塔普蘇斯的維吉里烏斯

文集第 7 章第 2/12 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 7:38–7:74（全章共 440 節）

7:38

Memento hine esse sanctum Spiritum sapientiæ et virtutis cum Patre, et Filio. Sive uniter sanctimoniæ Trinitatis, dictam percipe omnia mirabilia in signis et prodigiis operantem, ut superius praedixi : Sanctitas et sanctimonia in sancti ficatione ejus (Psal. XCV, 6). Vides itaque esse in utris que unam sapientiam, sive virtutem, aut lucem, aut sanctitatem, vel operationem, nec non et alia hujus cemodi multipliciter dicta, quæ non sunt ad hæc exempla illata, quæ satis longum est per ipsam Tri ni atem uniter dicta enarrare. Sufficiat, etsi pauca, ad probationem, pro multis in cognitionem lucis fuissa exposita documenta. Interrogatio.

由此要記得，聖靈與父和子同有智慧與能力。或請領會祂被合一地稱為三位一體的聖潔，在神蹟奇事中行一切奇妙之事，正如我在上面所預言的：「祂的聖所中有威嚴和聖潔」（詩九十五6）。所以你看，在他們眾位之中只有同一個智慧、或能力、或光、或聖潔、或運行；還有其他諸如此類多方所說之事，這裡未一一舉為例證，因為要詳述一切合一地論及三位一體本身的話，那就太長了。願這些雖然稀少，作為證明也已足夠，就是這幾個見證代替許多見證而被陳明，使人得以認識真光。問：

Remember from this that the Holy Spirit is of wisdom and power together with the Father and the Son. Or perceive Him spoken of as, unitedly, the holiness of the Trinity, working all wondrous things in signs and prodigies, as I foretold above: 'Holiness and sanctity are in His sanctification' (Ps. 95:6). You see therefore that in all of them there is one wisdom, or power, or light, or holiness, or operation; and also other such things spoken in manifold ways, which are not brought forward as examples here, since it would be quite long to recount all the things said unitedly of the Trinity itself. Let it suffice — though few — by way of proof, that these few testimonies have been set forth in place of many, unto the knowledge of the light. Question.

7:39

Ergo si Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus in deitate divinitatis unum sunt, adhuc legis testimonio mihi satisfacias quæ o. Responsio. Jam audisti superius evangel stam Joan nem in Epistola sua tam absolute t stantem : Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cælo, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus sanctus : et in Christo Jesu unum sunt (Jonn. v, 7). Utique sine dubio in Trinitatc divinitatis per omnia unum sunt, ct in nominibus personaruin tres sunt. Itaque, 210 ut scias de his quae superius com prehendi, nullam divisionem aut distantiam in una deitate substantiæ plenitudinis Patris, et Filii ct sancti Spiritus fecisse me memini. De propriis personis , et de unito nomine Trinitatis. Harreticus.

因此，父、子、聖靈若在神性的神格中是一，請你再以律法的見證使我信服。答：你在上面已聽見福音書作者約翰在他的書信中如此明白地作見證：「在天上作見證的有三：父、道、聖靈；而在基督耶穌裡，這三乃是一」（約壹五7）。誠然，毫無疑問，在神格的三位一體中他們凡事都是一，而在諸位格之名中他們是三。因此，為使你明白我在上面所論及之事，我記得我在父、子、聖靈那豐滿本體的獨一神格中，並未作任何分割或間隔。論本有的諸位格，及論三位一體合一之名。異端者。

Therefore, if the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in the deity of the Godhead, I beg you yet satisfy me by the testimony of the law. Answer. You have already heard above the Evangelist John testifying so plainly in his Epistle: 'There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and in Christ Jesus they are one' (1 John 5:7). Indeed, without doubt, in the Trinity of the Godhead they are in all things one, and in the names of the Persons they are three. And so, that you may know concerning the things I set forth above, I am mindful that I have made no division or distance in the one deity of the substance of fullness of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Concerning the proper Persons, and concerning the united name of the Trinity. The Heretic.

7:40

Nunc per singu'a nomina personarum, ut nomen deitatis mihi exponas postulo. Athanasius. Audi. Si Filius in nomine Patris venit, nunquid ipse est Pater qui ait: Ego veni in nomine Patris mei (Joan. v, 43) : dum Pater, Deus sit, in cuus nomine Filius venit manifeste ? Ac per hoc in unita natura divinitatis unum nomen est comprobatum, sicut et ipse Pater ad legislatorem Mosem testatus est, dicens : Attende illi, et ne fueris inobediens ei , nomen enim meumest in illo (Exod. XXIII, 21). Ad hæc patriarcha David sic ait : Benedictus qui venit in no mine Domini (Psat. CXVII, 26). Nam et si Spiritus Paraclitus in nomine Filii venit, ut ipse dicit, Quem mittet Pa'er in nomine nteo (Joan.

現在我請你藉諸位格的每一個名，向我闡釋神格之名。亞他那修：請聽。子若奉父的名而來，那說「我奉我父的名而來」（約五43）的，難道祂就是父嗎？——既然父是神，而子顯然是奉這位父的名而來的？藉此，在神性合一的本性中便證實了同一個名，正如父自己向立法者摩西作見證說：「你要在他面前謹慎，聽從他的話，因為我的名在他裡面」（出二十三21）。對此，先祖大衛這樣說：「奉主名來的是應當稱頌的」（詩一一七26）。因為保惠師之靈也是奉子的名而來的，正如祂自己所說：「就是父要奉我的名所差來的」（約

Now I ask that you expound to me the name of the deity through each of the names of the Persons. Athanasius. Hear. If the Son came in the name of the Father, is He then the Father, He who says: 'I have come in the name of my Father' (John 5:43) — since the Father, who is God, is He in whose name the Son manifestly came? And through this, one name is proven in the united nature of the Godhead, as the Father Himself testified to Moses the lawgiver, saying: 'Attend to him, and be not disobedient to him, for my name is in him' (Exod. 23:21). To this the patriarch David says thus: 'Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord' (Ps. 117:26). For also, if the Spirit, the Paraclete, comes in the name of the Son, as He Himself says: 'Whom the Father will send in my name' (John

7:41

XIV, 26), nunquid et ipse Filius dictus est, cum sine dubio nomen Filii Deus sit in una pariterque natura divinitatis ? In hoc ergo nomine evidenter Paraclitus venit. Ideo per singu las person as secundum substantiam natura Trinitatis uniium nomen est tibi declaratum. lsaias sanctus hæc approbans dicit: Descendit Spiritus a Deo,et eduxit eos; sic eduxisti populum tuum facere tibi nomen gloriæ (Isai. LXIII, 14); sed et ipse idem indicat : Et irritaverunt Spiritum sanctum, et conversi. est illis ad inimicitiam. 211 Dominus ipse expugnavit cos, et rememoratus est dierum æternorum, qui eduxit de terra pastorem ovium ; et subjunxit : Ubi c. t qui posuit in illis spiritum suum (Ibid., 11)?

十四26）——難道祂也被稱為子嗎？既然子之名無疑就是那在神性同一而又同等之本性中的神。如此說來，保惠師顯然是奉這名而來的。因此，藉每一位格，按本體而言，三位一體本性合一之名向你顯明了。聖以賽亞印證此事說：「靈從神那裡降下，領他們前行；你也這樣引導你的百姓，為要使自己得榮耀的名」（賽六十三14）。同一位又指明說：「他們惹動聖靈，聖靈就轉為他們的仇敵。主親自攻擊他們，又追念古時的日子，就是領群羊的牧人從地裡上來的日子」；他又加上說：「那將祂聖靈降在他們中間的，如今在哪裡呢？」（同上11節）。

14:26) — is He then also called the Son, since without doubt the name of the Son is God in the one and equally same nature of the Godhead? In this name, then, the Paraclete evidently came. Therefore through each of the Persons, according to substance, the united name of the nature of the Trinity is declared to you. Holy Isaiah, confirming this, says: 'The Spirit descended from God, and led them forth; thus didst Thou lead forth Thy people, to make for Thyself a name of glory' (Isa. 63:14). And the same one also declares: 'And they provoked the Holy Spirit, and He was turned to be their enemy. The Lord Himself fought against them, and remembered the days of old, who led forth from the land the shepherd of the sheep'; and he added: 'Where is He who put His Holy Spirit in their midst?' (ibid. 11).

7:42

Vides ergo de unito natura deitatis no mine, gloriam Patris et Filii esse hunc Dominum Spi- r tum sanctum, qui eduxit filios Isracl de terra Ægypti- sicut propheta dicit: Sic eduxisti populum tuum facere tibi nomen gloriæ, qui conversus est fitiis Israel ad ini micitiam (Isai. LXIII, 14, 10)? Interrogatio. Rogo, si unitum nomen est in deitate gloriæ Trinitatis, cur unusquisque in suo nomine non venerit ? Porro quasi hoc quod unitum nomen sub stantivum ad deitatem uniter refe tur, jam proprium esse non ostenditur. Responsio. Utique in hoc proprium est, sed et uni tum : nam, ut certus sis, nomina in personis propria sunt, sed non unita. Sed ais mihi :

那麼你看見了嗎？藉神格本性合一之名，這位主聖靈乃是父與子的榮耀——就是那領以色列子民出埃及地的，正如先知所說：「你也這樣引導你的百姓，為要使自己得榮耀的名」，祂卻對以色列子民轉為仇敵（賽六十三14、10）。問：我請問，若在三位一體之榮耀的神格中有一個合一之名，為何不是各位以自己的名而來呢？再者，這彷彿是說：既然那合一的實名是合一地歸於神格，它如今就不被顯明為各位本有的了。答：誠然，在這一點上它既是本有的，也是合一的：因為，為使你確信，諸位格中的名是各自本有的，卻不是合一的。但你對我說：

Do you see, therefore, by the united name of the nature of the deity, that this Lord the Holy Spirit is the glory of the Father and of the Son — He who led forth the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, as the prophet says: 'Thus didst Thou lead forth Thy people, to make for Thyself a name of glory,' He who was turned into enmity toward the children of Israel (Isa. 63:14,10)? Question. I ask, if there is a united name in the deity of the glory of the Trinity, why has not each one come in His own name? Furthermore, it is as though, because the united substantive name is referred unitedly to the deity, it is now not shown to be proper to each. Answer. Indeed in this it is proper, but also united: for, that you may be certain, the names in the Persons are proper, but not united. But you say to me:

7:43

Cur in suo nomine proprio, quod est nativitatis, non tamen Palris ad indiscretam deitatem, ubi refertur : In qua invenie tur unitatis Dei nomen. Sed in eo sane in quo et tu perius comprehendi persona ipsius tantummodo gi gnentis distinguitur, hic ipse Filius non venit: audi, quia si in boc nomine tantum venisset, quod dicitur Filius, et non in sub tantia deilalis uniia, quod no minatur Deus, dicturiis eras mihi : Non est unitum nomen in natura divinitatis Filii cum Patre, sed pro prium; ut non tantum nomina propria jam in perso nis distingueres, sed unilum nomen in deitate Trini tatis tantidem per ipsas personas separares :

為何子奉自己本有的名而來——這名是出於祂的受生——卻不奉父的名，就那不可分割的神格而言，此名是歸於這神格的，並在其中尋見神合一之名呢？但其實，正如我在上面所論述的，在那僅屬於生子者位格被分別出來的那一方面，這同一位子並未如此而來。請聽：因為祂若僅奉這稱為「子」的名而來，而不在那稱為「神」的神格合一之本體裡而來，你本會對我說：「子與父之神性的本性中並沒有合一之名，只有本有之名」；以致你不僅在諸位格中分別出本有之名，更會藉這些位格本身將三位一體神格中合一之名照樣分割開來：

Why does the Son come in His own proper name, which is of His nativity, and yet not in that of the Father, with respect to the undivided deity, to which it is referred — in which is found the name of the unity of God? But truly, in that respect wherein, as I set forth above, the person solely of the Begetter is distinguished, this same Son did not come. Hear: for if He had come only in this name which is called 'Son,' and not in the united substance of the deity which is named 'God,' you would have said to me: 'There is not a united name in the nature of the divinity of the Son with the Father, but a proper one'; so that you would not only distinguish the proper names in the Persons, but would equally divide the united name in the deity of the Trinity through the Persons themselves:

7:44

ut aut unitam substantiam in tribus partibus divideres, vel certe s ngulas personas in singulis jam substantiis nobis consistere iudicares. Scd plane si Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus secundum singula nomina personarum perfecte distinguuntur , nunquid sic et sacundum unitam deitatem plenitudinis unitum no men in his personis per singulas naturae substantias dividitur ?

以致你或將那獨一的本體分為三部分，或必判定各位格在我們看來乃存於各別的本體之中。但顯然，父、子、聖靈若按諸位格各自的名而被完全分別，那麼那合一之名，按那豐滿的獨一神格而言，豈也照樣在這幾位格中藉本性各別的本體被分割了嗎？

so that you would either divide the one substance into three parts, or certainly judge that the individual Persons subsist for us in individual substances. But plainly, if the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are perfectly distinguished according to the individual names of the Persons, is the united name therefore, according to the one deity of fullness, likewise divided in these Persons through individual substances of nature?

7:45

Absit, nam elsi tu (Arianc) ubi nomina t antum in personis deberes distinguere, ibi simul cum ipsis nominibus et naturas per gradus singulos, vel per ordines diversos distinguas, ut tres naturas, majorem, inferiorem et perquam minorem secundum nomina personarum esse dicas, 212 ul per ipsa no mina discrepantes et substantias esse assignes, cur erubescis, et non sicut gentes plurali numero tres dominos, majorem, inferiorem et perquam minorem, contra unitam veram naturam publica voce profueris circa diversas vel dispares substantias suas consistere : ut soles profiteri unum, verum, sempiternum, inini tiabilem, infectum; et alterum initiabilem, de creatu ris profectum;

斷不可如此；因為你（亞流派啊），在你本應只分別諸位格之名的地方，竟連同這些名一併也按各個等級、或按不同的次序來分別本性，以致你照諸位格之名說有三種本性——較大的、較低的、極微的——好藉這些名指定連本體也彼此相異：那你為何臉紅，不像外邦人那樣以複數出聲公開承認三位主——較大的、較低的、極微的——違背那獨一真實的本性，並承認他們存於各自相異或不等的本體中呢？——正如你慣常承認的：一位是真實、永恆、無始、非受造的；另一位是有始的，出於受造之物；

God forbid; for even though you (O Arian), where you ought only to distinguish the names in the Persons, there together with the very names also distinguish natures by individual degrees, or by diverse ranks, so that you say there are three natures — a greater, a lower, and a very least — according to the names of the Persons, so as to assign that the substances also differ by the very names: why do you blush, and not, like the heathen, profess in plural number with public voice three lords — a greater, a lower, and a very least — against the one true nature, and that they subsist in their diverse or unequal substances? — as you are wont to profess one as true, eternal, without beginning, unmade; and another as having a beginning, proceeding from creatures;

7:46

et tertium de ministris, quasi subje ctum, ut Patri incomparabilem , vel inenarrabilem ascribas ; Filii autem præ cæteris de factura ignobili procedentem substantiam demonstres ; Spiritum ad æque sanctum de ministris angelis habentem substan tiam indices ? Unde ad hoc revertamur , de quo per singulas personas superius traCtabamus. Sed et si Spiritus Paraclitus in suo nomine tantum venisset, quod dicitur Spiritus Paraclitus, ct non in unita sub.

第三位則彷彿出於那些服役者，是從屬的；以致你將那無可比擬、無可言喻者歸給父，卻把子顯為一個出於卑賤製作之本體，並指稱那同樣為聖的靈，其本體是出於那些服役的天使？由此，讓我們回到上面藉每一位格所論述的那事上。但即使那保惠師之靈僅奉自己的名而來——就是那稱為「保惠師之靈」的名——而不在那稱為「神」的、父與子合一的本

and a third as derived from the ministers, as it were subordinate; so that you ascribe to the Father one who is incomparable and ineffable, but show the Son above the others as a substance proceeding from an ignoble making, and indicate that the Spirit likewise, the Holy Spirit, has His substance from the ministering angels? Whence let us return to that of which we were treating above, through each of the Persons. But even if the Spirit, the Paraclete, had come only in His own name, which is called 'the Spirit, the Paraclete,' and not in the united sub-

7:47

stantia Patris et Filii, quod nominatur Deus, jam pro prium nomen ejus in persona esse videretur, et non secundum unitam naturam deitatis in utrisque, ut tantum unusquisque nomina singula in personis suis ostenderet, deitatis autem unitum nomen non indicaret. Porro in hoc unito nomine deitatis Patris venit verus Filius, in quo dictur Deus, in quo claritatis nomen est cum Patre. In cujus naturæ nomine venit et Spi ritus Paraclitus, quia in hac ipsa sacrosancta Trini tate hoc nomen substantialiter, sive uniter consistit, sicut superius prædixi, Patre de Filio suo indicante: Nomen meum est in illo (Fxod. XXIII, 21). Et Filio hæc dicta confirmante :

體裡而來，那麼祂的名看來就只是祂位格中本有的，而非按那在他們眾位裡神格合一的本性了；以致各位只在自己的位格中顯出各別的名，卻不指明神格那合一之名。再者，在父之神格的這合一之名裡，那真實的子來了，在其中祂被稱為神，在其中榮耀之名與父同在。保惠師之靈也是奉這本性之名而來的，因為在這至聖的三位一體裡，此名是按本體、或合一地存立的，正如我在上面所預言的，父論到祂的子指明說：「我的名在祂裡面」（出二十三21）。子也印證這些話說：

-stance of the Father and the Son which is named 'God,' then His name would seem to be proper only in His person, and not according to the united nature of the deity in all of them; so that each would only display the individual names in their own persons, but would not indicate the united name of the deity. Furthermore, in this united name of the deity of the Father came the true Son, in whom He is called God, in whom the name of glory is together with the Father. In the name of whose nature the Spirit, the Paraclete, also came, because in this very most holy Trinity this name subsists substantially, or unitedly, as I foretold above, the Father indicating concerning His Son: 'My name is in Him' (Exod. 23:21). And the Son confirming these sayings:

7:48

Ego veni in nomine Patris mei, et non me recepistis ; cum autem alius venerit in nomine suo, eum recipietis (Joan. v, 43). Sed et de Spiritu sancto ipso rursum repetente : Quem Pater meus in nomine meo (Joan. XIV, 26). Et deinceps eum de nomine suo audi discipulos hortantem : Omnia quæ cunque petieritis a Patre in nomine meo, dabit vobis (Joan. xvi, 23). Sed apostolum Paulum eadem te stantem : Sed abluti estis , sed sanctificati estis , sed justificati estis in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et Spiritu Dei nostri (1 Cor. vi, 11). Audi et Isaiam de uuito nomine gloriae sancti Spiritus declarantem : Descendit Spiritus a Deo, et eduxit eoa :

「我奉我父的名而來，你們並不接待我；若有別人奉自己的名而來，你們倒要接待他」（約五43）。論到聖靈，同一位又重述說：「就是父要奉我的名所差來的」（約十四26）。接著，請聽祂論到自己的名勸勉門徒：「你們奉我的名無論向父求什麼，祂必賜給你們」（約十六23）。使徒保羅也作同樣的見證：「但你們奉我們主耶穌基督的名，並藉著我們神的靈，已經洗淨、已經成聖、已經稱義了」（林前六11）。也請聽以賽亞論到聖靈榮耀之合一之名宣告說：「靈從神那裡降下，領他們前行：」

'I have come in the name of my Father, and you have not received me; but when another shall come in his own name, him you will receive' (John 5:43). And also concerning the Holy Spirit, the same one repeating again: 'Whom my Father will send in my name' (John 14:26). And next, hear Him exhorting His disciples concerning His own name: 'Whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, He will give it to you' (John 16:23). And the Apostle Paul testifying the same: 'But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God' (1 Cor. 6:11). Hear also Isaiah declaring concerning the united name of the glory of the Holy Spirit: 'The Spirit descended from God, and led them forth:'

7:49

sic eduxisti populum tuum 213 facere tibi nomen gloriæ (Isai. lulli, 14). Disce jam unitum nomen esse in natura divinae Trinitatis. Interrogatio. Declara ergo mihi si verus est Filius aut non. Responsio. Nonne Pater, ut nos intelligeremus, hanc significationem intulit, ut deitatem nativitatisproprinm Filii sui de semetipso insinuaret, dicens : Ex utero ante luciferum genui te (Psal. CIX, 3). Unde? Non quia Deus Pater uterum ut homo habeat, qui incom prehensibilis est : sed ideo haec de nostris exempla introducens, significans comparavit, per quod nativi tatem Filii sui veram de semetipso nobis propriam insinuaret. Considera ergo in hoc loco ct tu, Ariane, qualiter sit dictum.

「你也這樣引導你的百姓，為要使自己得榮耀的名」（賽六十三14）。如今當學知，在神聖三位一體的本性中有一個合一之名。問：那麼請向我宣明，子是真的還是不是。答：父豈不是為使我們明白，而提出這表述，要傳達祂兒子出於祂自己之受生的神性，說：「在晨星之先，我從腹中生了你」（詩一〇九3）嗎？這是怎麼說的呢？並非因為那不可測度的父神像人一樣有腹：乃是為這緣故，祂引入這些取自我們自身的例子，藉象徵作了比擬，好藉此向我們傳達祂兒子出於祂自己、本屬於祂的真實受生。所以亞流啊，你也當在此處思想，這話是如何說的。

'thus didst Thou lead forth Thy people, to make for Thyself a name of glory' (Isa. 63:14). Learn now that there is a united name in the nature of the divine Trinity. Question. Declare therefore to me whether the Son is true or not. Answer. Did not the Father, that we might understand, bring forward this expression, to convey the deity of the proper nativity of His Son from Himself, saying: 'From the womb, before the morning star, I begot Thee' (Ps. 109:3)? How so? Not because God the Father, who is incomprehensible, has a womb as a man does: but for this reason, introducing these examples from our own experience, He made a comparison by signification, by which He might convey to us the true nativity of His Son, proper to Him, from Himself. Consider therefore in this place, you also, O Arian, in what manner it is said.

7:50

Nunquid hic factus est, qui de ulero substant æ Patris inenarrabiliter natus est? Nunquid hic factus est qui, sic unigenitus ab evange lista nubis annuntiatus cst, dicenie : Qui non credit in eum, jam judicatus est, quia non credidit in nomine unigeniti Filii Dei (Joan. III, 18). Sed et in Epistola sua haec eadem indicat : Et sumus, inquit, in vero Filio Dei Jesu Christo, qui est (ait) verus, et vita æterna, et resurrectio nostra (/ Joan. v, 20). Ecce habes ex utero, ecce in unigenito Dei, ecce in vero Filio Dei Jesu Christo, qui est (aiL) verus, et vita æterna, et ressurectio nostra, sicut ipse Dominus de se testatus est: Ego sum via , veritas et vita (Joan. xiv, 6).

那位從父之本體的腹中無可言喻地受生者，難道是被造的嗎？那位作為獨生子、被福音書作者向我們宣告的，難道是被造的嗎？他說：「不信祂的人，罪已經定了，因為他不信神獨生子的名」（約三18）。他在書信中也指明這同樣的事：他說：「我們也在那真實的神兒子耶穌基督裡；」他又說：「這是真神，也是永生，也是我們的復活」（約壹五20）。看哪，你有「從腹中」；看哪，「在神的獨生子裡」；看哪，「在那真實的神兒子耶穌基督裡，祂是真神，也是永生，也是我們的復活」——正如主自己論到自己作見證說：「我就是道路、真理、生命」（約十四6）。

Was He made, who was ineffably born from the womb of the Father's substance? Was He made, who, as the only-begotten, was announced to us by the evangelist, saying: 'He that believeth not in Him is already judged, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God' (John 3:18)? And also in his Epistle he indicates these same things: 'And we are,' he says, 'in the true Son of God, Jesus Christ, who is,' he says, 'the true God, and life eternal, and our resurrection' (1 John 5:20). Behold, you have 'from the womb'; behold, 'in the only-begotten of God'; behold, 'in the true Son of God, Jesus Christ, who is the true God, and life eternal, and our resurrection' — even as the Lord Himself testified concerning Himself: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life' (John 14:6).

7:51

Et similiter Isaias prophelavit : Servientibus vero mihi vocabimur nomen novum, quod benedicetur super omnem terram. Et te nedicent Deum verum ; et qui sunt super terram, ju rabunt per Deum vivum : obliviscentue tribulationem pristinam, nec ascendet in cor eorum (lsai. LXV, 15). Vides nomen novum csse Christianorum, quod be nedicitur super terram a Domino. Nam ipsi benedi cunt Deum verum, Patrem et Filium, imo et Spiri tum sanctum : et jurabunt per Deum vivum. Et ju rabunt, ait, per Deum verum, quod est divinitus uni tum nomen. Hogo, quæ est tanta hæreticorum demen t a, verum Filium creatorem facturæ suæ comparare?

以賽亞也照樣預言說：「但事奉我的人必得稱一個新名，這名必在全地蒙福。他們要指著真神祝福；地上的人必指著永生神起誓：他們必忘記從前的患難，也不再記在心上」（賽六十五15）。你看，基督徒有一個新名，是主在地上所賜福的。因為他們自己稱頌真神，就是父和子，並且也是聖靈；他們必指著永生神起誓。他說，他們必指著真神起誓，這真神就是神聖合一之名。我問，異端者這何等大的瘋狂，竟把那身為創造主的真實之子，與祂自己的受造物相比？

And likewise Isaiah prophesied: 'But to those who serve me a new name shall be called, which shall be blessed over all the earth. And they shall bless the true God; and those who are upon the earth shall swear by the living God: they shall forget the former tribulation, nor shall it ascend into their heart' (Isa. 65:15). You see that there is a new name of the Christians, which is blessed upon the earth by the Lord. For they themselves bless the true God, the Father and the Son, yea and the Holy Spirit; and they shall swear by the living God. And they shall swear, he says, by the true God, which is the divinely united name. I ask, what is this so great madness of the heretics, to compare the true Son, the Creator, to His own creature?

7:52

Aut quæ cæcitas tanta est, tantam veritatis probatio nem falsis argumentis blaspbemare ? dum centurio adhuc gentilis homo ad tuam confusionem indicaverit: Vere Filius Dei erat iste (Matth. XXVII; Marc. xv). lnterrogatio. Et quemadmodum unitum nomen est in natura divinitaiis, dum alter in alterius nomine venisse videatur ? 214 Responsio. Vere veneno sunt infecta subtilius cum doto haec obtusa corda interrogantis atque defen dentis. Procul dubio in hoc sane alius est Pater in persona qui vere genuit ; et in hoc alter est Filius a Patre in persona qui vere ab eo genitus est. Sed et in hoc alius est in persona Spiritus hic principalis Pa raclitus, qui in Pentecoste in apostolos elTusus est.

或有何等大的瞎眼，竟以虛假的論據褻瀆這真理如此確鑿的明證？——當那尚為外邦人的百夫長，竟使你蒙羞而宣告說：「這真是神的兒子」（太二十七章；可十五章）。問：既然一位看來是奉另一位的名而來，那名又怎能在神性的本性中合一呢？答：誠然，這發問者與辯護者愚鈍的心，已更詭詐、更狡猾地被毒所沾染。毫無疑問，就這一方面而言，那真實生子的父在位格上是一位；就這一方面而言，那由父真實受生之子在位格上是另一位。並且就這一方面而言，那位本源的保惠師之靈在位格上也是另一位，就是在五旬節澆灌在使徒身上的那位。

Or what blindness is so great, as to blaspheme so great a proof of truth with false arguments? — when the centurion, a man as yet a gentile, declared, to your confusion: 'Truly this was the Son of God' (Matt. 27; Mark 15). Question. And how is the name united in the nature of the Godhead, when one seems to have come in the name of another? Answer. Truly these dull hearts of the questioner and of the defender are infected with poison, more subtly and with guile. Without doubt, in this respect indeed, one in person is the Father who truly begot; and in this respect another in person is the Son from the Father, who was truly begotten of Him. And also in this respect another in person is the Spirit, this principal Paraclete, who at Pentecost was poured out upon the apostles.

7:53

Et ideo hæc sigillatim dicta memento, ut. nomina sin gula in personis esse distincta. Vides quia alter ab altero, sive alius ab alio, in persona tantum differt, et non in plenitudine divinitatis usiæ, sicut ipse Dominus ait: Alius est qui testimonium perhibet mihi, qui me misit Pater (Joan. v , 32). Sed et alio in loco idem ipse personam sancti Spiritus indicai: Rogabo Patrem meum, et alium Paraclitum mittet vobis (Joan. aiv, 16). Scito alium ab alio, sive alterum ab altero in persona tantum differre, et non in unita plenitu dine divinitatis usiæ.

因此，要逐一記得這些話，就是各別的名在諸位格中是有分別的。你看，一位與另一位、或此位與彼位，僅在位格上有別，而不在本質之神性的豐滿上有別，正如主自己所說：「另有一位給我作見證，就是差我來的父」（約八18）。在另一處同一位又指明聖靈的位格：「我要求我父，祂就另外賜給你們一位保惠師」（約十四16）。要知道，一位與另一位、或此位與彼位，僅在位格上有別，而不在本質之神性合一的豐滿上有別。

And therefore remember these things spoken one by one, that the individual names are distinct in the Persons. You see that one differs from another, or this one from that, in person only, and not in the fullness of the divinity of the essence, as the Lord Himself says: 'There is another who beareth witness of me, the Father who sent me' (John 8:18). And also in another place the same one indicates the person of the Holy Spirit: 'I will ask my Father, and He will send you another Paraclete' (John 14:16). Know that one differs from another, or this one from that, in person only, and not in the united fullness of the divinity of the essence.

7:54

Nam si secundum nomina sin gula personarum alter ab altero sine dubio dici po test, nunquid sic et in unita deitate alter Deus potest pronuntiari Pater, quasi sit in natura diversus a Fi lio ; et alter Deus potest dici Filius a Patre, quasi sit in deitate alter ; et alius Deus potest profiteri Spiri tus sanctus, quasi sit in substantia discrepante a Pa- Ire et a Filio? Ahsit: dum unitum nomen sit in una vera natura, ac per hoc unus verus est Deus. Interrogatio. Et quomodo in nominibus persona- rum unum de uno, aut alterum de altero, hoc est, Filium de Patre esse significas ? Responsio, Ignoras unum Patrem de semetipso genuisse Filium ? Quia nemo sibimetipsi pater pater est.

因為若按諸位格各別的名，一位無疑可被稱為與另一位有別，那麼在合一的神格中，豈能宣稱父是別的神，彷彿祂在本性上與子相異；又豈能說子是別於父的神，彷彿祂在神格上是另一位；又豈能承認聖靈是別的神，彷彿祂在本體上與父和子相異呢？斷不可如此：因為此名是合一於同一個真實的本性中，藉此神乃是獨一而真實的。問：那麼在諸位格之名中，你怎樣表明一位出於一位、或此位出於彼位——即子出於父呢？答：你豈不知獨一的父由祂自己生了子嗎？因為沒有人作自己的父。

For if, according to the individual names of the Persons, one can without doubt be called distinct from another, can it then in the united deity be pronounced that the Father is another God, as though He were diverse in nature from the Son; and that the Son can be called another God from the Father, as though He were another in deity; and that the Holy Spirit can be professed another God, as though He were in a substance differing from the Father and the Son? God forbid: since the name is united in one true nature, and through this God is one and true. Question. And how do you signify, in the names of the Persons, that one is from one, or the other from the other — that is, that the Son is from the Father? Answer. Do you not know that the one Father begot the Son from Himself? For no one is a father to his own self.

7:55

Et quis sibimetipsi filius filius est? Dum Pater ion sit genitus, et Filius non sit ingenitus ; sed plane Pater Filii est quem genuit, et Filius est Patris, qui vere de ipso genitus est. Quapropter non ut quidam solent blasphemantes in confessione introducere duo non nata principia, ut et in toto nec Patrem verum, nec Filium profiteantur: dum Pater sine Filio om uino dici non possit; quia unns de uno, id est Filius de Patre est; et unus in uno Pater in Filio est, et Fi lius in Patre est. Qua de re alter est in persona qui vere inenarrabiliter genuit, et alius adxque in per s :na qui de ipso natus est.

又有誰作自己的子呢？既然父不是受生的，子也不是非受生的；乃顯然父是祂所生之子的父，子是父的子，是真實由祂而生的。為此，我們不像某些褻瀆者慣常所為，在信仰承認中引入兩個非受生的本原，以致他們在整體上既不承認真實的父，也不承認子；因為父斷不能離了子而被稱說，因為一位出於一位，即子出於父；而一位在一位之內——父在子裡，子在父裡。論到這事，那真實而無可言喻地生子者在位格上是一位，那由祂而生者在位格上也照樣是另一位。

And who is a son to his own self? Since the Father is not begotten, and the Son is not unbegotten; but plainly the Father is the Father of the Son whom He begot, and the Son is the Son of the Father, who was truly begotten of Him. Wherefore we do not, as certain blasphemers are wont to do, introduce into our confession two unbegotten principles, so that in the whole they profess neither a true Father nor a Son; since the Father can in no way be spoken of without the Son, because one is from one, that is, the Son is from the Father; and one is in one — the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. Concerning which matter, one in person is He who truly and ineffably begot, and another likewise in person is He who was born of Him.

7:56

Sane deitas eorum cum s t unita, 215 alter hic Deus ab illo alio Deo verbo tenus dici non potest, quia unitum nomen est elin ple nitudine divinitatis, et ideo unus est Deus. Ergo si Filius in nomine Patris venit , et Spiritus Paraclitus in nomine Filii venit, sicut Filius de eo testatur: Quem mittet Pater in nomine meo (Joan. XIV 26); non tibi videtur quia duplex et hic continentur in tellectus, id est ut in nomine personarum tantum sit distinctio, in deitate autem nulla sit discretio ? Interrogatio: Et quare in nomine Spiritus sancti nemo venisse invenitur ? Responsio : Duces cæci, nunquam hoc proverbium in Scripturis sanctis vel divinis audistis: Non glo rietur gibbosus sicut rectus?

誠然，既然他們的神性是合一的，這位神在言詞上也不能被稱為與那另一位「道」之神有別的另一位神，因為這名在神性的豐盛中乃是一個，所以神只有一位。因此，若聖子奉聖父的名而來，保惠師聖靈奉聖子的名而來，正如聖子論到祂所作的見證：「就是父因我的名所要差來的」（約十四26）；難道你不覺得這裡也含有雙重的意思，就是說：唯獨在位格的名上有分別，而在神性中卻毫無區分嗎？問：那麼為何找不到有誰是奉聖靈的名而來的呢？答：瞎眼領路的，你們在聖潔神聖的經書中難道從未聽過這句箴言：「駝背的不可像正直的人那樣自誇」嗎？

Truly, since their Godhead is united, this one God cannot be called another God distinct from that other God even in mere name, because the name is one in the fullness of the Godhead, and therefore there is one God. Therefore, if the Son comes in the name of the Father, and the Spirit, the Paraclete, comes in the name of the Son, just as the Son bears witness concerning him: 'Whom the Father will send in my name' (John 14:26); does it not seem to you that here too a twofold understanding is contained, namely, that in the name of the persons alone there is distinction, while in the Godhead there is no division whatever? Question: And why is no one found to have come in the name of the Holy Spirit? Answer: Blind guides, have you never heard this proverb in the holy and divine Scriptures: 'Let not the hunchback boast as one upright'?

7:57

In cujus unito naturae divinitatis nomine missi sunt apostoli ? Ite, baptizate omnes gentes in nomine, et sic prosecutus est pcr sin gulas personas, Patris, Filii, et Spiritus sancti (Matth. XXVIII, 19)? Nonne unitum divinitatis Dei nomen prius tacite uniter praemisit, et sic in nominibus per sonarum apertissime declaravit, Patris , et Filii ,et Spiritus sancti ? Porro nunquid potest arceri de boc unuto deitatis nomine Spiritus sanctus? Aut nunquid potest, contra regulam traditionis evangelicæ ceu suræ, de hoc unito Trinitatis nomine sancti Spiri tus sublata vel tacita persona baptisma in Ecclesia perfectum celebrari ? Absit.

使徒們是奉著神性本性的哪一個合一之名被差遣的呢？「你們要去，奉名給萬民施洗」，接著祂便逐一列出各位格：「奉父、子、聖靈的名」（太廿八19）。祂豈不是先以靜默的方式將神性合一之名作為一個提出，然後再極其明白地在各位格的名中宣告出來，就是父、子、聖靈嗎？再者，聖靈能被排除在這神性合一之名以外嗎？或者，違背福音傳統的規則與裁斷，從這三位一體合一之名中除去或默然略過聖靈的位格，而說在教會中施行的洗禮是完備的，這豈是可能的嗎？斷乎不可。

In whose united name of the divine nature were the apostles sent? 'Go, baptize all nations in the name,' and then he continued through the several persons, 'of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' (Matt. 28:19). Did he not first silently set forth the united name of the Godhead as one, and then most plainly declare it in the names of the persons, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, can the Holy Spirit be excluded from this united name of the Godhead? Or can it ever be, against the rule and judgment of the evangelical tradition, that baptism be celebrated as perfected in the Church from this united name of the Trinity with the person of the Holy Spirit removed or passed over in silence? God forbid.

7:58

Alioqui quomodo in hoc nomen deitatis, Patris, cl Filii, ct sancti Spiritus in fide baptismi uniter credentibus datum est? Nonne hoc nomen uniter honorificatum invenitur esse in gentibus? sicut præsagus Spiritus sanctus per Mala chiam prophetam testatur : Quia magnum est nomen meum in gentibus , dicit Dominus Deus omnipotens (Malac. I, 11), Quod Joannes Baptista absolvit : Ego quidem vos baptizo in aqua pœnitentiæ, post me au tem veniet qui vos baptizabit Spiritu sancto et igne (Matth. in. 11). Interrogatio. Declara mihi si nomen Patris est in Filio et in S iritu sancto. Responsio.

不然，這神性之名——父、子、聖靈的名——又怎能作為一個賜給那些在洗禮的信德中相信的人呢？這名豈不是在列國中作為一個受到尊崇嗎？正如那預言的聖靈藉先知瑪拉基所見證的：「因為我的名在列國中為大，這是萬軍之主神說的」（瑪一11）。施洗約翰也解明了這話：「我是用悔改的水給你們施洗，但在我以後要來的那一位，要用聖靈與火給你們施洗」（太三11）。問：請向我說明，父的名是否在子裡，也在聖靈裡。答：

Otherwise, how is it that this name of the Godhead — of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit — has been given as one to those who believe in the faith of baptism? Is not this name found to be honoured as one among the nations? As the foretelling Holy Spirit testifies through the prophet Malachi: 'For my name is great among the nations, says the Lord God Almighty' (Mal. 1:11). Which John the Baptist explained: 'I indeed baptize you in the water of repentance, but after me will come one who will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire' (Matt. 3:11). Question: Make clear to me whether the name of the Father is in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Answer:

7:59

Jam frequenter de auctoritate Scriptu rarum tibi ostensum est, Deum Patrem per legisla locem Mosem testatum: Ego autem Dominus Deus, hoc est nomen meum memoriale sempiternum in ge nerationes et progenies (Exod. III, 15). De Filii autem persona sic ait: Nomen meum est in illo (Exod. XXIII, 21). Et alio in loco idem ipse Pater repetit: Ego Do minus Deus, qui voco nomen tuum Deus Israel (Isa. XLV, 3) ; quod ipse Filius confirmavit 216 dicens : Ego veni in nomine Patris mei, et non me recepistis (Joan. v, 43). Et David ad hæc ait : Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini (Psal. CXVII, 26). Nam et de persona Spiritus sancti Filius testatus est, dicens : Quem mittet Pater in nomine meo (Joan.

從聖經的權威已經屢次向你顯明：父神藉立法者摩西作了見證：「我乃是主神；這是我的名，直到萬代是永遠可記念的」（出三15）。論到聖子的位格，祂又這樣說：「我的名在他裡面」（出廿三21）。在另一處，這同一位父又重複說：「我是主神，是稱呼你名的，以色列的神」（賽四五3）；這話聖子親自證實，說：「我奉我父的名而來，你們並不接待我」（約五43）。大衛也加上一句：「奉主名來的是應當稱頌的」（詩一一七26）。論到聖靈的位格，聖子也作了見證，說：「就是父因我的名所要差來的」（約

It has already frequently been shown to you from the authority of the Scriptures that God the Father bore witness through Moses the lawgiver: 'But I am the Lord God; this is my name, a memorial unto everlasting throughout generations and successions' (Exod. 3:15). And concerning the person of the Son he speaks thus: 'My name is in him' (Exod. 23:21). And in another place the same Father repeats: 'I am the Lord God, who call your name, O God of Israel' (Isa. 45:3); which the Son himself confirmed, saying: 'I have come in the name of my Father, and you have not received me' (John 5:43). And David adds to this: 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord' (Ps. 117:26). For concerning the person of the Holy Spirit too the Son bore witness, saying: 'Whom the Father will send in my name' (John

7:60

xiv, 26). Vides Filium in hoc nominc venisse quod et in deitate Patris uniter esse ostenditur ; et Spiritus sanctus in hoc nomine venisse indicatur, et Filii; apostolos au tem missos fuisse ut baptizarent omnes gentes in unito vel communi nomine deitatis, quod est naturae invisibilis, sancti Spiritus, sicut scriptum est: No lite contristare Spiritum sanctum Dei, in quo signati estis in die redemptionis vestræ (Ephes. IV, 30) ; vel hoc : Et omnes unum Spiritum potavimus (I Cur. XII, 13). Sive unitalis nomen baptismo operante suscipe , dicentis : Et vos eritis mihi in filios et filias, dicit Do minus omnipotens (II Cor, VI, 18). Vel hoc accipe : Ex Deo nati sunt (Joan. I, 14). Nec non :

十四26）。你看，聖子是奉這名而來，這名顯明在父的神性中是合一的；聖靈也顯明是奉這名、也是奉聖子的名而來；而使徒們被差遣，是要奉神性合一或共有之名給萬民施洗，這神性乃屬不可見的本性，就是聖靈的，正如經上所記：「不要叫神的聖靈擔憂，你們原是受了祂的印記，等候得贖的日子來到」（弗四30）；或這話：「我們都從一位聖靈受洗（受了一位聖靈的澆灌）」（林前十二13）。又當領受這合一之名，因洗禮在其中運行，那位說話者說：「你們要作我的兒女，這是全能的主說的」（林後六18）。或取這話：「他們是從神生的」（約一14）。也有這話：

14:26). You see that the Son came in this name, which is shown to be united in the Godhead of the Father; and the Holy Spirit is indicated to have come in this name, and in the name of the Son; and the apostles were sent to baptize all nations in the united or common name of the Godhead, which is of the invisible nature, that is, of the Holy Spirit, as it is written: 'Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed unto the day of your redemption' (Eph. 4:30); or this: 'And we have all been made to drink of one Spirit' (1 Cor. 12:13). Or receive this name of unity, with baptism at work, of him who says: 'And you shall be to me for sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty' (2 Cor. 6:18). Or take this: 'They were born of God' (John 1:14). And also this:

7:61

Et baptize tur unusquisque vestrum in nomine Jesu Christi (Act. II, 38). Et alio in leco : Sed abluti estis, sed sanctifi cati estis, sed justificati estis in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christ;, et in spiritu Dei nostri (I Cor. VI, 11). Sed et quod ex Deo natus est, Joannes testatur : In sua venit, et sui eum non receperunt: Quotquot au tem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, credentibus in nomine ejus: qui non ex sanguine, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntale viri, sed ex Deo nati (Joan. I, 11) sunt. Disce ergo hoc unitum nomen esse sempiternum in deitate Patris, et Filii et sancti Spiritus:

「你們各人都當奉耶穌基督的名受洗」（徒二38）。在另一處又說：「但你們已經洗淨了，成聖了，並且在我們主耶穌基督的名裡，並藉著我們神的靈，稱義了」（林前六11）。至於人是從神生的，約翰作了見證：「祂到自己的地方來，自己的人倒不接待祂。凡接待祂的，就是信祂名的人，祂就賜他們權柄作神的兒女；這等人不是從血氣生的，不是從情慾生的，也不是從人意生的，乃是從神生的」（約一11）。所以你要知道，這合一之名在父、子、聖靈的神性中乃是永遠的：

'And let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ' (Acts 2:38). And in another place: 'But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God' (1 Cor. 6:11). But that one is born of God, John testifies: 'He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them he gave power to become sons of God, to those who believe in his name; who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God' (John 1:11). Learn, therefore, that this united name is everlasting in the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:

7:62

sicut et unum baptisma est fidei, quod vi tam æternam credentibus tribuit. Quia sicut unum nomen est in natura Trinitatis, ita et unum donum per baptismum divinitatis. Apostolus ait : Una fides, unum baptisma (Ephes. iv, 5); idcirco quod nomen Patris sit in divinitate, hoc nomen sit et Filii in na tura deitatis, sic et sancti Spiritus identidem hoc nomen sit in substantia claritatis. Nam vis scire? cum in divinitate Patris nomen, id est Dei sive Do mini, aut Spiritus nominas, unitum nomen et Filii et sancti Spiritus in hoc indicas. Ideo secundum ipsam plenitudinem naturæ divinitatis dum refers unitum, nomen per omnia in his esse osteudis.

正如信德的洗禮也只有一個，這洗禮將永生賜給相信的人。因為正如在三位一體的本性中名只有一個，照樣藉神性的洗禮所賜的恩賜也只有一個。使徒說：「一信，一洗」（弗四5）；因此，正如父的名在神性中，這名也照樣是子在神性本性中的名，聖靈也同樣在那榮耀的本體中有這名。你想知道嗎？當你在父的神性中稱呼那名，就是神或主之名，或聖靈之名時，你在其中也指明了子與聖靈合一之名。所以，按神性本性的豐盛本身，當你以合一的方式提到它時，你便顯明這名在這三者之中無所不在。

just as there is also one baptism of faith, which grants eternal life to those who believe. For as there is one name in the nature of the Trinity, so too there is one gift through the baptism of the Godhead. The Apostle says: 'One faith, one baptism' (Eph. 4:5); and therefore, just as the name of the Father is in the Godhead, so this name is also of the Son in the nature of the Godhead, and likewise this same name is of the Holy Spirit in the substance of glory. For do you wish to know? When in the Godhead you name the name of the Father — that is, of God or of the Lord — or of the Spirit, you indicate in this the united name both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, according to the very fullness of the divine nature, when you refer to it as united, you show that the name is in all these.

7:63

Sane hic secundum personas paulisper tacitum deitatis uni tum nomen est. Dum autem singulas personas Domi nando percurris, nomina propria inesse designas. Unde oportet 217 nos rursus ad superiora dcla recurrere, si potest in unito nomine naturæ divini tatis vel Trinitatis aliquid superaddi vel minui. Res ponde mihi. In hoc loco omnes confusae sunt sen tentiae haereticorum. Præterea ubi nullus nec nume rus, sed nec aliqua differentia in unita plenitudine deitatis, Patris et Filii et sancti Spiritus invenitur, dum unus in alterius nomine distincte in divinitate, et tamen unitcr continetur. Interrogatio. Pande itaque mihi quomodo tres unum sunt, aut unum tres sunt. Responsio.

誠然，在此處，就位格而論，神性合一之名暫時被默然略過。但當你逐一歷數各位格時，你便指明各自有其專名存在。因此我們必須再回到前面所說的，看看在神性或三位一體合一之名中，能否有所增添或減損。請回答我。在這一點上，異端的一切說法都歸於混亂。此外，在神性合一的豐盛中——就是父、子、聖靈——既找不出數目，也找不出任何差異，在那裡，在神性中，這一位明確地包含在那一位的名裡，而仍然是一個。問：那麼請向我說明，三位怎能是一，或一怎能是三。答：

Indeed, here, with respect to the persons, the united name of the Godhead is for a little while passed over in silence. But when you run through the several persons in turn, you point out that their proper names are present. Hence it is necessary for us again to return to the things said above, to see whether anything can be added to or taken from the united name of the divine nature, that is, of the Trinity. Answer me. At this point all the opinions of the heretics are thrown into confusion. Moreover, where neither number, nor any difference whatever is found in the united fullness of the Godhead — of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit — there, in the Godhead, one is contained distinctly in the name of the other, and yet as one. Question: Explain to me, then, how three are one, or how one is three. Answer:

7:64

Memento quia Pater, et Filius, et Spi ritus sanctus tres sunt , qui in una natura Trinitatis consistunt. ideo tres unum sunt, sive unum Ires. Interrogatio. Nimirum divisa est hæc Trinitas, an indivisa? dicito mihi. Responsio. Plane divisa est in nominibns tantum personarum, in deitate autem indivisa est. Interrogatio. Edicito mihi quomodo interpretatur unitas. Responsio. Nescis quia una est Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti divinitas ? Interrogatio. Quid intelligitur in hoc loco natura ? Responsio. Hoc quod sentitur veritas, ac dealitas, sive substantia, de qua Græci dicunt usia, quae est manifeste unita plenitudo divinitatis. Interrogatio. Quid est una Trinitas? Responsio.

你要記得，父、子、聖靈乃是三位，他們存在於三位一體的同一本性中。因此三位是一，或一是三位。問：這三位一體究竟是分開的，還是不分開的？請告訴我。答：顯然，唯獨在位格的名上是分開的，而在神性中卻是不分開的。問：請告訴我，「合一」當如何解釋。答：你豈不知父、子、聖靈的神性只有一個嗎？問：在此處「本性」當作何解？答：就是那被領會為真理、為神格、或為本體的，希臘人稱之為 usia（ousia，本質），這顯然就是神性合一的豐盛。問：何謂一個三位一體？答：

Remember that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three, who subsist in the one nature of the Trinity. Therefore three are one, or one is three. Question: Surely this Trinity is divided, or is it undivided? Tell me. Answer: Plainly it is divided only in the names of the persons, but in the Godhead it is undivided. Question: Tell me how unity is to be interpreted. Answer: Do you not know that there is one Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Question: What is understood in this place by 'nature'? Answer: That which is perceived as truth, and deity, or substance, which the Greeks call ousia, which is manifestly the united fullness of the Godhead. Question: What is the one Trinity? Answer:

7:65

Utique quia una est in ipsa Trinitate plenitudo divinitatis; ita et unitatis naturae nomen uniter in Trinitate consistere declaratur, et ipsa Tri nitas adæque per singula nomina personarum per- fecte demonstratur. Omnino hic jam breviter est dic tum, quod supcrius cum grandi cautela secundum stylum Scripturae regulæ catholicæ est collectum, ut sicut in divinitate confiteris esse Patrem, sic profi tearis esse Filium et Spiritum sanctum. De assumptione. hominis, contra Marcelinum hæreticum 218 Hæreticus. Quemadmodum in una deitate cademque unam æqualitatem confiteris Filii esse cum Patre , cum ipse de se testimonium perhibeat: Qui misit me, major me est (Joan. XIV, 28)? Athanasius.

當然，因為在那三位一體本身之中只有一個神性的豐盛；如此，那一個本性之名也宣告為在三位一體中作為一個而存在，而這同一個三位一體也藉各位格之名同等而完全地得以彰顯。總之，這裡如今簡略地說了上面以極大謹慎按聖經的方式與大公信仰的規則所匯集的，就是：正如你承認父在神性中，照樣你也當承認子與聖靈也在其中。論人性的取得，駁異端者馬塞利努斯。異端者：你既說在同一個神性中子與父有一個同等，那祂自己怎麼又論到自己作見證說：「那差我來的比我大」（約十四28）呢？亞他那修：

Surely, because there is one fullness of the Godhead in that very Trinity; thus the name of the one nature is declared to subsist as one in the Trinity, and this same Trinity is equally and perfectly demonstrated through the several names of the persons. Altogether, here it has now been briefly said what above was gathered with great care according to the manner of Scripture and the rule of the Catholic faith, namely, that just as you confess the Father to be in the Godhead, so you should profess the Son and the Holy Spirit to be. On the assumption of the man, against Marcellinus the heretic. Heretic: In what way do you confess that in one and the same Godhead there is one equality of the Son with the Father, since he himself bears witness concerning himself: 'He who sent me is greater than I' (John 14:28)? Athanasius:

7:66

Proh dolor! si sic intelligis dictum fuisse, ipse se jam apud te impugnare cognoscitur , eum alio in loco dicat: Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joan. x, 30). Quid ergo? si minor erat, Patri se et in ipsa sempiterna natura non debuerat comparare ? Aut quomodo, si dispar erat, et in ipsa deilate divi nitatis non erat Patii cæqualis, dicit: Qui me videt, videt et Patrem meum (Joan. XIV, 9)? Qui utique evi denter, si non esset in his una invisibilis imago na turæ veritatis, nunquam prorsus præsumens indi casset, Qui me videt, videt et Patrem meum. Sed et Apostolum audi dicentem de Christo:

唉！你若這樣理解這話，那麼在你看來祂就成了自相矛盾，因為祂在別處說：「我與父原為一」（約十30）。那又怎樣呢？祂若是較小的，豈不該連在那永遠的本性中也不可拿自己與父相比嗎？又或者，祂若是不相等的，在神性本身中與父不平等，又怎能說：「人看見了我，就是看見了我的父」（約十四9）呢？因為若不是在祂們裡面有真理本性的一個不可見的形像，祂斷不會冒昧地宣告：「人看見了我，就是看見了我的父」。你也要聽使徒論到基督所說的話：

Alas! If you understand it to have been said in this way, then in your view he is found to be contending against himself, since in another place he says: 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). What then? If he were lesser, ought he not to have refrained from comparing himself to the Father even in that everlasting nature? Or how, if he were unequal and in the very Godhead of divinity was not equal to the Father, does he say: 'He who sees me sees also my Father' (John 14:9)? For surely, if there were not in them one invisible image of the nature of truth, he would never at all have dared presumptuously to declare, 'He who sees me sees also my Father.' But hear the Apostle also speaking concerning Christ:

7:67

Quicumin forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se æqualem Deo, sed semetipsum exinaniuit, formam servi arci piens, in similitudinem hominum factus , et inventus ut homo; obediens usque ad mortem , mortem autem crucis (Philip. II, 6). Qui autem in forma Dei est, minor esse non potest. Rogo, quomodo Pater major præponitur Filio, et Filius minor subditur Patri, cum forma Dei una perfecta sit; et in parte aequalis, et i'i parte divinitatis inequalis dici non possit ? uti que qui aut totus in toto totus sit 219 aqualis *, ut apud nos manifestum est ; aul totus in totototus non sit, sed simul in toto sit inæqualis, ut apud vos.

「祂本有神的形像，不以自己與神同等為強奪的，反倒虛己，取了奴僕的形像，成為人的樣式，既有人的樣子，就自己卑微，存心順服，以至於死，且死在十字架上」（腓二6）。如今那位有神形像的，不可能是較小的。我問：父怎能被高舉為比子大，子怎能被貶低為比父小，既然神的形像是一個而完全的，又不能說在一部分上相等、在神性的另一部分上不相等呢？因為祂必然或是全然相等的，是整體中的整體，正如在我們中間所顯明的；或是並非全然是整體中的整體，而是同時在整體上不相等的，正如在你們的說法中那樣。

'Who, being in the form of God, did not count it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and found as a man; he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross' (Phil. 2:6). Now he who is in the form of God cannot be lesser. I ask, how is the Father set above as greater than the Son, and the Son subordinated as lesser than the Father, when the form of God is one and perfect, and cannot be said to be in part equal and in part unequal in divinity? — for surely either he who is wholly equal, the whole in the whole, as is manifest among us; or he is not wholly the whole in the whole, but at the same time unequal in the whole, as among you.

7:68

Igi tur elige tibi unum de duobus, aut una est in his di vinitatis gloriae aequalitas, aut una inaequalitas, dum forma sua uemo sit major vel minor. Aliud est, si contra auctoritatem beatissimi Apostoli, doctoris gentium Christum formam Dei Patris esse neges. Si ergo forma cjus est, itaque forma sua incompa rabilter major esse non potest; ne non Christo, sed semetipso Pater major sit, quia forma sua a vobis major esse dicitur. Quod fieri nullo modo potest, dum nemo semetipso major sit. Sed ne forte etiam hoc præsumas, Ariane, diceado: Pater in natura deitatis parem non habet formæ Filii comparatio nem : nemo ei digne comparandus est.

所以你就在二者中為自己擇其一：在祂們裡面或是有神性榮耀的一個同等，或是有一個不相等，既然在祂自己的形像中無人為大也無人為小。倘若你違背那至有福的使徒、外邦人的教師的權威，否認基督是父神的形像，那就是另一回事了。但祂既是祂的形像，那麼祂的形像就不能無可比擬地更大；免得父不是比基督大，而是比祂自己大，因為你說祂的形像更大。這斷不能成立，因為無人比自己大。亞流派啊，免得你或許也膽敢這樣說：「父在神性本性中沒有可與子的形像相比的同等者：無人配與祂相比。」

Therefore choose for yourself one of the two: either there is in them one equality of the glory of the Godhead, or one inequality, since in his own form no one is greater or lesser. It is another matter if, against the authority of the most blessed Apostle, the teacher of the nations, you deny that Christ is the form of God the Father. But if he is his form, then his form cannot be incomparably greater; lest the Father be greater not than Christ, but than himself, because by you his form is said to be greater. Which can in no way come to pass, since no one is greater than himself. But lest perchance you also presume to say this, O Arian: 'The Father in the nature of the Godhead has no comparison equal to the form of the Son: no one is worthily to be compared to him.'

7:69

Et utquid coruscum Pauli apostoli inlouantis eloquium renuis, dicentis: Christus. qui dum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se æqualem Deo (Philip. II, 6)? Vel hoc intellige, quia nemo sibimetipsi formae æqualis comparetur, cum forma aequalis in una per sona (Sahelli) dici non possit, dum unita aequalitas in utrisque consistat; et hæc unita æqualitas non tantum in voluntate concordia: sit, sed imo in dei- tate, dum haec forma æqualis omnino in parte non dividatur. Quia ubi una aequalitas est, ibi diversitas nulla est : vel ubi una æqualitas est, alter alteri non anteponitur, sed nec pr:rponilur, nec subjicitiur;

使徒保羅宣告說：「基督本有神的形像，不以自己與神同等為強奪的」（腓二6），你為何拒絕他這閃耀的言辭呢？或者你當明白這事：無人能被當作與自己同等的形像相比，因為形像的同等不能在一個位格中說（這是撒伯流的謬誤），既然這合一的同等是存在於二者之中的；而這合一的同等不僅是意志上的和諧，更是在神性中，因為這同等的形像毫不分割。因為哪裡有一個同等，那裡就沒有差異；或者，哪裡有一個同等，這一位就不在那一位之先，不被高舉，也不被貶低，不被置於其下；

And why do you reject the gleaming eloquence of the Apostle Paul as he proclaims, saying: 'Christ, who, being in the form of God, did not count it robbery to be equal with God' (Phil. 2:6)? Or understand this, that no one is compared as equal in form to his very self, since equality of form cannot be spoken of in one person (the error of Sabellius), seeing that the united equality consists in both; and this united equality is not merely a concord in will, but rather in the Godhead, since this equal form is in no part divided. For where there is one equality, there is no diversity; or, where there is one equality, the one is not set before the other, nor preferred, nor subjected;

7:70

dum unita aequalitas indiscreta sit, quae est plenitudo divinitatis. Nunquid quia æqulem Patrem et Filium in deitate,secundum auctoritatem evangelicam atque apostolicam dicimus, aliquam comparantes mensu ram in his esse (hæretice) posuimus; dum incom parabilis sit hæc unita æqualitas divinitatis ? Quia de te, Deus, senserim quam ad liquidum dixerim, dum de te, Deus, credendum, et non deGniendum. Mihi enim credere jussum e>t, non discutere permissum est. Ideo Christus Dei forma, vel imago vera Dei Pa- Iris invisibilis, quia una est in his forma et gloriae æqualitas ; nonne scriptum est : Omnis plenitudo di vinitatis corporeliter habitat in ipso (Col II, 9)? Si aliquid minus eat.

因為這合一的同等是不可分的，這就是神性的豐盛。難道因為我們按福音與使徒的權威，說父與子在神性中相等，我們就（異端啊）斷定在祂們中間有某種可比的尺度存在嗎？既然神性這合一的同等是無可比擬的。神啊，論到你，我已把所說的說得夠清楚了，因為神啊，論到你，人當相信而不當下定義。因為我所受的命令是相信，而非容我辯論。所以基督是神的形像，或不可見之父神的真實形像，因為在祂們裡面有一個形像和榮耀的同等；豈不是經上記著說：「神性一切的豐盛都有形有體地居住在祂裡面」（西二9）嗎？若有什麼是較少的，

since the united equality is undivided, which is the fullness of the Godhead. Is it the case that, because we say the Father and the Son are equal in the Godhead, according to the evangelical and apostolic authority, we have therefore (O heretic) posited some measure of comparison to exist among them, since this united equality of the Godhead is incomparable? For concerning you, O God, I have perceived what I have said clearly enough, since concerning you, O God, one must believe and not define. For to me it is commanded to believe, not permitted to dispute. Therefore Christ is the form of God, or the true image of God the invisible Father, because there is in them one form and equality of glory; is it not written: 'In him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 2:9)? If anything were lesser,

7:71

ubi omnis plenitudo est ? Aut si aliquid deest, ubi totum est 220 plenum? Nunquid in quo omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter ha bitat, idest, ut sic dicatur, dealiter, quid potest inve niri in ipso minus? Nuoquid, o baeretice, plurali nu mero plenitudines, aut divinitates, aut formas, aut imagines, aut æqualitates in bis personis a sacro sancta Scriptura dici invenies, cum unita sit Deitas eorumdem? Nunquid quot significationes dicuntur ad gioriam delatis, totidemque sunt et species diver sitatis ? Absit. Dom hæc universa ad deitatem uni tamsubstantiae divinitatis usiæ dicta declarentur, illud accedit ad causam:

既然一切的豐盛都在那裡？或者若有什麼缺乏，那整全又在哪裡是豐滿的？難道在那神性一切的豐盛有形有體地居住的祂裡面，就是說，姑且這麼說，「以神的方式」居住的祂裡面，能找出什麼是較少的嗎？異端啊，你能在至聖的經書中找到，論到這些位格時用複數說「豐盛」、「神性」、「形像」、「形相」或「同等」嗎？既然這同樣三者的神性是合一的。難道凡為神性的榮耀所說的稱謂有多少，差異的種類也就有多少嗎？斷乎不可。當這一切都被宣告為論到那合一於神性本質（usia/ousia）之本體的神性而說時，就引出以下這問題：

where all the fullness is? Or if anything is lacking, where the whole is full? Can it be that in him in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily — that is, so to speak, deitically — anything lesser can be found? Can you, O heretic, find that fullnesses, or godheads, or forms, or images, or equalities are spoken of in the plural number in these persons by the most holy Scripture, since the Godhead of these same is united? Can it be that as many designations as are spoken to the glory of the Godhead, there are also just so many kinds of diversity? God forbid. While all these things are declared to be said of the Godhead united in the substance of the divine being (ousia), this comes to bear on the question:

7:72

Nunquid ubi unita plenitudo divinitatis est, pars diversa vel excisa in parte inae qualis in ea est? Dum plenitudo nullam diminutio nis partem admittat sibi proprie comparari, cum forma Dei omnem plenitudinem in se contineat divi nitatis, est ipsa sacrosancta indiscretio æqualitatis nul lam patiatur differentiam majestatis, sicut ipse testa tur : Ego in Patre, et Pater in me (Joan. XIV, 10); sed et lsaias haec comprobans dicit: Quoniam in te est Deus, et non est Deus præter te ; tu enim es Deus, et nesciebamus, Deus Israel Salvator a Deo (Isai. XLV, 14, 15). Vel ad hoc Apostolum audi testantem : Quo niam Deus erat in Christo, mundum reconcilians sibi (II Cor. v, 19).

難道哪裡有神性合一的豐盛，那裡就有一個分開的或割裂的部分，在某部分上不相等嗎？既然豐盛不容任何減損的部分被本然地拿來與自己相比，既然神的形像在自身中包含了神性一切的豐盛，那至為神聖、不可分的同等就不容有任何威嚴上的差異，正如祂自己所見證的：「我在父裡面，父在我裡面」（約十四10）；以賽亞也證實這些事，說：「神在你裡面，除你以外再沒有別神；你實在是自隱的神，以色列的神，救主，是從神而來的」（賽四五14-15）。或者對此你當聽使徒所作的見證：「神在基督裡，叫世人與自己和好」（林後五19）。

Is it the case that where there is the united fullness of the Godhead, there is in it a diverse or severed part, unequal in a part? Since fullness admits no part of diminution to be properly compared with itself, seeing that the form of God contains in itself all the fullness of the Godhead, that very sacrosanct undividedness of equality suffers no difference of majesty, as he himself testifies: 'I am in the Father, and the Father is in me' (John 14:10); and Isaiah too, confirming these things, says: 'For God is in you, and there is no God besides you; for you are God, and we knew it not, the God of Israel, a Saviour from God' (Isa. 45:14-15). Or to this hear the Apostle bearing witness: 'For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself' (2 Cor. 5:19).

7:73

Vides quoniam omnis plenitudo di vinitatis Patris in Filio est, et totus Filius in Patre est ? Ideo unitas est in bis personis sempiterna aequa litas,quia est immensa deitas, sicut evangelista dixit: Propter hoc magis quærebant eum Judæi interficere : quoniam non solum solvei at sabbatum, sed et quod Patrem suum dicebat Deum, æqualemse faciens Deo (Joan. v, 18). Vel tale dictum accipe: Tu cum sis homo, æqualem te facis Deo (Joan. x, 33). Sed et hoc: Ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honorificant Patrem; quoniam qui non ht norificatFilium, non ho norifica' Patrem, qui misit eum (Joan. v, 23). Scito unum ei æqualem in his esse honorem deitatis. De Mique ipsum audi ad Patrem clamantem:

你看見父神性一切的豐盛都在子裡，整個的子都在父裡了嗎？因此在這些位格中有合一，有永遠的同等，因為神性是無可測度的，正如福音記載者所說：「猶太人因此越發想要殺祂，因祂不但犯了安息日，並且稱神為祂的父，將自己和神當作平等」（約五18）。或領受這樣一句話：「你既是人，反將自己當作神」（約十33）。也有這話：「叫人都尊敬子如同尊敬父一樣；不尊敬子的，就是不尊敬差子來的父」（約五23）。你要知道，在這些位格中有神性的一個同等的尊榮。最後，你要聽祂自己向父呼喊：

Do you see that all the fullness of the Godhead of the Father is in the Son, and that the whole Son is in the Father? Therefore in these persons there is unity, an everlasting equality, because the Godhead is immeasurable, as the evangelist said: 'For this reason the Jews sought the more to kill him: because he not only broke the sabbath, but also said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God' (John 5:18). Or receive such a saying as this: 'You, being a man, make yourself equal with God' (John 10:33). And also this: 'That all may honour the Son, just as they honour the Father; for he who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him' (John 5:23). Know that in these persons there is one equal honour of the Godhead. Lastly, hear him himself crying out to the Father:

7:74

Omnia mea tus sunt, et tua mea sunt (Joan. XVII, 10). Sed et alio in loco idem ipse repetit : Omnia quæ Patris sunt, mea sunt (Joan. XVI, 15). Si ad divinitatem refers , unum sunt, si ad operationem facturæ indicas, uni- ter facta hæc omnia Scriptura divina testatur. Vel in hoc intellige evangelistam Joannem dicen a,...: Omnes de plenitudine ejus accepimus, 221 et gratiam pro gratia (Joan. I, 16). Quod ipse Domi nus absolvit : Sicut enim Pater suscistat mortuos et vivi fi cat, sic et Filius quos vult vivificat (Joan. v, 21. Sive hoc : Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor (Ibid., 17) Et alio in loco idem ipse indicat:

「凡是我的都是你的，你的也是我的」（約十七10）。在另一處，這同一位又重複說：「凡父所有的都是我的」（約十六15）。你若把這話歸於神性，祂們就是一；你若指向受造之工的運作，神聖的經書也見證這一切都是合一地造成的。或者藉此明白福音記載者約翰所說的：「從祂豐盛的恩典裡，我們都領受了，而且恩上加恩」（約一16）。這話主自己解明了：「父怎樣叫死人起來，使他們活著，子也照樣隨自己的意思使人活著」（約五21）。或這話：「我父作事直到如今，我也作事」（約五17）。在另一處，這同一位又指明：

'All mine are yours, and yours are mine' (John 17:10). And in another place the same one repeats: 'All that the Father has is mine' (John 16:15). If you refer it to the Godhead, they are one; if you point to it as regards the working of creation, divine Scripture testifies that all these things were made as one. Or understand by this the evangelist John saying: 'Of his fullness we have all received, even grace for grace' (John 1:16). Which the Lord himself explained: 'For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he wills' (John 5:21). Or this: 'My Father works until now, and I work' (John 5:17). And in another place the same one indicates:

← 上一段下一段 →

← 第 6 章

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

文集 第 7 章 第 2/12 段

文集第 7 章第 2/12 段