semper cum Patre est, et de Patre natus est. Ac proinde cujus origo principium non habet, sempiternus credendus est: quia nec Pater potest unquam sine Filio nomi- nari, nec Filius sine Patre vocari, ac per hoc semper Filius, quia semper Pater. Et Deus, inquit, erat Ver bum. Quod Deus est, semper est; ne si semper non fuerit, verus Deus esse non possit: sicuti et in sophiæ nomine, quia secundum Apostolum ipse est sapientia Patris (/ Cor. I, 24). Ego, inquit, ex ore Altissimi pro divi (Eccli. XXIV, 5). Non ergo aliunde quam de Patre, quia semper cum. Patre.
並不是說我們因事物的多樣而說有兩個開端,而是因為那作為道的子始終與父同在,並且是由父所生。因此,祂的源頭既無開端,就必須相信祂是永恆的;因為父不能被稱呼而沒有子,子也不能被稱呼而沒有父,因此子是永遠的,因為父是永遠的。「道,」他說,「就是神」。凡是神的,就永遠存在;免得它若不是永遠的,就不能是真神:正如在「智慧」這名稱上也是如此,因為照使徒所說,祂自己就是父的智慧(哥林多前書一章24節)。「我,」她說,「從至高者口中而出」(便西拉智訓二十四章5節)。所以祂並非從別處,乃是出於父,因為祂始終與父同在。
Not that we speak of two beginnings from a diversity of things, but because the Word the Son is always with the Father, and is born of the Father. And accordingly, he whose origin has no beginning must be believed to be everlasting; because neither can the Father ever be named without the Son, nor can the Son be called without the Father, and thereby the Son is always, because the Father is always. 'And the Word,' he says, 'was God.' What is God always is; lest, if it were not always, it could not be true God: just as also in the name of wisdom, because according to the Apostle he himself is the wisdom of the Father (1 Corinthians 1:24). 'I,' he says, 'came forth from the mouth of the Most High' (Sirach 24:5). Therefore from no other source than from the Father, because always with the Father.
6:77
Et ideo Sapientia Dei appel latur, ut nunquam Pater sine sapienda, hoc est sine Filio suo fuisse credatur. Haec est illa sapientia inef fabilis, quæ initium viarum Dei apud Salomonem vel condita vel genita vel creata describitur (Prov. VIII) : quam tamen sic conditam dicit ut semper eam cum Deo fuisse os:c::dat. Quod enim initium Deo dabis, ut initium possis sapientine ipsius consignare Non enim ita Deus sapientiam suam condidit, quasi ali quando sine sapientia fuerit. Sed cum initium viarum suarum dicat, initium motus operis alicujns osten dit, 510 ut hoc initium habeat sapientia Dei, quod de Deo processit ad condenda omnia, tam cælestia quam terrena, non quo coeperit esse in Deo.
因此祂被稱為神的智慧,好叫人永不相信父曾經沒有智慧,即沒有祂的兒子。這就是那不可言喻的智慧,在所羅門書中被描述為神道路的起頭,或被立、或被生、或被造(箴言第八章):然而他這樣稱她為「被立」,乃是要表明她始終與神同在。因為你要給神什麼開端,好叫你能給祂的智慧本身指定一個開端呢?因為神並非這樣立祂的智慧,彷彿祂曾在某時沒有智慧。但當他說「祂道路的起頭」時,他所表明的乃是某項工作之動作的起頭,好叫神的智慧有此起頭—即它從神而出,為要創立萬物,無論是天上的還是地上的—而非說它在神裡面才開始存在。
And therefore he is called the Wisdom of God, so that the Father may never be believed to have been without wisdom, that is, without his Son. This is that ineffable wisdom which in Solomon is described as the beginning of the ways of God, whether founded or begotten or created (Proverbs 8): yet which he so calls 'founded' as to show that she was always with God. For what beginning will you give to God, that you might be able to assign a beginning to his very wisdom? For God did not so found his wisdom as though at some time he had been without wisdom. But when he says 'the beginning of his ways,' he shows the beginning of the motion of some work, so that the wisdom of God has this beginning—that it proceeded from God for the founding of all things, both heavenly and earthly—not that it began to be in God.
6:78
Creata est ergo sapientia, imo genita, non sibi quae sem per erat, sed bis quae ab ca fieri oportebat; ut quia quanta et qualis esset sciri non poterat, de effectu operum suorum virtus ejus et potentia nosceretur, ut dum conditorem de conditis æstimamus, tunc magis timeamus cum facta miramur. Caeterum si tu ita creatam sapientiam dicas, ut Filium Dei creatu ram intelligas, occurrit tibi Apostolus, condemnans eos qui creaturam colunt, dicens : Propter quod tra didit illos Deus in desiderium cordis eorum in immun ditium, ut contumeliis afficiant corpora sua in semetip sis:
所以智慧是被造的—不如說是被生的—並非為她自己(她是一向存在的),而是為那些將要藉她而被造之物;好叫人因不能知曉她何等偉大、是何種樣式,就從她工作的果效中認識她的能力與大能,使我們從受造之物推想那造作者時,當我們驚嘆所造之物,就更加敬畏。但你若這樣說智慧是被造的,以致把神的兒子理解為受造之物,使徒就出來駁斥你,定那些敬拜受造之物者的罪,說:「所以神任憑他們,逞著心裡的情慾行污穢的事,以致彼此玷辱自己的身體:」
Wisdom therefore was created—nay rather, begotten—not for herself who always was, but for those things which were to be made by her; so that, because how great and of what kind she was could not be known, her power and might might be known from the effect of her works, in order that, while we estimate the Maker from the things made, we might then fear all the more when we marvel at the things made. But if you so say that wisdom was created as to understand the Son of God to be a creature, the Apostle confronts you, condemning those who worship the creature, saying: 'Wherefore God gave them up unto the lust of their heart unto uncleanness, that they should dishonor their own bodies among themselves:'
6:79
qui commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacium, ct coluerunt et servierunt creaturæ potius quam Crea tori, qui est benedictus Deus in .recula (Rom. I, 24). Hæc est, inquam, illa sapientia Dei quæ dicit : Ego ex ore Altissimi prodivi (Eccli. XXIV, 5), universitatis conditrix et effectrix, id est Filius Dei per quem om cia, et in quo omnia : quia, ut Apostolus dixit : In ipso constituta sunt universa in cœlis et in terras visi bilia et invisibilia, sive throni, sive dominationes, sive virtutes, sive principatus, sive potestates, omnia per ipsum, et in ipso condita sunt , et ipse est ante omnia, el omnia in ipso constant (Coloss. I, 16). Hinc et Salo- mon :
他們將神的真實變為虛謊,敬拜事奉受造之物,過於那造物的主;主乃是可稱頌的,直到永遠(羅馬書一章24-25節)。我說,這就是那神的智慧,她說:「我從至高者口中而出」(便西拉智訓二十四章5節),是萬有的創立者和造作者,即神的兒子,萬有都是藉著祂、也都在祂裡面:因為,正如使徒所說:「萬有都是在祂裡面造的,無論是天上的、地上的,能見的、不能見的,或是有位的、主治的、執政的、掌權的;一概都是藉著祂、又是為祂造的;祂在萬有之先,萬有也靠祂而立」(歌羅西書一章16-17節)。因此所羅門也說:
who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is God blessed for ever (Romans 1:24-25). This, I say, is that Wisdom of God which says: 'I came forth from the mouth of the Most High' (Sirach 24:5), the founder and maker of the universe, that is, the Son of God through whom are all things and in whom are all things: because, as the Apostle said: 'In him were all things created that are in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations or virtues or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and in him, and he is before all, and all things consist in him' (Colossians 1:16-17). Hence Solomon too:
6:80
Cum sit, inquit, una, omnia potest, et permanens in se, omnia innovat, et per nationes in animas sanctas se transfert (Sap. VII, 27). Quod confirmans Apostolus ait, in interiore homine habitare Christum, ut per quem a principio omnia facta sunt, per ipsum et in fine cuncta salventur (Ephes. III, 16). CAPUT III. Sed dicis mihi ὀμούσιον , id est unius substantiae nomen ob hoc nominari non oportere, quia in Scri pluris divinis non continetur. Quæro et ego, homo qui hoc prohibes, si ideo nominari non debet, quia scriptum non est, an quia ita credi non liceat? Quod si ita credendum est, cur non ita profitendum?
「她雖是獨一的,」他說,「卻無所不能,並且常存不變,更新萬物,世世代代進入聖潔的心靈」(智慧篇七章27節)。使徒印證這話,說基督住在裡面的人心中(以弗所書三章16節),好叫那位從起初藉以造成萬物的,也藉著祂叫萬物在末了得救。第三章。但你對我說,「同質」(homoousion)—即「一體」之名—不該被提及,理由是它沒有包含在神聖的經卷中。我也問你,這位禁止此事的人:它若不該被提及,是因為它沒有寫在經上,還是因為它不可這樣相信?但它若必須這樣相信,為何不該這樣宣認呢?
'Though she is one,' he says, 'she can do all things, and remaining in herself she renews all things, and throughout the nations she passes into holy souls' (Wisdom 7:27). Confirming which the Apostle says that Christ dwells in the inner man (Ephesians 3:16), so that through him by whom from the beginning all things were made, through him also in the end all things may be saved. CHAPTER III. But you say to me that the homoousion—that is, the name 'of one substance'—ought not to be named for this reason, because it is not contained in the divine Scriptures. I too ask you, O man who forbid this: if it ought not to be named because it is not written, is it because it may not be so believed? But if it must be so believed, why should it not be so professed?
6:81
Corde enim, inquit Apostolus , creditur ad justitiam, ore 511 autem confessio fit ad salutem (Rom. x; 10). Aut si ideo nominandum non est, quia nec ita cre dendum, obtinuit Arianae labis assertio: quae ideo Patrem et Filium unius substantiae denegavit , quia Filium Dei modo ex nihilo, modo ex Patre, sed ab alia substantia, quando voluit et quomodo voluit, et unde voluit factum inducit, dummodo aliunde eum, et non de eo quo'i Pater est, exstitisse confingat. Quem etsi natum dicit, sed hoc dicto tenus , quia rursum omne quod natum est factum intelligit; eo quod et nos a Deo geniti appellemur, quos constat esse, facturam.
因為使徒說:「人心裡相信,就可以稱義;口裡承認,就可以得救」(羅馬書十章10節)。或者,它若因此而不該被提及,是因為它也不該被相信,那麼亞流污點的主張就得勝了—它正是為此緣由否認父與子同質:因為它把神的兒子說成有時是從虛無、有時是從父卻出於另一本質、在它所願的時候、按它所願的方式、從它所願的來源而被造;只要它能捏造祂是從別處而存在,而非出於那作為父的。即便它說祂是被生的,卻也只是口頭上如此,因為它又把凡被生的都理解為被造的;因為我們也被稱為由神所生,而我們無疑是受造之物。
For 'with the heart,' says the Apostle, 'a man believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation' (Romans 10:10). Or if it is for this reason not to be named, because it is also not to be believed, then the assertion of the Arian taint has prevailed—which for this reason denied the Father and the Son to be of one substance: because it brings in the Son of God as made now from nothing, now from the Father but from another substance, when it willed and how it willed and from whatever source it willed; provided only that it fabricates him to have subsisted from elsewhere, and not from that which is the Father. And even though it says he is born, yet this only verbally, because again it understands everything that is born to have been made; in that we too are called begotten of God, who admittedly are a thing made.
6:82
Vel si Arianus non es, et verum Fi num de vero Patre natum non factum agnoscis, cur non eum cum Patre unam substantiam dicis? Fru stra times, homo, profiteri quod credis; aut frustra credis, si ita non credis, et merito hæreticus dcno- 'aris. Et quanquam non immutaveris dictum, quo putaris prohibuisse, Dei Filium nuncupari facturam; sed cum subjungis, Sicuti aliquid horum quod factum est, ex aperto ostendis non ob hoc tacturam dici no luisse, quasi non debeat factus intelligi; sed non ita factum vis, sicut aliquid horum quod factum est, sed tamen factum. Aliler enim dicis factum, ut pote perfectam creaturam, per quem facta sunt omnia;
或者,你若不是亞流派,並且承認真正的兒子是由真正的父所生、而非被造的,你為何不說祂與父同質呢?人哪,你懼怕宣認你所相信的,乃是徒然;或者,你若不這樣相信,你的相信也是徒然,你被烙印為異端乃是理所當然。儘管你沒有改變你那句你以為已禁止稱神的兒子為受造之物的話;然而當你加上「正如那些被造之物中的某一物」時,你就公然顯明,你拒絕稱祂為受造之物,並非因為祂不該被理解為被造的;而是你不願祂像那些被造之物中的某物那樣被造,卻仍是被造的。因為你說祂是以另一種方式被造,即作為一個完美的受造物,萬物都是藉著祂被造的;
Or if you are not an Arian, and you acknowledge the true Son born of the true Father, not made, why do you not say that he is of one substance with the Father? In vain, O man, do you fear to profess what you believe; or in vain you believe, if you do not so believe, and you are deservedly branded a heretic. And although you have not changed the statement by which you thought you had forbidden the Son of God to be called a thing made; yet when you add, 'just as something of those things which have been made,' you openly show that you did not refuse him to be called a thing made for this reason, as though he ought not to be understood as made; but you do not wish him made in the way that something of those things which have been made is, yet still made. For you say he is made in another way, namely as a perfect creature, through whom all things were made;
6:83
dummodo et ipsum factum intelligas, licet non ita ut cætera. Sed ut ad id revertar, quod dicis, in Scri pluris divinis ὀμοὺσιον , id est unius substantiae vo cabulum non inveniri, finge hoc interim sic sit; eo quod ubicunque substantia legitur, res Dei non Deus accipiatur; quid quod et aliud quod scriptum non est, pariter profiteris, id est Deum ex Deo, et lumen ex lumine? Quid ad hæc dicis? Aut totum mecum tene, aut totum omitte. Si cnim unius substantiae vo cabulum inde limes dicere, quia scriptum non est; timere identidem debes Deum ex Deo, et lumen ex lumine profiteri. Sed ego probo Deum de Deo, et lumen de lumine, et unius substantiae vocabulum in divinis Scripturis contineri.
只要你也承認祂是被造的,雖然不是以與其餘之物相同的方式。但回到我先前所談的:你說在神聖的經卷中找不到「同質」(homoousion)—即「一體」之詞。姑且暫且承認是如此;理由是凡讀到「本質」之處,所當理解的乃是屬神之物,而非神:那麼,你同樣宣認另一件沒有寫在經上的事,即「神出於神」和「光出於光」,這又怎麼說呢?你對此有何話說?你要麼與我一同持守全部,要麼全部放棄。因為你若因「一體」之詞沒有寫在經上而懼怕說它,你就當照樣懼怕宣認「神出於神」和「光出於光」。但我要證明,「神出於神」、「光出於光」以及「一體」之詞,都包含在神聖的經卷中。
provided only that you understand him too to be made, though not in the same way as the rest. But to return to that which I was at: you say that in the divine Scriptures the homoousion—that is, the term 'of one substance'—is not found. Suppose for the moment it be so; on the ground that wherever 'substance' is read, the thing belonging to God, not God, is to be understood: what of the fact that you likewise profess something else which is not written, that is, 'God of God' and 'light of light'? What do you say to this? Either hold the whole with me, or omit the whole. For if you fear to say the term 'of one substance' for the reason that it is not written, you must by the same token fear to profess 'God of God' and 'light of light.' But I prove that 'God of God' and 'light of light' and the term 'of one substance' are contained in the divine Scriptures.
6:84
Cum enim ipse Dei Fi lius qui Deus est, in Evangelio suo dicat : Ego de Patre exivi (Joan. XVI, 28) : jure et merito Deum de Deo profitemur; quia de Dco Patre Filium Dei, Deum verum de Deo vero natum esse cognoscimus. Sed non eo genere ut nos dii sumus 512 appellati (Psal. LXXXI, 6); vel ut Moyses Pharaonis Deus est dictus (Exod. v!!!, 1) ; sed quia verus Filius, de vero Patre natus, non factus est, vere et confidenter Deus de Deo dicendus est. Sic et lumen de lumine (quod scriptum non est) mecum quidem dicis; sed mecum omnino non sentis. Et quia scriptum est de Patre: Deus lux est; et de Filio: Erat lux vera quæ illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mun dum (I Joan. i, 5); et:
因為神的兒子自己,就是那位神,在祂的福音書中說:「我從父出來」(約翰福音十六章28節):我們宣認「神出於神」乃是正當合理的;因為我們知道,神的兒子,真神,是由神,父,所生,真神出於真神。但這並非用我們被稱為神的那種方式(詩篇八十二篇6節),也非如摩西被稱為法老的神(出埃及記七章1節);而是因為祂是真正的兒子,由真正的父所生,並非被造,所以當真實而篤定地稱祂為神出於神。照樣,「光出於光」(這沒有寫在經上)你確實與我一同說;但你在意義上絕不與我相合。又因為論到父,經上記著:「神就是光」;論到子:「那光是真光,照亮一切生在世上的人」(約翰一書一章5節;約翰福音一章9節);又說:
For since the Son of God himself, who is God, says in his Gospel: 'I came forth from the Father' (John 16:28), rightly and deservedly we profess 'God of God'; because we know that the Son of God, true God, was born of God the Father, true God of true God. But not in that manner in which we are called gods (Psalm 82:6), or as Moses was called the god of Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1); but because he is the true Son, born of the true Father, not made, he is to be called truly and confidently God of God. So too 'light of light' (which is not written) you indeed say with me; but you by no means agree with me in meaning. And because it is written of the Father: 'God is light'; and of the Son: 'There was the true light which enlightens every man coming into this world' (1 John 1:5; John 1:9); and:
6:85
Lux lucet in tenebris, id est Christus in sæculo, et tenebræ eum non sunt asse cutæ (Joan. i, 9). Hi scilicet homines quorum cor ignorantiæ tenebris obcæcatum est, Christum veruiu Deum, et verum Dei Filium non agnoverunt. Sed ipse D minus : Ego sum, inquit, lux mundi : qui me secutus fuerit, non ibit in tenebris, sed habebit lumen vitæ (Joan. VIII, 12). Ergo quia lumen Pater, et lux Filius, recte lumen de lumine. Sed lumen ex lumine ita asseris, quasi a Patre, qui verum lumen est, aliud lumen sit factum, quod de ipsa Patris substantia non sit: sed sicuti aliud quodlibet lumen, quan quam a Deo sit factum, longe tamen aliud sit ab eo qui fecerit: et ideo lumen ex lumine, non de lumine dicis.
「光照在黑暗裡」,即基督在世間,「黑暗卻未曾勝過光」(約翰福音一章9節)。就是這些人,他們的心被無知的黑暗所蒙蔽,沒有認出基督是真神、是神真正的兒子。但主自己說:「我是世界的光,跟從我的,就不在黑暗裡走,必要得著生命的光」(約翰福音八章12節)。所以,既然父是光,子也是光,稱「光出於光」乃是正當的。但你主張「光出於光」,卻彷彿是父,那真光,造出了另一個光,而這光並非出於父自己的本質:好像任何別的光一樣,雖是神所造,卻與那造它的相去甚遠:因此你說「光從光而出」(指被造),而非「光出於光」(指同源)。
'The light shines in the darkness,' that is, Christ in the world, 'and the darkness did not overtake it' (John 1:9). These men, namely, whose heart is blinded by the darkness of ignorance, did not recognize Christ as true God and the true Son of God. But the Lord himself says: 'I am the light of the world: he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life' (John 8:12). Therefore, because the Father is light and the Son is light, rightly is it 'light of light.' But you assert 'light of light' as if from the Father, who is the true light, another light were made, which is not of the Father's own substance: but as any other light whatsoever, although it be made by God, is yet far other than he who made it: and therefore you say 'light from light,' not 'light of light.'
6:86
Cum ergo hæc praelocutus sum; licet mecum non intelligas, tamen ipsa quomodocunque pronun tias, cuin scripta non sint: an non et unius substantiæ vocabulum, quod in Scripturis non putas contineri, mecum pariter profiteris? nisi quia illic habuisti quo modo malignos sensus tuos occulta fraude in utroque contegeres; ut mecum hoc ipsum sono vocis expri meres, sed tamen longe dicti intelligentiam separa res. Sicuti et illi haeretici qui resurrectionem carnis negant, ad decipiendas animas simplicium, væ di cunt his quia in carue non resurgunt. Sed si discu- tias cos cur hoc dixerint, cum scias illos carnis re surrectionem omnino negare, dicent tibi :
所以,既然我已先述了這些事;雖然你不與我一同明白它們,然而你總以某種方式說出那些詞語,即便它們沒有寫在經上:那麼,你豈不也與我一同宣認那「一體」之詞,就是你以為沒有包含在經卷中的嗎?只不過你在那裡有辦法用隱蔽的詭詐在兩處掩飾你惡毒的含義;好叫你與我用相同的聲音說出這同一件事,卻把這話的理解遠遠分開。正如那些否認肉身復活的異端,為要迷惑單純人的靈魂,對人說「禍哉」,因為他們不在肉身中復活。但你若追問他們為何這樣說,既知他們全然否認肉身復活,他們就會告訴你:
Since therefore I have premised these things; although you do not understand them with me, yet you in some way or other pronounce those very terms, even though they are not written: do you not then likewise profess with me the term 'of one substance,' which you think is not contained in the Scriptures? Except that there you had a way to cover your malicious meanings with hidden fraud in both cases; so that you might express this very thing with me by the sound of the voice, yet keep the understanding of the saying far apart. Just as those heretics also who deny the resurrection of the flesh, in order to deceive the souls of the simple, say 'woe' to those because they do not rise in the flesh. But if you press them as to why they have said this, since you know that they utterly deny the resurrection of the flesh, they will tell you:
6:87
Væ utique illi erit qui in carne baplizatus non fuerit, ut anima ipsius, dum in corpore est, de morte deliclorum suorum, ut de sepulcro criminum per baptismum in eadem resurgat. Solius etenim animæ, per lavacri vitatis graliam resurrectioncm in carne defendunt : nam et ipsius carnis salutem excludunt. Et hi per verisimilem confessionem, innocentium mentes oc culta fraude seducunt. Et ut solet lethale 513 po culum mellis dulcedine temperatum, suavitate fal lente, perimere; sic et hoc malum per blandimentum aurium, audientium sensus quadam labe contami nans, contagione vitii adhærentis inficit. CAPUT IV.
那沒有在肉身中受洗的人,實在有禍了,他的靈魂趁還在身體裡時,藉著洗禮,從自己過犯的死亡中、如同從罪行的墳墓中,在那同一肉身裡復活。因為他們所主張的,乃是單單靈魂藉生命之水的恩典在肉身中復活:卻把肉身本身的得救排除在外。這些人藉著貌似可信的宣認,以隱蔽的詭詐迷惑無辜者的心。又正如摻了蜜之甘甜的致命毒杯,慣於用欺人的香甜使人喪命;照樣,這惡也藉著悅耳的奉承,以某種污點玷污聽者的感官,以那緊附之惡的傳染毒害他們。第四章。
Woe indeed shall be to him who has not been baptized in the flesh, so that his soul, while it is in the body, might rise again in that same flesh from the death of its own offenses, as from the tomb of its crimes, through baptism. For they defend the resurrection in the flesh of the soul alone, through the grace of the laver of life: for they exclude the salvation of the flesh itself. And these, through a plausible confession, by hidden fraud seduce the minds of the innocent. And just as a deadly cup tempered with the sweetness of honey is wont to destroy by a deceiving pleasantness; so too this evil, contaminating the senses of the hearers with a certain blot through the blandishment of the ears, infects them by the contagion of the adhering vice. CHAPTER IV.
6:88
Deniqne et nunc possent ὁμούσιον sicuti et cætera verbo tenus nominare, si haberent quomodo illud ad aliam intelligentiam sævo sensu perverterent. Sed cum viderent se in hoc verbo concludi, nullam om nino mentionem hujus fieri voluerunt, ne aut profi tendo hoc crederent, aut credentes professi videren tur : subtili ingenio excusantes , quod aut scriptum non esset , aut Deum in substantia dici non oporte ret, ne corporeus crederetur. Deus etonim, inquiunt, efficit ut sit substantia , non tamen ut ipse Deus in substantia deputetur. Quippe (aiund) cum omnis sub stantia contraria recipiat, Deus vero, qui nihil diver sum admittere potest, substantia dici non debet.
最後,即使現在,他們也能像其他詞語一樣,僅僅口頭上提及「同質」,只要他們有辦法用其凶狠的意思把它扭曲成另一種含義。但當他們看見自己被這個詞所困住時,他們就完全不願提及它,免得他們或藉宣認它而相信它,或藉相信它而顯得已經宣認了它:他們以微妙的巧智為自己開脫,說它要麼沒有寫在經上,要麼神不該被說成「在本質中」,免得祂被認為是有形體的。他們說:「因為神使本質得以存在,卻不至於使神自己被算在本質之中。」他們說:「的確,既然一切本質都接納相反之物,而神既不能容納任何不同之物,就不該被稱為本質。」
Finally, even now they could name the homoousion, as well as other words, merely verbally, if they had a way to pervert it by their savage sense to another meaning. But when they saw themselves shut in by this word, they wished no mention at all of it to be made, lest either by professing it they should believe it, or believing it they should seem to have professed it: excusing themselves with subtle cleverness, that either it was not written, or that God ought not to be said to be in substance, lest he be thought corporeal. 'For God,' they say, 'brings it about that substance exists, yet not in such a way that God himself be reckoned in substance.' 'Indeed,' they say, 'since every substance receives contraries, but God, who can admit nothing diverse, ought not to be called substance.'
6:89
Ignoscerem tibi si hoc simpliciter diceres, si rationem rei velles scire, si rudis ad hanc quæstionem acce deres, si non ipse esses qui semper vel de alia sub stantia, vel de nullis exstantibus Dei Filium assere bas. At cum idem ipse sis qui hinc saepe convictus, sæpe confessus, sæpe negasti, sæpius aliter immu tando damnatus es, qui etiam nunc vi, ambitione et potentia exagitas, turbas omnia : quomodo me putas ignoscere tibi posse frequentius eadem retractanti ? Sed ne videatur haec perversitas praejudicata magis quam examinata damnari, breviter tibi de hac oppo sitione respondeam.
我本可寬恕你,假如你是出於單純說這話,假如你是想知道事情的緣由,假如你是以未受訓練之人來到這問題前,假如你不就是那一向主張神的兒子或出於另一本質、或出於全然不存在之物的人。但既然你就是那同一個人,你在這裡屢次被駁倒、屢次承認、屢次否認,且更屢次以另一種方式變來變去而被定罪,你甚至如今還憑武力、野心和權勢攪動、混亂一切:你怎能指望我寬恕你這個一再翻來覆去重提同樣事情的人呢?但為免這悖謬被視為未經審查就被預先定罪,讓我簡略地就這個異議回答你。
I would pardon you if you said this in simplicity, if you wished to know the reason of the matter, if you came to this question untrained, if you were not the very one who always asserted the Son of God to be either of another substance or of things not existing at all. But since you are the same man who, having here often been refuted, often confessed, often denied, and more often, by changing in another way, been condemned, who even now by force, ambition, and power stir up and confound everything: how do you suppose that I can pardon you, who rather frequently rework the same things? But lest this perversity seem to be condemned as prejudged rather than examined, let me briefly answer you concerning this objection.
6:90
Prohibes itaque in Deo substan tiam nominari, quasi omne quod substantia dicitur, res ipsa unius gencris habeatur. An ignoras, aliter coelestia, aliter terrena constare; sed ct in ipsis coe lestibus atque mundanis rehus magnam differentiam interesse? Aliter enim angeli, aliter singulae quaeque virtutes, constitutionum suarum substantias accepe runt, sicuti Apostolus ait : Alia claritas solis, alia claritas lunæ, alia claritas stellarum (I Cor. xv, 41). Sic et in hoc mundo, ut diversa genera rerum, ita et diversa 514 corpora animantium, et omnibus sui cujusque generis substantia, sicut Apostolus dicit : Non omnis caro, eadem caro (Ibid., 39).
所以你禁止在神裡面提及「本質」,彷彿凡稱為本質的,都被當作同一種類之物。難道你不知道天上的事物以一種方式存在,地上的以另一種方式存在;而即使在天上和世上的事物本身之間,也有極大的差異嗎?因為天使以一種方式、各個權能以另一種方式,領受了它們各自構造的本質,正如使徒所說:「日有日的榮光,月有月的榮光,星有星的榮光」(哥林多前書十五章41節)。照樣,在這世界裡,既有種類各異的事物,也有種類各異的活物身體,而每一樣都有其各自種類的本質,正如使徒所說:「凡肉體各有不同」(哥林多前書十五章39節)。
You therefore forbid 'substance' to be named in God, as though everything that is called substance be held to be a thing of one and the same kind. Or are you ignorant that heavenly things subsist in one way, earthly in another; but that even among heavenly and worldly things themselves there is a great difference? For in one way the angels, in another the several virtues, received the substances of their own constitutions, just as the Apostle says: 'One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars' (1 Corinthians 15:41). So too in this world, as there are diverse kinds of things, so too diverse bodies of living creatures, and to all the substance of its own kind, as the Apostle says: 'Not all flesh is the same flesh' (1 Corinthians 15:39).
6:91
Si ergo ca quae a Deo facta sunt, diversas qualitates substantia rum suarum habent, tu putas in Deo talem esse sub stantiam, qualem habet aliquid horum quod factum est, ut possit contraria recipcre? Absit. Quæ est enim substantia Dei nisi ipsum quod Deus est, sim plex, singulare, purum, nulla concretione pormixtam, limpidum, bonum, perfectum, beatum , integrum, sanctum totum? An tu putas inane aliquid esse et vacuum quod Deus est? Hoc enim dici blasphemia est, ut inane putetur per quem cuncta constiterunt, qui omnia verbo edidit, ratione composuit, virtute perfecit, cujus nutu et imperio universa reguntur, cuncta deserviunt. Et bene quod de Deo legis scri ptum: Ego sum qui sum; et :
所以,既然那些由神所造之物的本質各有不同的性質,你豈能設想在神裡面有一種如同那些被造之物所具有的本質,以致它能接納相反之物嗎?斷乎不可。因為神的本質,豈不就是神之所是本身—單純、獨一、純潔、毫無混雜、清澈、良善、完全、有福、完整、全然聖潔的嗎?或者你設想神之所是是某種空虛虛無之物嗎?因為說這話乃是褻瀆:竟把那位萬物藉以存在、用祂的話產生萬物、用理性構成萬物、用大能成全萬物、萬物憑祂的點頭和命令受治理、一切都服事祂的主,認為是空虛的。論到神,經上記得好:「我是自有永有的」;又說:
If therefore those things which were made by God have diverse qualities of their substances, do you suppose that in God there is such a substance as anything of those things which have been made possesses, so that it could receive contraries? God forbid. For what is the substance of God except that very thing which God is—simple, singular, pure, mixed with no compound, limpid, good, perfect, blessed, whole, wholly holy? Or do you suppose that what God is, is something empty and void? For to say this is blasphemy, that he should be thought empty through whom all things have subsisted, who produced all things by his word, composed them by reason, perfected them by power, by whose nod and command all things are governed, all things serve. And well is it written of God: 'I am who I am'; and:
6:92
Qui est misit me (Exod. III, 14). Et ipse Salvator et Dominus : Hæc est, in quit, vita æterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum (Joan. X VII, 3). Est ergo in substantia sua Deus, cujus cognitio vita aeterna est, et qui tantus est quantus dici non potest. Qui tunc digne æstimatur cum inæstimabilis dicitur : utique velis ac nolis. Ergo ipsum quod est, hoc est substantia ejus rei quae esse defenditur : quod tamen jam dictum est, quantum et quale sit, nec mente concipi, nec sensu æstimari, nec animo dcfiniri po test. Dummodo constet esse quod esse creditur;
「那自有者差遣了我」(出埃及記三章14節)。救主與主自己也說:「認識你獨一的真神,並且認識你所差來的耶穌基督,這就是永生」(約翰福音十七章3節)。所以,神是存在於祂的本質中的,認識祂就是永生,祂之偉大乃是無可言喻的。當祂被稱為不可估量時,祂才被相稱地估量:無論你願意與否。因此,祂之所是本身,就是那被主張為存在之物的本質:然而這本質,正如已經說過的,它何等偉大、是何種樣式,既不能被心思所領會,也不能被感官所估量,更不能被心靈所界定。只要承認那被相信為存在的確是存在的就夠了;
'He who is hath sent me' (Exodus 3:14). And the Savior and Lord himself: 'This,' he says, 'is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent' (John 17:3). God therefore is in his substance, the knowledge of whom is life eternal, and who is as great as cannot be told. He is then worthily esteemed when he is called inestimable: whether you will or no. Therefore that very thing which he is, this is the substance of that thing which is maintained to be: which nevertheless, as has already been said, of what greatness and of what quality it is, can neither be conceived by the mind, nor estimated by the senses, nor defined by the soul. Provided only that it be agreed that he is, which is believed to be;
6:93
ut de eo ipso quod Deus est inde sit Filius, ut verus sit Filius, et verus sit Pater in Filio, et Filius in Patre. IIoc crit ὁμούσιον , id est unius substantiae cum Patre. Sicut ipse Dominus ait, Ego in Patre, et Pater in me (Joan. XIV, 11). Ego et Paler unum sumus (Joan. x, 30) ; et : Ego de Patre exivi (Joan. XVI, 28) ; et : Qui me videt, videt et Patrem (Joan. XIV, 9). Non im merito , quia Filius Dei de Deo Patre natus est: et ideo de unitate substantiæ, et de majestate deitatis unum sunt, sicuti et Jeremias prophetavit ; Quis sta bit in substanita Domini, et videbit verbum Domini (Jer. XXIII, 18)? Et iterum :
好叫那神之所是本身,聖子即從中而出,使祂成為真正的兒子,使父在子裡面為真,子也在父裡面為真。這就是「同質」(homoousion),即與父「一體」。正如主自己所說:「我在父裡面,父在我裡面」(約翰福音十四章11節)。「我與父原為一」(約翰福音十章30節);又說:「我從父出來」(約翰福音十六章28節);又說:「人看見了我,就是看見了父」(約翰福音十四章9節)。這並非沒有緣由,因為神的兒子是由神,父,所生:因此,憑本質的合一、憑神性的尊榮,他們乃是一;正如耶利米也預言說:「有誰站在主的本質中,得見主的話呢?」(耶利米書二十三章18節)。又說:
so that of that very thing which God is, thence is the Son, so that he be the true Son, and the Father be true in the Son, and the Son in the Father. This will be the homoousion, that is, 'of one substance' with the Father. As the Lord himself says: 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me' (John 14:11). 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30); and: 'I came forth from the Father' (John 16:28); and: 'He who sees me sees also the Father' (John 14:9). Not without reason, because the Son of God is born of God the Father: and therefore by the unity of substance and by the majesty of the Godhead they are one, just as Jeremiah also prophesied: 'Who shall stand in the substance of the Lord, and shall see the word of the Lord?' (Jeremiah 23:18). And again:
6:94
Si stetissent in substan tia mea, et si audissent verba mea, avertissem eos a studiis eorum pessimis (Ibid., 22). Et apud Salomo nem : Substantia mea, dulcedo mea est (Sap. XVI, 31). CAPUT V. 515 Cum ergo hanc unitatem substantiae in Patre et Filio non solum prophetica, sed et evangelica au ctoritate cognoscas, quomodo dicis in Scripturis di vinis ὁμούσιον non inveniri? quasi aliud sit ὁμούσιον quam quod dicit, Ego de Deo Patre exivi (Joan. XVI, 28) ; et, Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joan. x, 30); vel quod prophetæ ex aperto substantiam Dei intima hant? Hæc est autem nominis ratio, ut in Patre et Filio unitatem substantiae credas, licet rem ipsam (quæ est inenarrabilis) definire non possis;
「他們若是站在我的本質中,聽從了我的話,我就使他們離開他們極惡的行徑」(耶利米書二十三章22節)。在所羅門書中:「我的本質就是我的甘甜」(智慧篇十六章21節)。第五章。所以,既然你不僅藉先知的權威、也藉福音的權威認出父與子裡面這本質的合一,你怎能說在神聖的經卷中找不到「同質」(homoousion)呢?彷彿「同質」乃是別的什麼,而不是祂所說的「我從父神而出」(約翰福音十六章28節);以及「我與父原為一」(約翰福音十章30節);或不是先知公然所表明的神的本質?但這就是這名稱的理據:你要相信父與子裡面本質的合一,雖然你不能界定那事物本身(它是不可言說的);
'If they had stood in my substance, and if they had heard my words, I would have turned them away from their most evil pursuits' (Jeremiah 23:22). And in Solomon: 'My substance is my sweetness' (Wisdom 16:21). CHAPTER V. Since therefore you recognize this unity of substance in the Father and the Son not only by prophetic but also by evangelical authority, how do you say that in the divine Scriptures the homoousion is not found? As though the homoousion were something other than what he says, 'I came forth from God the Father' (John 16:28); and, 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30); or what the prophets openly intimated of the substance of God? But this is the rationale of the name: that you believe the unity of substance in the Father and the Son, although you cannot define the thing itself (which is unspeakable);
6:95
ut sive lumen de lumine dicas, sive verbum de verbo, sive spiritum de spiritu, sive Dominum de Domino, quod cunque de eo dixeris, unius tamen essentiæ Patrem et Filium credas, et de eo ipso quod Pater est, Fi lium intelligas. Nam si aliquam comparationem de rebus his quae videntur, in eo facias, ipsa dissimili ludine rerum, non rationem ostendes, sed alterca tionem disputalionum induces. Et quia ex voce Dei scriptum est: Cui me comparabitis (Isai. XLVI, 5)? ac proinde Deus cui assimilari nihil potest, sufficiat credi quod ipse sentitur, quia ipse credi se voluit, non indicari.
好叫你無論說「光出於光」,或「道出於道」,或「靈出於靈」,或「主出於主」,無論你論到祂說什麼,你總要相信父與子是同一本質,並且從那作為父者本身去理解子。因為你若就這些可見之物作任何比較,在這事上,正因事物的不相似,你所顯明的就不是理據,反倒引入辯論的爭吵。又因為從神的口中記著:「你們將誰比我呢?」(以賽亞書四十六章5節),因此神既無物可與之相比,那麼只要相信祂自己被領會為何,就夠了,因為祂自己願意被人相信,而非被人指明。
so that whether you say 'light of light,' or 'word of word,' or 'spirit of spirit,' or 'Lord of Lord,' whatever you shall have said of him, you nevertheless believe the Father and the Son to be of one essence, and from that very thing which the Father is, you understand the Son. For if you make any comparison concerning these things which are seen, in this matter, by the very dissimilarity of things you will show no reason, but will bring in the wrangling of disputations. And because it is written from the voice of God: 'To whom will you compare me?' (Isaiah 46:5), and therefore God, to whom nothing can be likened, let it suffice to believe what he himself is perceived to be, because he himself willed to be believed, not to be pointed out.
6:96
Denique si de hoc ipso quod mecum profiteris, aliquam similitudinem velis in Deo con ferre, nescio an quod comparaveris possis expressiui definire. Ut puta cum dicis lumen ex lumine, si ad explanandum illud scrupulosa narratione cogaris, quæro quomodo lumen ex lumine credas. Utrum quasi lucernam ex lucerna, vcl quasi solem ea sole, ut aut duas lucernas, aut duos soles quasi duos deos sub hoc exemplo inducas. Aut splendorem luminis ejusdem lucernæ, vel claritatem solis de eodem sole fulgentem, lumen de lumine consignes, ut in matri cem luminis Patris figuram assimiles, Filium vero in splendorcm claritatis ostendas; quod de eo propheta dixerit :
最後,你若想從你與我一同宣認的這同一件事上,在神裡面作出某種相似的比擬,我不知道你所比較的,你是否能更明確地加以界定。譬如,當你說「光出於光」時,你若被迫要以細密的敘述來解釋它,我便問你如何相信「光出於光」。是如同燈出於燈,還是如同日出於日,以致你在這比喻下引進兩盞燈,或兩個太陽,彷彿是兩位神?還是你把「光出於光」表示為同一盞燈之光的光輝,或從同一太陽發出的太陽之光亮,以致你把父的形像比作光的母體,卻把子顯為其光亮的光輝;先知論到祂說:
Finally, if from this very thing which you profess with me you wish to confer any likeness in God, I do not know whether what you have compared you could define more expressly. For instance, when you say 'light of light,' if you are compelled to explain it by a scrupulous narration, I ask how you believe 'light of light.' Whether as a lamp from a lamp, or as the sun from the sun, so that under this example you bring in either two lamps, or two suns, as it were two gods. Or do you signify as 'light of light' the splendor of the light of the same lamp, or the brightness of the sun shining from the same sun, so that you liken the Father's figure to the matrix of the light, but show the Son in the splendor of its brightness; which the prophet said of him:
6:97
Apud te est fons vitæ, et in lumine tuo vide bimus lumen (Psal. XXXV, 10). Vel Salomon cum di cit : Candor est lucis æltrnæ, et speculum sine macula Dei majestatis, et imago bonitatis illius (Sap. VII, 2G). Vel Apostolus hic prædicaverit Salvatorem nostrum imaginem esse invisibilis Dei (Col. I, 25), eo quod imago 516 solis lux sua sit quae de codem sole procedit. Sed quanta ad haec responderi possunt, quæ lites generant (quod Apostolus prohibet (II Tim. II, 14) ) longum est dicerc : quippe cum constet lumen illud quod Deus est, æstimari, comprehendi, et defi niri non posse :
「在你那裡有生命的源頭;在你的光中,我們必得見光」(詩篇三十六篇9節)。或所羅門所說:「她是永恆之光的光輝,是神威榮的無瑕明鏡,是祂良善的形像」(智慧篇七章26節)。或使徒在此宣講我們的救主乃是那不能看見之神的形像(歌羅西書一章15節),因為日的形像就是它自己的光,從那同一個太陽發出。但對這些問題能有多少回答—這些回答只生爭競(乃是使徒所禁止的[提摩太後書二章14節])—說來話長:因為實在已經公認,那作為神的光是不能被估量、被領會、被界定的:
'With thee is the fountain of life, and in thy light we shall see light' (Psalm 36:9). Or Solomon when he says: 'She is the brightness of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness' (Wisdom 7:26). Or the Apostle here preached our Savior to be the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), inasmuch as the image of the sun is its own light which proceeds from the same sun. But how many things can be answered to these, which generate strifes (which the Apostle forbids [2 Timothy 2:14]), it is long to tell: since indeed it is agreed that that light which is God cannot be estimated, comprehended, or defined:
6:98
nec vere aliquid ex his quæ in hoc mundo sunt, majestati divinae comparari, quia nihil de omnibus istis quae videntur aut dicuntur, secun dum id quod Deus est, condigna similitudine æsti mari potest ; quippe cum ipsis intellectibus et sensi bus major sit. Ideo præmonui ut divinitatcm sub stantiæ crederes, et verum Filium de vero Patre cognosceres : de qualitate autem rei requirere non deberes, quia quale aut quantum sit, scire non pos sis. Hoc enim prophetæ, hoc Apostoli praedicarunt. CAPUT VI. Deniqne pro captu, pro viribus, pro fide nostra intueamur, Deus quid sit, et videamus an ei possit aliquid comparari. Certe hic est de quo et cum dici tur, non potest dici;
在這世上的事物中,也沒有任何東西真能與神的尊榮相比,因為一切可見或可說之物,按神之所是,沒有一樣能以相稱的相似來估量;因為祂實在比那智性和感官本身更偉大。因此我預先警告你,你當相信本質的神性,並認出真父的真子:但你不該探問那事物的性質,因為你無法知道它是何種性質、何等偉大。因為這正是先知所宣講的,這正是使徒所宣講的。第六章。最後,讓我們按著我們的能力、按著我們的力量、按著我們的信德,默想神是什麼,並看看是否有什麼能與祂相比。這位確是這樣一位:即使祂被言說,祂仍不能被言說;
nor can anything truly of those things which are in this world be compared to the divine majesty, because nothing of all those things which are seen or spoken of can, according to that which God is, be estimated by a worthy likeness; since indeed he is greater than the very intellects and senses. Therefore I forewarned you that you should believe the divinity of the substance, and recognize the true Son of the true Father: but that you ought not to inquire about the quality of the thing, because you cannot know of what quality or how great it is. For this the prophets, this the Apostles preached. CHAPTER VI. Finally, according to our capacity, according to our strength, according to our faith, let us contemplate what God is, and let us see whether anything can be compared to him. Surely this is he of whom, even when he is spoken of, he cannot be spoken;
6:99
cum æstimatur, non potest æstimari ; cum comparatur, non potest comparari; cum definitur, ipsa definitione sua crescit. Qui cœ lum manu sua operit, pugno omnem mundi ambitum claudit. Quem totum omnia nesciunt, et mctuendo sciunt. Cujus nomini et virtuti famulatur hic orbis, et ipsa elementorum sibi succedentium momentanea vicissitudo testatur. Vide ergo si potest aliquid esse cui possit Pater et Filius comparari; quia talis est Filius qualis et Pater. Non enim ipse se unum cum Patre diceret, nisi talem se qualis est Pater sciret. :.tio quædam est quæ apud Graecos Λόγος nuncupa- tur, quæ inter Patrem et Filium personas vel voca bula distinguit : quia et ipse Filius ratio dicitur :
當祂被估量時,祂不能被估量;當祂被比較時,祂不能被比較;當祂被界定時,祂反因自己的界定而增長。祂用手遮蓋諸天,用拳頭包羅全世界的範圍。祂在其完整中為萬物所不能知,然而萬物卻在敬畏中認識祂。這世界服事祂的名與能力,連那此起彼落、瞬息更替的元素也為祂作見證。那麼,你看看是否有什麼能與父和子相比;因為子是怎樣的,父也是怎樣的。因為祂若不知道自己與父一樣,就不會說自己與父原為一。有一種「理」(Ratio),在希臘人中被稱為「Λόγος」(道),它區分父與子的位格或名稱:因為子自己也被稱為「理」:
when he is estimated, he cannot be estimated; when he is compared, he cannot be compared; when he is defined, he grows by his very definition. He who covers heaven with his hand, encloses the whole compass of the world with his fist. Whom in his wholeness all things know not, and yet by fearing they know. To whose name and power this world is in service, and the very momentary alternation of the elements succeeding one another bears witness. See then whether there can be anything to which the Father and the Son can be compared; because the Son is such as is the Father. For he would not say that he himself is one with the Father, unless he knew himself to be such as the Father is. There is a certain reason which among the Greeks is called Logos, which distinguishes between the persons or names of the Father and the Son: because the Son himself too is called reason:
6:100
quae tamen ratio multis nominibus appellatur. Modo Ver bum, modo virtus, modo sapientia , modo dextera , modo brachium, modo margarita, modo thesaurus, modo retia, modo aratrum, modo fons, modo petra, modo lapis angularis, modo agrius, modo homo, modo vit lus, modo aquila, modo leo, modo via , modo veritas, et vita : cum sit Deus omnia in omni lus, ut per hæc vocabula divinarum 517 disposi imnum mysteria cognoscantur, non ut ipsa majestas Filii Dei proprie definita monstretur. Quid est enim tius de eo quod Patcr est? Alius idem. Nam et ob hoc Verbum nuncupatur, quia cx proprio divino ore processit, et nihil Pater sine eo aut jussit aut fecit.
然而這「理」是用許多名稱來稱呼的。有時是道,有時是能力,有時是智慧,有時是右手,有時是膀臂,有時是珍珠,有時是財寶,有時是網,有時是犁,有時是源頭,有時是磐石,有時是房角石,有時是田地,有時是人,有時是牛犢,有時是鷹,有時是獅子,有時是道路、真理和生命:因為神在萬有之中是萬有,好叫人藉這些名稱認識神聖安排的奧祕,而非要把神兒子的尊榮本身顯為已被確切界定。因為論到那作為父者,還有什麼更多可說的呢?祂是另一位,卻是同一者。因為也正為此緣故祂被稱為道,因為祂從那本屬神的口中而出,而父若沒有祂,就既不吩咐、也不行任何事。
which reason nevertheless is called by many names. Now Word, now power, now wisdom, now right hand, now arm, now pearl, now treasure, now net, now plough, now fountain, now rock, now corner-stone, now field, now man, now calf, now eagle, now lion, now way, now truth, and life: since God is all in all, so that through these names the mysteries of the divine dispensations may be known, not that the very majesty of the Son of God be shown as properly defined. For what is more, concerning that which the Father is? Another, the same. For on this account too he is called Word, because he proceeded from the proper divine mouth, and the Father neither commanded nor did anything without him.
6:101
Virtus dicitur, quia rere de Deo et semper cum Deo est, et omnis potestas Patris in ipso consistit. Sapien tia appellatur, qu:a de cone Patris adveniens, arcana cœlestia credentibus reseravit. Dextera nuncupatur, quia per eum omnia opera divina perfecta sunt. Dra chium dicitur, quia ab ipso omnia continentur. Mar garita appellatur, ut nihil illo pretiosius habeatur. Thesaurus dicitur, ut in ipso omnes opes et divitiæ regnorum coelestium reconditæ agnoscantur. Retia dicitur, quia per ipsum, et in ipso, de mari sæculi diversa gentium multitudo sicut piscium, per aquam haptismatis in Ecclesia congregatur, ubi bonorum malorumque discrimcn agnoscitur.
祂被稱為「能力」，因為祂掌管關乎神的一切，且常與神同在，父一切的權柄都存於祂裡面。祂被稱為「智慧」，因為祂出於父的旨意而來，向信的人揭開了天上隱祕的事。祂被稱為「右手」，因為一切神的工作都藉著祂得以完成。祂被稱為「膀臂」，因為萬有都被祂所維繫。祂被稱為「珍珠」，叫人認為再沒有比祂更寶貴的。祂被稱為「寶藏」，叫人知道天國一切的財寶與豐富都收藏在祂裡面。祂被稱為「網」，因為藉著祂、在祂裡面，列國各樣的群眾如同魚一般從今世的海中，藉洗禮的水被聚集到教會裡，在那裡好人與惡人之間的分別便被辨明出來。
He is called Power, because He governs concerning God and is ever with God, and all the authority of the Father subsists in Him. He is named Wisdom, because, coming from the counsel of the Father, He unlocked the hidden things of heaven to those who believe. He is called the Right Hand, because through Him all the divine works were brought to perfection. He is called the Arm, because by Him all things are held together. He is named the Pearl, that nothing might be reckoned more precious than He. He is called the Treasure, that in Him all the wealth and riches of the heavenly kingdoms may be acknowledged to be stored up. He is called the Net, because through Him and in Him a diverse multitude of the nations, drawn like fish from the sea of this world, is gathered together in the Church through the water of baptism, where the distinction between the good and the evil is discerned.
6:102
Aratrum nuncn- patur, quia signo crucis suæ dura pectora subjiciun tur, ut necessario semini ipsa præparentur. Fons aquae vivæ appellatur, quia ex eo sitientia corda eæ. estis aquæ gratia irrigantur. Peira dicitur, quia credentibus fortitudinem, incredulis duritiam præ stat. Lapis angularis dicitur, quia utrosque parietes Novi et Veteris Testamenti unus et mediator in se metipso continens copulavit. Agnus appellatur, ut innocentia Christi et passio demonstretur. Homo di citur, quia secundum carnem propter nos homines nasci dignatus est. Vitulus dieitur, quia propter no stram salutem pati sustinuit.
祂被稱為「犁」，因為藉著祂十字架的記號，剛硬的心被馴服，好叫它們必然為那種子作好預備。祂被稱為「活水的泉源」，因為乾渴的心從祂得著天上之水的恩典而被滋潤。祂被稱為「磐石」，因為祂向信的人賜下力量，向不信的人卻成為剛硬。祂被稱為「房角石」，因為祂作為獨一的中保，將新約與舊約這兩面牆都包含在自己裡面，把它們連結合一。祂被稱為「羔羊」，為要顯明基督的無辜與受難。祂被稱為「人」，因為祂按肉體屈尊為我們眾人而生。祂被稱為「牛犢」，因為祂為了我們的救恩甘願受苦。
He is named the Plough, because by the sign of His cross hard hearts are subdued, that they may of necessity be prepared for the seed itself. He is called the Fountain of living water, because from Him the thirsting hearts are watered with the grace of the heavenly water. He is called the Rock, because to those who believe He furnishes strength, but to the unbelieving, hardness. He is called the Cornerstone, because, being one and the Mediator, holding in Himself both walls of the New and the Old Testament, He joined them together. He is named the Lamb, that the innocence and passion of Christ might be shown forth. He is called Man, because according to the flesh He deigned to be born for us men. He is called the Calf, because for our salvation He endured to suffer.
6:103
Aquila dicitur, quia post venerabilem resurrectionem, ut rex alitum ad Patris revolat sedem. Leo dictus est. quia ipse est Rex regum, qui mortem ac zabulum virtutis suæ po- testate comminuit. Via est, quia per ipsum ascensus est. Veritas, quia mendacium nescit. Vita est, quia ipse universa vivificat. Vides ergo pcr haec vocabula significationes dispositionum et operum divinorum præostensas, non tamen ipsum Deum proprie defini tum? Est ergo Pater Deus immensus, æternus, in comprehensibilis, inaestimabilis. Est et Filius ejus, Deus et Dominus noster, tantus quantus est et Pater, sed non 518 aliunde quam de Patre; qnia ego, in quit, de Patre exivi, hoc est, lumen de lumine (Joan. XVI, 28).
祂被稱為「鷹」，因為在祂可敬的復活之後，祂如同飛鳥之王飛回父的寶座。祂被稱為「獅子」，因為祂正是萬王之王，以祂大能的權勢摧毀了死亡和魔鬼。祂是「道路」，因為上升乃是藉著祂。祂是「真理」，因為祂不知謊言。祂是「生命」，因為祂自己使萬物得生。那麼你看，藉著這些稱號，神的種種安排與作為的意義都被預先顯明出來，然而神自己卻並未被確切地下定義，對嗎？因此父是神，是無量的、永恆的、不可測度的、不可估量的。祂的兒子也是神，是我們的主，與父一樣偉大，卻不出於別處，惟獨出於父；因為祂說：「我從父出來」（約十六28），就是說，光出於光。
He is called the Eagle, because after His venerable resurrection He flies back, as the king of winged creatures, to the seat of the Father. He is called the Lion, because He Himself is the King of kings, who by the might of His power crushed death and the devil. He is the Way, because through Him is the ascent. He is the Truth, because He knows no falsehood. He is the Life, because He Himself gives life to all things. You see, then, that through these names the significations of the dispensations and of the divine works are foreshown, yet God Himself is not properly defined? The Father, therefore, is God: immeasurable, eternal, incomprehensible, inestimable. And His Son also is God and our Lord, as great as the Father is, yet from no other source than from the Father; for 'I,' He says, 'came forth from the Father' (John 16:28), that is, Light from Light.
6:104
CAPUT VII. Sed ne ex eo occasionem aliquam hæreticus ra piat, cum duo nomina vel duas personas, id est Pa tris et Filii statuo, quasi duos deos dicam, ut illi duos ex diversitate confingunt : nos autem Patrem et Filium ita nominamus, ut unum Deum in his perso nis et nominibus consignemus. Viderint philosophi, viderint hæretici discipuli eorum qui potestatum diversitate variantur. Nobis tamen unus Deus est Pater, ut Apostolus dixit, ex quo omnia, et nos ex ipso : et unus Dominus Jesus Chritus Deus Dei Fi lius, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum.
第七章。但恐怕異端從中抓住任何把柄，因我立定兩個名稱或兩個位格，就是父與子的位格，以為我是在說兩位神，正如他們從這分別捏造出兩位神來；然而我們稱呼父與子，乃是要在這些位格與名稱中印證出獨一的神。讓哲學家自去理會，讓那些因權能之分別而變異的、他們的異端門徒自去理會。對我們而言，正如使徒所說的，只有一位父神，萬物都本於祂，我們也歸於祂；並有一位主耶穌基督，就是神的兒子、出於神的神，萬物都藉著祂，我們也藉著祂（參林前八6）。
CHAPTER VII. But lest the heretic seize upon any occasion from this, when I set forth two names or two persons, that is, of the Father and of the Son, as though I were speaking of two gods, as they fabricate two out of the diversity: we, however, so name the Father and the Son that in these persons and names we set our seal upon one God. Let the philosophers see to it, let the heretical disciples of theirs see to it, who vary by a diversity of powers. For us, nevertheless, there is one God the Father, as the Apostle said, of whom are all things, and we from Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son of God, through whom are all things, and we through Him.
6:105
Nam duo, quid aliud intelligatur, quam duorum per partes di visa substantia, et cum nominibus ipsis dissociata natura , agendi ac jubendi tam voluntas quam impe ria divisa? Porro Pater ac Filius etsi dux personæ creduntur, ratione tamen et substantia unus sunt. Nam inæqualium speietas, melioris offensa est; ct in injurfam ejus qui verus Deus est, non vcrus alius , comparatur. Dcum qui injuste comparat, violat. Cum autem ego Patrem et Filinm statuo, unitatem generis assigno. Et si illam in personis divido, dis cretio tamen personarum rursus eadem nomina in unitatcm sui, naturali fœderis lege consignat.
因為說「兩個」，所指的豈不就是一個被分割於兩者之間的本質、與名稱一同被割裂的本性，以及行事與發令的意志連同權柄本身都被分開了嗎？然而父與子，雖被信為兩個位格，在道理與本質上卻是一。因為將不相等的並列乃是對那更尊者的冒犯；把一位並非真神的與那位真神相比，便被算為對祂的侮辱。凡不公正地將別物與神相比的，就是褻瀆祂。但當我立定父與子時，我所指定的乃是同類的合一。即或我把這合一分為位格，然而位格的區別又憑著盟約的本性律法，把這些名稱重新印證為自身的合一。
For by 'two,' what else is to be understood than a substance divided into parts between two, and a nature severed along with the very names, the will of acting and commanding as well as the authority itself divided? But the Father and the Son, although they are believed to be two persons, are nevertheless one in reason and in substance. For the affirming of unequals is an affront to the better; and it is reckoned an injury to Him who is the true God, that another, not true, should be compared with Him. He who unjustly compares God, does Him violence. But when I set forth the Father and the Son, I assign a unity of kind. And even if I divide that unity into persons, yet the distinction of persons in turn seals the same names into a unity of themselves, by the natural law of their covenant.
6:106
Unde et tantus est Filius quantus videbitur Pater, totus de toto, integer de integro, perfectus de perfecta con summataque virtute : sicut Apostolus dicit: In quo omnis plenitudo divinitais corporaliter habitat (Col. II, 9). Nam et Jeremias receptissimus prophetarum, hanc unitatem divinitatis in Patre et Filio sciens, ait : IIic cst Deus noster, et non deputabitur alius absque illo : qui invenit omnem viam prudentiæ, et dedit eam Jacob puero suo, et Israel dilecto sibi. Post hæc in ter- ris visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est (Baruc. III, 50). Et Isaias hoc ipsurn prædicat dicens : Hæc dicit Dominus Deus:
因此子也將顯為與父一樣偉大：是全然出於全然，整全出於整全，完全出於那完全且圓滿的能力，正如使徒所說：「神本性一切的豐盛都有形有體地居住在祂裡面」（西二9）。先知中最受稱許的耶利米，也曉得父與子裡面這神性的合一，他說：「這是我們的神，除祂以外不算有別神。祂尋得了智慧的全部道路，賜給祂的僕人雅各，和祂所愛的以色列。此後祂在地上被人看見，與世人同住」（巴錄三36-38）。以賽亞也宣告這同一件事說：「主神如此說：」
Whence the Son is also as great as the Father shall be seen to be: whole of whole, entire of entire, perfect of a perfect and consummate power: as the Apostle says, 'In whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 2:9). For Jeremiah also, most approved of the prophets, knowing this unity of the Godhead in the Father and the Son, says: 'This is our God, and no other shall be accounted beside Him: He has found out every way of prudence, and given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. After this He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men' (Baruch 3:36-38). And Isaiah proclaims this very thing, saying: 'Thus says the Lord God:'
6:107
Fatigata cst Ægyptus, et nego tiatio Æthiopum, ct Sabain viri excelsi ad te transient : tui erunt 519 servi, et post te ambulabunt vincti com pedibus, et in te precabuntur; quoniam in te est Deus, et non cst alius Deus præter te ; tu es enim Dens (Isai. XLV, 14). Quod ne putes me co supercilio dixisse, quo Sabellius fertur, qui ipsum Patrem, ipsum Fi lium. profitetur; non ita nos totum in unam senten tiam cogimus, ut aliorum hæreticorum fraudo capia mur. Sed quia ipso nomine personarum auctoritas indiscreta cognoscitur, et Filius non genere, sed per sonaliter a Patre nominatur, proinde totum Patri ascribimus quod est Filius, et totum Filio quod Pater est.
「埃及疲乏了，古實的交易、身量高大的西巴人，都必過來歸你。他們必作你的僕人，戴著鎖鏈跟在你後面，向你懇求說：神真在你裡面，此外再沒有別神，因為你是神」（賽四十五14）。但你不要以為我是用撒伯流被傳述時所用的那種狂傲說這話的，他自稱父就是子；我們並不是把一切都硬塞進一個說法裡，以致中了別的異端的詭計。乃是因為從位格這名稱本身就認出不可分割的權柄，而子之被稱說出於父，不是按種類，乃是按位格；所以我們把子的一切全歸於父，把父的一切全歸於子。
'Egypt is wearied, and the traffic of the Ethiopians, and the Sabaeans, men of stature, shall come over to you: they shall be your servants, and shall walk after you bound in fetters, and they shall make supplication to you; for God is in you, and there is no other God beside you; for you are God' (Isa. 45:14). But lest you think I have said this with that arrogance with which Sabellius is reported to have spoken, who professes the Father Himself to be the Son Himself: we do not so force the whole into one opinion that we be caught by the fraud of other heretics. But because by the very name of persons an undivided authority is recognized, and the Son is named from the Father not by kind but personally, we therefore ascribe to the Father wholly what the Son is, and wholly to the Son what the Father is.
6:108
Nihil non videbitur Patris, quod judicabitur Filii ; nec Filii, quod defenditur Patris : quia unitas ma jestatis non sinit deos plurali vocabulo appellari: qnippe cum constet Patrem et Filium unius esse sub stantix; unde uterque unus Deus est dictus. Illud ante cuncta metuentes, ne si Pater ct Filius unum non sint ; in invidiam recurrat auctoris, interpolata nativitas. Hoc euim plaruit hæreticis, ut Deus ille omnipotens, invisibilis, immensus degeneraret in Filio; non modo potestate, sed et conditione mutata, quasi non potuerit Pater de semetipso talem habere Finiunt qualis et ipse est.
凡屬父的，無一不被判定也屬子；凡屬子的，無一不被維護也屬父；因為威嚴的合一不容人用複數的字眼稱神為眾神，既然確定父與子同屬一本質，因此二者都被稱為獨一的神。但在萬事之先我們所懼怕的，乃是：倘若父與子不是一，那被竄改的「生」就要使作者本身蒙受惡名。因為異端所喜歡的正是這樣：那全能、不可見、無量的神，竟在子裡面降格了，不單權能改變，連存在的情狀也改變，彷彿父不能從自己生出一位與祂自己一樣的子來。
Nothing will appear to be the Father's that shall not be judged to be the Son's; nor anything the Son's that is not maintained to be the Father's: because the unity of majesty does not allow gods to be named by a plural word; inasmuch as it is established that the Father and the Son are of one substance, whence each is called one God. But before all things we fear this, lest, if the Father and the Son be not one, a nativity tampered with should recoil into the disrepute of its author. For this is what has pleased the heretics, that that almighty, invisible, immeasurable God should be degraded in the Son; with not only His power but also His condition changed, as though the Father could not have, from Himself, a Son such as He Himself also is.
6:109
Proinde nos verum Filimn de vero Patre qui semper fuit, et est unius substan tiae cum Patre, defendimus. Et hoc cst quod Græci ὁμούσιον appellant, id est cum uno aliud ipsum, ut personæ audientia nominum fierent, non ut substan tiam vocabula separarent. CAPUT VIII. Sed ut omne mysterium haeresis Arianæ traducam, cur nolint Filium de Patris substantia credi, brevitcr intimabo. Aiunt enim : Cum sit Deus Pater omnipo tens, invisibilis, inconvertibilis, immutabilis, per fectus, semper idem, aeternus; Filius vero visibilis, quia saepe Patribus visus est; et convertibilis atque mutabilis, quia in variis figuris singulis quibusque Sese monstravit.
因此我們持守那真子出於真父，祂常存、且是與父同一本質的。這就是希臘人所稱的「同質」（ὁμοούσιον），意思是與另一位乃是同一個自身，使位格成為名稱上可被聽聞的分別，而非叫這些字眼把本質分開。第八章。但為要揭露亞流異端的整個奧祕，我要簡略說明他們為何不肯讓人相信子是出於父的本質。因為他們說：父神既是全能、不可見、不可轉變、不可改變、完全、永遠不變、永恆的；而子卻是可見的，因為祂屢次向列祖顯現；又是可轉變、可改變的，因為祂以各樣的形像分別向各人顯明自己。
Accordingly we maintain the true Son from the true Father, who always was, and is of one substance with the Father. And this is what the Greeks call homoousion, that is, with one another the same itself, that the persons might be a hearing of names, not that the words should separate the substance. CHAPTER VIII. But that I may expose the whole mystery of the Arian heresy, I will briefly disclose why they refuse to have the Son believed to be of the Father's substance. For they say: Since God the Father is almighty, invisible, unconvertible, immutable, perfect, ever the same, eternal; but the Son is visible, because He was often seen by the Fathers; and convertible and mutable, because He showed Himself in various figures to each one severally.