📜 Verbum
Scripture and the Fathers, read aloud in the original
中EN
♥ Support
🎬 Videos📜 Read the text🔀 Side by side🔍 SearchAbout

← All books · Latin Fathers › Supplication

Supplication 2 part 1/6

Latin original · 37 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss · long chapter, split into parts; this part covers 2:1–2:37 (185 verses in all)

← ch. 1ch. 3 →
next part →
ℹ️ This corpus has no morphological tagging. Glosses are matched by word form against a dictionary — a match does not prove it is the same word (an inflected form can coincide with another word’s lemma). Verify against the original and a specialist lexicon where precision matters.
ℹ️ The Chinese and English alongside are this site's own translation, made directly from the original text on this page (not the CUV or the WEB, which follow the Masoretic Text and a different textual tradition).
2:1
Reginam te orbis Romanas suspicit : et quia jam nihil est, quo amplius crescere debeas in rebus hu- manis, sublimitatibus non contenta terrenis, sacra in Deum fide coelestia desideras possidere, quae ve- ros Filius Dei, in se pie credentibus pollicetur. Et haec quasi una de sapientissimis elaboras, intelligens omnem hanc regni sublimitatem nihil profuturam, si non ad coelestem gloriam consequendam verae fi- det cognitione et defensione contendas. Et tamen apparet, quam grata sis in Christo Deo et Domino nostro, qui vobis hoc regnum tribuit;
The Roman world looks up to you as its queen; and since there is now nothing in human affairs in which you ought further to advance, not content with earthly heights, by a holy faith in God you long to possess heavenly things, which the true Son of God promises to those who devoutly believe in Him. And this you labor at as one of the wisest, understanding that all this exaltation of empire will profit nothing, unless you strive after the heavenly glory to be obtained through the knowledge and defense of the true faith. And yet it appears how pleasing you are to Christ our God and Lord, who has granted you this kingdom;
羅馬世界仰望你為它的女王；既然在人間的事務中已經沒有什麼是你還當更上一層的，你便不以地上的尊崇為滿足，乃以對神的聖潔信德，渴望得著屬天的事，就是神真實的兒子向那些虔誠信靠祂之人所應許的。你像最有智慧之人那樣致力於此，明白這帝國的一切尊榮都毫無益處，除非你藉著對真信仰的認識與護衛，竭力去追求那屬天的榮耀。然而由此可見你在基督我們的神和主面前是何等蒙喜悅，正是祂把這國賜給了你們；
2:2
cum sollicita interrogatione perquiris, quomodo capitula ilia sol- vantur, quae ab Arianis adversus Catholicos sacrae legis interpretationibus opponuntur. Habens affectum verae fidei, cupis, prout possibile est, intelligere, quod fideliter credis. Quia et tunc magis anima reli- giosa, velut divinis epulis pascitur, cum quod credit, intelligit. Sed et cum exsecreris impias voces haereti- corum, tamen religioso studio instrui adversus eos desideras, ut et rationem jam respuas : ire hoc quod exsecraris, quasi ex regni potentia, praesumptionis videatur esse, noh probationis.
when with anxious inquiry you ask how those passages are to be resolved which the Arians set against Catholics by their interpretations of the sacred law. Having an affection for the true faith, you desire, as far as is possible, to understand what you faithfully believe. For then especially is the religious soul fed, as it were upon divine banquets, when it understands what it believes. But although you abhor the impious utterances of the heretics, yet with religious zeal you desire to be instructed against them, so that you may already reject their reasoning — for to attack what you abhor merely as it were by the power of your realm would seem to be of presumption, not of proof.
當你以焦切的詢問探究那些經文如何得以解答，就是亞流派以他們對聖律的解釋來抵擋大公教會所立的那些段落。你既懷有對真信仰的愛慕，便渴望盡可能地明白你所忠信相信的。因為虔敬的靈魂正是在明白自己所信的之時，才彷彿被屬神的筵席所滋養。然而你雖憎惡異端者那不敬虔的言論，卻仍以虔誠的熱心渴望受教以抵擋他們，使你能徹底駁倒他們的推理——因為僅僅憑藉君權去攻擊你所憎惡的，似乎是出於專斷，而非出於明證。
2:3
Sed huic tam pio, tam necessario et pulcherrimo desiderio tuo, etsi me imparem vides, tamen ut resistens obviam venire non audeo : Confiteor enim quod hac me inhabilis conscientia, et imperitia squalidi sermonis suffundit, ut taceam : hac fervor fidei, periculum credit esse ai taceam : quomodo enim periculum non videtur, si adversus hostem impium provocati conscientia elo- quendi, quae verecundia, quasi terga vertamus? Ma- xime, cum in causa fidei non sermonum sublimitas requirenda est, quando ipsa sola testimonia divina sufficiant, quae potius operantur, quam quaevis fe- cundior eloquentia. Sed nec vitiorum conscientia co- g(??)tanda est quando potius relevatur, Si primo Deum deest.
But to this desire of yours, so devout, so necessary and most beautiful, even though you see me unequal to it, yet I dare not come forward as one resisting. For I confess that on the one hand this consciousness of my unfitness and the inexperience of my uncultivated speech overwhelms me, so that I would be silent; on the other hand the fervor of faith reckons it a peril for me to be silent. For how does it not seem a peril, if, being provoked against an impious foe, we should turn our backs, as it were out of shame, while our conscience has the power of speaking? Especially since in a cause of faith it is not loftiness of words that must be sought, when the divine testimonies alone suffice, which accomplish more than any more abundant eloquence. Nor must the consciousness of one's own faults be brooded over, since it is rather relieved, if first one does not lack God.
但對你這如此虔誠、如此必要、又極其美好的願望，縱然你看我不足以勝任，我卻也不敢站出來作一個抗拒者。因為我承認，一方面，這對自己不配的意識，以及我粗陋言語的拙劣，使我幾乎要沉默；另一方面，信德的熱忱卻認為我若沉默便是危險。因為這豈不顯為危險麼——倘若我們既被激動起來抵擋不敬虔的仇敵，竟在良心有能力說話之時，彷彿出於羞愧而轉身退後？尤其在信仰的事上，所當尋求的並非言辭的高超，因為單單那些屬神的見證就已足夠，它們所成就的勝過任何更豐富的口才。人也不該為自己過犯的意識一味憂思，因為這意識反倒得著釋懷，只要人首先不缺乏神。
2:4
non trepidet confiteri, exemplo illius evangelici la- tronis, qui quo die confessus est Deum, ipso die meruit cum eo in paradisum, quem confessus fuerat, introire. Incipiamus ergo, obedientes religiosissimis praeceptis tuis, collidere cum adversario, non quidem de nostris viribus praesumentes, sed habentes fidu- ciam de praesidiali patrocinio Salvatoris, adversus quem more gentilium et furore Judaeorum, bellum exagitat impietas haereticorum. Sed quia in his quae scribere dignata es ex persona haereticorum, vidi plurima esse, confusa, ut videreris mihi non plenius nosse quae asserant Ariani;
Let him not tremble to confess, after the example of that thief in the Gospel, who on the very day he confessed God, on that same day earned to enter with Him into the paradise which he had confessed. Let us therefore begin, obedient to your most religious commands, to clash with the adversary — not indeed presuming on our own strength, but having confidence in the protecting patronage of the Savior, against whom, after the manner of the heathen and with the fury of the Jews, the impiety of the heretics stirs up war. But since in those things which you have deigned to write in the person of the heretics, I saw many things to be confused, so that you seemed to me not to know fully what the Arians assert,
願他不要害怕承認，照那福音書中強盜的榜樣，他在承認神的那日，就在同一日得以與祂一同進入他所承認的樂園。所以讓我們開始，順從你那極其虔敬的命令，與敵人交鋒——並非倚仗我們自己的力量，乃是信靠救主那護衛的庇佑；那不敬虔的異端者效法外邦人的方式、帶著猶太人的狂怒，向救主挑起戰爭。但既然在你屈尊以異端者的口吻所寫的那些內容中，我看見有許多是混亂的，以致你在我看來似乎還未完全曉得亞流派所主張的，
2:5
melius opinatus sumpsi primum liquido palam facere quomodo credant, et quomodo sub ambiguitate sermonis simplices animas capiant; et tunc maxime, cum sub communi confes- sione impia sua verba commendant : quia et tune demum ad solutionem fidelis responsio manifesta est, si prius sacrilegae sectae impia tergiversatio propa- letur. De professione impia Arianorum . I. Ariana impietas 2 asserit multa nobiscum qui- dem iisdem sermonibus, sed non iisdem sensibus (confitetur), cum ad divinae fidei confessionem voca- tur. Nam iisdem quibus et nos vocibus personat Deum Patrem, et Deum Filium, et omnia a Deo Patre per filium facta, et filium ante saecula genitum.
I thought it better first to make clearly manifest how they believe, and how under the ambiguity of language they ensnare simple souls; and this especially when under a common confession they commend their impious words. For only then at last is the faithful reply made plain unto the resolution, if first the impious evasion of the sacrilegious sect is exposed. Concerning the impious profession of the Arians. I. The Arian impiety asserts many things together with us indeed in the same words, but not in the same meanings, when it is called to the confession of the divine faith. For in the same words as we, it sounds forth God the Father, and God the Son, and that all things were made by God the Father through the Son, and that the Son was begotten before the ages.
我便認為更好的做法是，先清楚地顯明他們是怎樣相信的，又怎樣在言語的含混之下擄掠單純的靈魂；尤其當他們在共同的信仰告白之下，藏匿他們不敬虔的言詞之時。因為唯有先把這褻瀆之教派那不敬虔的閃避揭露出來，忠信的回應才終得以在解答中顯明。論亞流派不敬虔的宣信。一、亞流派的不虔，在被召去承認屬神的信仰時，固然在許多事上用與我們相同的言詞與我們一同主張，卻不是用相同的意思。因為它用與我們相同的言語宣稱父神、子神，並萬有都是父神藉著子所造，又稱子在諸世代以先被生。
2:6
Sed cnm nobiscum per haec verba concordet, nihilominus sacrilegis verborum interpretationibus a piis Eccle- siae catholicae sensibus 3 abrumpit, ita dicens pa- trem, ut non vere genuerit : ita filium quoque pro- nuntians, ut apud eum adoptione, non natura sit fi- lius, id est, ut aliunde ad filii nomen assumptus, non vere de Deo Patre sit genitus. Nam licet et ante sae- cula filium natum esse fateatur, tamen ei initium tribuit dicendo, Erat quando non erat. Sed et sic quoque per eum facta dicit universa, ut eum asserat ex nullis exstantibus substitutum, quia praesumpsit non vere de Deo Patre genitum :
But although it agrees with us through these words, it nonetheless, by sacrilegious interpretations of the words, breaks away from the pious meanings of the Catholic Church, speaking of the Father in such a way that He did not truly beget; pronouncing the Son also in such a way that with Him He is Son by adoption, not by nature — that is, as one taken up from elsewhere to the name of Son, not truly begotten of God the Father. For although it confesses that the Son was born before the ages, yet it attributes a beginning to Him by saying, 'There was a time when He was not.' And even so it says that all things were made through Him in such a way as to assert that He was substituted out of things that were not, because it has presumed that He was not truly begotten of God the Father.
但它雖藉這些言詞與我們相合，卻仍以對言詞褻瀆的解釋，與大公教會虔敬的意思斷裂開來，這樣論到父：彷彿父並非真實地生了子；又這樣宣稱子：彷彿子在祂面前是因收養而為子，並非按本性為子——就是說，子是從別處被取來而得「子」之名，並非真實地由父神所生。因為它雖承認子在諸世代以先被生，卻仍歸給祂一個起頭，說：「有祂未曾存在的時候。」並且它說萬有是藉祂所造，卻又主張祂是從無而立，因為它擅自斷定祂並非真實地由父神所生：
2:7
et inde est, quod ita vult habere persuasum, Christum Deum quidem esse, sed non verum, cui initium deputetur; et fi- lium quidem ita, ut factus intelligatur esse, non na- tus. Si quidem non vere de patre natus est, sed de nihilo substitutus; ob hoc quoque et 1 mutabilem credit, quia in fide ejus non vere Deus, non verus filius est : et ut hos impios sensus apud ignaros vel simplices commendet, adhibet quoque, ut sibi vide- tur, Scripturarum divinarum testimonia, dicens ex persona Sapientiae 2 probatum, Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua (Prov . VIII , 22). Christum autem sapientiam esse Apostolus quoque confirmat dicendo, Christum Dei virtutem, et Dei sa- pientiam (I Cor .
and hence it is that it wishes to have this persuaded — that Christ is indeed God, but not true God, since a beginning is reckoned to Him; and the Son indeed in such a way that He is understood to have been made, not born. For if He was not truly born of the Father, but substituted out of nothing, on this account too it believes Him mutable, because in its faith He is not true God, not true Son. And in order to commend these impious notions among the ignorant or the simple, it employs also, as it seems to itself, testimonies of the divine Scriptures, saying that it is proved from the person of Wisdom: 'The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works' (Prov. 8:22). And that Christ is Wisdom the Apostle too confirms by saying, 'Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God' (1 Cor.
由此它便要叫人相信這事——基督固然是神，卻不是真神，因為有起頭歸算給祂；子固然存在，卻是被造出來的，而非被生。因為若祂不是真實地由父所生，乃是從無而立，因這緣故它也認為祂是可變的，因為在它的信念裡，祂不是真神、不是真子。又為要在無知或單純的人中藏匿這些不敬虔的觀念，它還引用——按它自己看來——屬神聖經的見證，說從智慧的口中得了印證：「耶和華在祂造化的起頭，創造了我，在祂的工作之先」（箴八22）。至於基督就是智慧，使徒也加以證實，說：「基督是神的能力，神的智慧」（林前
2:8
I , 24). Constat ergo Christum, qui est, Apostolo interprete, sapientia, esse creaturam : (et jam, inquit,) consequens est, ut non sil verus Deus, qui sit creatura : jam nec verus filius, qui non sit a Deo genitus, 3 sed creatus : erat ergo, quando non erat. II. Haec sunt nequitiae arma proposita, adversus quae ire 4 provocamur, ut assertionis adversae pro- paletur impietas; non quidem, ut diximus, nostro ingenio, sed gratia Dei adjuvante semper pios cona- tus. Tu modo, quaeso ne squalido sermone fatigeris, sed rerum intenta virtutibus, da calculum veritati. Hoc autem non ut librum 5 scribimus, sed quasi cum praesente adversario certis disputationibus dimi- camus.
1:24). It is established therefore, by the Apostle's interpretation, that Christ, who is Wisdom, is a creature; '(and now,)' it says, '(it follows)' that He is not true God, who is a creature; nor true Son, who is not begotten of God, but created; 'there was therefore a time when He was not.' II. These are the weapons of wickedness set forth, against which we are provoked to go, that the impiety of the opposing assertion may be exposed — not indeed, as we have said, by our own ingenuity, but with the grace of God always aiding pious endeavors. Only do you, I pray, be not wearied by my uncultivated speech, but, intent upon the powers of the matters themselves, give your vote to the truth. And this we write not as one composing a book, but as if we were contending with the adversary present before us in definite disputations.
林前一24）。所以照使徒的解釋便確立了：基督既是智慧，就是受造之物；「於是，」它說，「（如今）便接著得出」祂不是真神，因為祂是受造的；也不是真子，因為祂不是由神所生，乃是被造的；「所以有祂未曾存在的時候。」二、這就是擺出來的邪惡兵器，我們被激動起來與之交鋒，要叫那相反主張的不虔得以暴露——正如我們所說，並非憑我們自己的才智，乃是靠著神的恩典常常幫助敬虔的努力。我只求你，不要因我粗陋的言語而厭倦，倒要專注於事理本身的力量，把你的一票投給真理。我們寫這些並非像在著書，乃是彷彿與當面在前的敵人作確定的辯論。
2:9
Et imprimis contra hoc quod dicunt, Erat quando non erat, occurrendum est, quod semper fuerit; et opponendum de Evangelio testimo- nium, dicente Joanne, In principio erat Verbum (Joan . I , 1). Sicut enim Christus Dei sapientia et Dei virtus est, ita et Dei Verbum est. Cum ergo ait, In principio erat Verbum , quomodo Ariana impietas dicit, Erat quando non erat? In principio , inquit, erat Verbum ; non dixit, In principio factum est Verbum : et utique quod in principio erat, semper fuisse cre- dendum est. Si enim, ut putat impietas, factura est filius;
And first of all, against this which they say, 'There was a time when He was not,' it must be met that He always was; and the testimony from the Gospel must be set against it, John saying, 'In the beginning was the Word' (John 1:1). For just as Christ is the Wisdom of God and the power of God, so also is He the Word of God. When therefore he says, 'In the beginning was the Word,' how does the Arian impiety say, 'There was a time when He was not'? 'In the beginning,' he says, 'was the Word'; he did not say, 'In the beginning the Word was made.' And surely that which was in the beginning must be believed always to have been. For if, as the impiety supposes, the Son is a thing made,
首先，針對他們所說的「有祂未曾存在的時候」，必須這樣回應：祂常常存在；並要把福音書的見證對著它擺出來，約翰說：「太初有道」（約一1）。因為基督既是神的智慧、神的能力，照樣祂也是神的道。當他說「太初有道」時，亞流派的不虔怎能說「有祂未曾存在的時候」呢？他說「太初有道」，他並沒有說「太初道被造成」；那在太初就有的，必然當信為常常存在。因為若照那不虔所臆想的，子是受造之物，
2:10
sine dubio Scriptura divina hoc ipsum quod factum est principio prodidisset, ex illa utique insti- tutione, qua et Moyses loculus est 6 dicendo : In prin- cipio fecit Deus coelum et terram . Si enim et filius Dei factura esset, dixisset Joannes, In principio factum est Verbum. Sed praevidens evangelista, magis autem Spiritus sanctus per evangelistam, futuros impiae mentis homines, qui dicerent de filio, Erat quando non erat, ideo sic coepit : In principio erat Verbum ; nihil enim illo anterius est, qui invenitur ante prin- cipium. Scripturae divinae ob hoc editae sunt, ut se- cundum illarum sensum nostram fidem dirigamus, non ut nostros sensus illarum sacris dictionibus in- seramus.
without doubt the divine Scripture would have set forth this very thing — that which was made — at the beginning, according indeed to that account by which Moses too spoke, saying: 'In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.' For if the Son of God too were a thing made, John would have said, 'In the beginning the Word was made.' But the Evangelist foreseeing — or rather the Holy Spirit through the Evangelist — those men of impious mind who were to come, who would say of the Son, 'There was a time when He was not,' for this reason began thus: 'In the beginning was the Word'; for nothing is prior to Him who is found before the beginning. The divine Scriptures were set forth for this purpose, that we might direct our faith according to their meaning, not that we might insert our own meanings into their sacred utterances.
屬神的聖經無疑必會在起頭就把這所造之物陳明出來，正照摩西所說的那種記述：「起初神創造天地。」因為若連神的兒子也是受造之物，約翰就會說「太初道被造成」。但那福音書的作者預先看見——或更該說是聖靈藉著作者看見——那些將要來的不虔心思的人，要論到子說「有祂未曾存在的時候」，因這緣故便這樣起頭：「太初有道」；因為沒有什麼在祂之先，祂乃是在起頭之先就被尋見的。屬神的聖經被頒佈出來，是為叫我們照它們的意思引導我們的信，而非叫我們把自己的意思塞入它們神聖的話語中。
2:11
Viderit, si sunt quaedam capitula, quae sui obscuritate dare putantur occasionem ambi- guitatis; certe in hoc capitulo nulla ambiguitatis occasio est. Non licet interpreti aliter sentire, quam scriptum est; nec opus est, ut nunc nostros sensus ingeramus : sufficit ad plenam percipiendae fidei no- titiam, ut divina verba recitemus. In principio , in- quit, erat Verbum . Numquid aliqua hic est opinio temporis, numquid aliqua suspicio saeculorum, vel aliquod intervallum puncti aut momenti alicujus, ut dicere audeas, Erat quando non erat? III. In principio erat Verbum ; et ne forte verbum intelligas, quod est loquentis officium, sequitur, et Verbum erat apud Deum :
Let one consider whether there are certain passages which by their obscurity are thought to give occasion for ambiguity; certainly in this passage there is no occasion for ambiguity. It is not lawful for the interpreter to think otherwise than is written; nor is there need that we should now thrust in our own meanings: it suffices for the full knowledge of the faith to be grasped, that we recite the divine words. 'In the beginning,' he says, 'was the Word.' Is there here any notion of time, is there any suspicion of ages, or any interval of a point or of any moment, that you should dare to say, 'There was a time when He was not'? III. 'In the beginning was the Word'; and lest perchance you should understand 'word' to be that which is the function of one speaking, there follows, 'and the Word was with God.'
讓人思想一下：是否有某些段落因著它們的隱晦而被認為給人含混的藉口；至少在這段話裡毫無含混的餘地。解經者不可有別於所寫的想法；也無需我們如今把自己的意思強插進去：要叫人完全認識所當領受的信仰，只要我們誦讀屬神的話語就足夠了。他說：「太初有道。」這裡豈有任何時間的概念？豈有任何諸世代的揣測？或有任何一點、一刻的間隔，叫你竟敢說「有祂未曾存在的時候」麼？三、「太初有道」；又恐怕你把「道」理解為說話者的功能，故接著說：「這道與神同在。」
2:12
non dixit, « verbum quod locutus est Deus, sed, et erat Verbum apud Deum : ipse postremo interpretatus est, quid sit Verbum, di- cens, et Deus erat Verbum. Si in principio erat Verbum , et hoc ipsum Verbum apud Deum erat, et Deus erat Verbum , confusa est impietatis intentio. Probatur enim de capitulo hoc, Christum filium Dei et sem- per fuisse, et semper inseparabilem a Patre, et sem- per Deum. Sicut enim sine initio est, cum dicitur, In principio erat , sic et cum dicitur, apud Deum erat , inseparabilitas ejus a Patre sine initio declaratur. Sed et cum hoc Verbum Deus esse definitur, non est ambiguum, quod sine initio Deus creditur.
He did not say, 'the word which God spoke,' but, 'and the Word was with God'; finally he himself interpreted what the Word is, saying, 'and the Word was God.' If in the beginning was the Word, and this same Word was with God, and the Word was God, the aim of the impiety is confounded. For it is proved from this passage that Christ the Son of God both always was, and always was inseparable from the Father, and always was God. For just as He is without beginning, when it is said, 'In the beginning was,' so also when it is said, 'was with God,' His inseparability from the Father is declared without beginning. And when this Word is defined to be God, it is not ambiguous that without beginning He is believed to be God.
他沒有說「那神所說的話」，乃說「這道與神同在」；最後他親自解明了道是什麼，說：「道就是神。」若太初有道，這同一位道又與神同在，且這道就是神，那麼這不虔的意圖就被駁倒了。因為從這段話便證明：基督神的兒子既是常常存在，又常常與父不可分，並常常是神。因為當說「太初有」時，正如祂是無起頭的，照樣當說「與神同在」時，祂與父的不可分也被宣告為無起頭的。而當這道被定為神時，毫無含混地說祂被信為無起頭的神。
2:13
Hoc enim quod praemisit dicens, In principio , ad omnia refe- rendum est, id est, In principio erat Verbum ; et cum sequitur, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum ; sine dubio, in principio , subaudiendum est. Denique et ipse ita concludit, dicens : Hoc erat in principio apud Deum ; quomodo ergo « erat quando non erat, » qui semper est? quomodo « ex nullis exstan- tibus est, » qui semper apud Patrem est? quomodo creatura, qui semper Deus, imo et per quem uni- versa creatura est? Sequitur enim, Omnia per ipsum facta sunt . Quomodo « ex nullis exstantibus factus esi, » per quem omnia facta sunt ? Si enim et ipse factus est, quomodo per ipsum omnia facta sunt ?
For this which he prefaced by saying, 'In the beginning,' must be referred to all that follows; that is, 'In the beginning was the Word'; and when there follows, 'and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,' without doubt 'in the beginning' is to be understood. Finally he himself thus concludes, saying: 'This was in the beginning with God.' How then was there 'a time when He was not,' He who always is? How is He 'out of things that were not,' He who always is with the Father? How is He a creature, He who is always God — nay, He through whom every creature exists? For there follows, 'All things were made through Him.' How was He 'made out of things that were not,' through whom all things were made? For if He too was made, how were all things made through Him?
因為他開頭所說的「太初」，必須貫連到以下的一切；即「太初有道」；當接著說「這道與神同在，道就是神」時，無疑「太初」二字當被默會。最後他自己這樣作結，說：「這道太初與神同在。」那麼，那常常存在的，怎會「有祂未曾存在的時候」呢？那常常與父同在的，怎會是「從無而出」呢？那常常是神、甚至是萬有藉以受造的，怎會是受造之物呢？因為接著說：「萬物是藉著祂造的。」那藉以造成萬物的，怎會「從無而被造」呢？因為若連祂自己也是被造的，萬物又怎能藉著祂被造呢？
2:14
non enim cum fieret, potest sui auctor esse, qui nou fuit : at- que ideo infectus credendus est, per quem omnia fa- cta sunt ; quia vanum est, et absurdum, ut et ipse, cum non exstaret, factus per se esse dicatur. IV. Similiter et Paulus docet Christum semper fuisse, et Deum esse, et aequalem Patri. Tunc enim vere Deus est, cum aequalis est Patri : quia nec aequalis esse diceretur si non vere Deus haberetur. Injuria est enim veri Dei, si ei non Deus verus dica- tur aequalis. Ponit itaque in Epistola sua : Hoc enim existimate in vobis, quod in Christo Jesu :
For He cannot, when He came into being, be His own author, He who was not; and therefore He must be believed unmade, through whom all things were made; because it is vain and absurd that He Himself, when He did not exist, should be said to have been made through Himself. IV. Likewise Paul too teaches that Christ always was, and is God, and is equal to the Father. For then is He truly God, when He is equal to the Father; because He would not be said to be equal, if He were not held to be true God. For it is an injury to the true God, if one not God be called equal to Him. He therefore sets down in his Epistle: 'For let this be your mind, which was in Christ Jesus:'
因為那本不存在的，當祂被造成時，不能作自己的創造者；所以那藉以造成萬物的，必須被信為非受造的；因為若說祂自己在尚未存在時，竟藉著自己被造，那是虛妄而荒謬的。四、照樣保羅也教導基督常常存在、是神、與父同等。因為唯有當祂與父同等時，祂才是真神；因為若不被認為是真神，就不會被稱為同等。因為若把一個非神的稱為與真神同等，那便是對真神的羞辱。所以他在他的書信中寫道：「你們當以基督耶穌的心為心：」
2:15
qui cum in forma Dei esset (constitutus), non rapinam arbitratus est, esse aequalem Deu, sed semetipsum exinanivit for- mam servi accipiens ( Philip . II , 5-7). Si vere homo est Christus, curo formam servi accipit ; vere quoque Deus est, curo in forma Dei esse perhibetur : nec alia ratione aequalem diceret, nisi in forma Dei esse verum Deum voluisset intelligi. Et qui verus Deus est, utique semper est : et qui semper est Deus, non potest dici de eo, Erat quando non erat. Sed et per ipsum omnia facta ait apostolus Paulus scribens :
'Who, being established in the form of God, did not count it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant' (Phil. 2:5-7). If Christ is truly man, since He takes the form of a servant, He is truly God also, since He is declared to be in the form of God; nor would He on any other ground call Him equal, unless he had willed it to be understood that to be in the form of God is to be true God. And He who is true God assuredly always is; and of Him who is always God it cannot be said, 'There was a time when He was not.' But the apostle Paul also says that all things were made through Him, writing:
「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」（腓二5-7）。基督既取了奴僕的形像，便確是真實的人；既被宣稱為有神的形像，便也確是真神；他不會因別的理由稱祂為同等，除非他有意叫人明白：有神的形像就是真神。那是真神的，必定常常存在；那常是神的，就不能論祂說「有祂未曾存在的時候」。而使徒保羅也說萬有是藉著祂造的，寫道：
2:16
Quia in ipso creata sunt omnia, sive quae in coelis, sive quae in terra, visibilia et invisibilia, sive throni, sive dominationes, sive principatus, sive potestates; omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt, et ipse est ante omnes (Coloss . I , 16, 17). Ergo ipse semper est, per quem et in quo omnia facta sunt. Sed et Hymnidicus cantans ait : Omnia in sapientia fecisti (Psal . CIII , 24). Non ta- men ipsam dixit factam esse sapientiam : quia et Apostolus cum dicit, et ipse est ante omnes , factum negavit. Si enim eum qui non erat, facium credi vo- luisset, ita posuisset, et ipse factus est ante omnes :
'For in Him were all things created, whether those in the heavens or those on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created through Him and in Him, and He is before all' (Col. 1:16, 17). Therefore He Himself always is, through whom and in whom all things were made. And the Psalmist too singing says: 'Thou hast made all things in wisdom' (Ps. 103:24). Yet he did not say that Wisdom itself was made; because the Apostle also, when he says, 'and He is before all,' denied that He was made. For if he had wished Him who was not to be believed made, he would have so set it down: 'and He Himself was made before all':
「因為萬有都是在祂裡面造的，無論是天上的、地上的、能看見的、不能看見的，或是有位的、主治的、執政的、掌權的，一概都是藉著祂、又是為著祂造的，並且祂在萬有之先」（西一16、17）。所以那藉以造成、又在其中造成萬有的，祂自己常常存在。詩人歌唱也說：「你以智慧造成萬物」（詩一〇四24）。然而他並沒有說智慧自己是被造的；因為使徒說「祂在萬有之先」時，也否認了祂是被造的。因為他若有意叫那本不存在的被信為被造，就會這樣寫：「並且祂自己在萬有之先被造」：
2:17
at cum dicit et ipse est ante omnes , omnibus dedit ini- tium, quorum anterior, immo et factor est : ipse vero sine initio est, qui ante omnes non factus, sed esse memoratur. Item Apostolus : Unus, inquit, Deus pater, ex quo omnia, et nos in ipso : et unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum (I Cor . VIII , 6) : et heic cum dicit per Chri- stum esse omnia , apertissime factorem discrevit a fa- ctis, nec posse intelligi naturam facturae in co qui fecit omnia. V. Se d videamus si et Moyses hoc idem docuit, quod apostoli annuntiaverunt, id est, omnia ex Deo facta esse per filium. Inter caetera, cum fabricam mundi refert, ait :
but when he says, 'and He is before all,' He gave a beginning to all those things, of which He is prior — nay rather their Maker; but He Himself is without beginning, who is recorded to be before all not as made, but as existing. Again the Apostle: 'One God,' he says, 'the Father, from whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord our Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him' (1 Cor. 8:6). And here, when he says that all things are through Christ, he most plainly distinguished the Maker from the things made, and showed that the nature of a created thing cannot be understood in Him who made all things. V. But let us see whether Moses too taught this same thing which the apostles announced, that is, that all things were made by God through the Son. Among other things, when he relates the framing of the world, he says:
但當他說「祂在萬有之先」時，祂便給了那一切萬物起頭，祂是那一切的在先者——不如說是它們的創造者；但祂自己是無起頭的，被記載為在萬有之先，不是作為被造的，乃是作為存在的。使徒又說：「一神，就是父，萬有都本於祂，我們也歸於祂；並有一主，就是我們的耶穌基督，萬有都是藉著祂，我們也是藉著祂」（林前八6）。在這裡，當他說萬有都是藉著基督時，他極其明白地把創造者與所造之物分別開來，並表明在那造成萬有的祂裡面，不能理解出受造之物的性質。五、但讓我們看看摩西是否也教導了使徒所宣告的這同一件事，就是萬有都是神藉著子所造。在別的事中，當他敘述世界的建造時，他說：
2:18
Et dixit Deus, Fiat firmamentum in medio aquas, et sit dividens inter aquam et aquam : et factum est sic. Et fecit Deus firmamentum, et divisit Deus per medium aquae (Gen . I, 6). Cum dicit, Et dixit Deus, Fiat firmamentum , in dicente patris in- telligenda persona est : cum autem dicit. Et fecit Deus , in faciente filii intelligenda persona est. Nam si non putas ita intelligendum, apostolica periclita- bitur assertio, dicens : Unus Deus pater, ex quo om- nia et nos in ipso : et unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quem omnia et nos per ipsum :
'And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide between water and water; and it was so. And God made the firmament, and God divided through the midst of the water' (Gen. 1:6). When he says, 'And God said, Let there be a firmament,' in the one speaking the person of the Father is to be understood; but when he says, 'And God made,' in the one making the person of the Son is to be understood. For if you do not think it is to be so understood, the apostolic assertion will be imperiled, which says: 'One God the Father, from whom are all things and we in Him; and one Lord our Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him':
「神說，諸水之間要有穹蒼，將水與水分開；事就這樣成了。神就造出穹蒼，將穹蒼以下的水與上面的水分開」（創一6）。當他說「神說，要有穹蒼」時，在那說話的，當理解為父的位格；但當他說「神就造出」時，在那創造的，當理解為子的位格。因為你若不認為當這樣理解，使徒的主張就要陷於危險，他說：「一神，就是父，萬有都本於祂，我們也歸於祂；並有一主，就是我們的耶穌基督，萬有都是藉著祂，我們也是藉著祂」：
2:19
nisi enim totam fabricam mundi per filium faciam esse credi- deris, immo et omnia invisibilia sive et visibilia, quemadmodum in fidem recipis vocem Apostoli di- centis : Unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quem omnia , et illud quoque quod supra retulimus, quia in ipso creata sunt omnia , nec non et illud, Omnia in sa- pientia fecisti ? Sed et hoc Joannes prosecutus est : Omnia per ipsum facta sunt : quomodo omnia, si ne- gas de filio Dei dictum, et fecit Deus firmamentum : Et divisit Deus per medium aquae ? Ergo et Moyses factorem inducit filium, non factum.
for unless you believe the whole framing of the world to have been made through the Son — nay rather all things invisible as well as visible — how do you receive into faith the voice of the Apostle saying, 'One Lord our Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,' and that also which we cited above, 'for in Him were all things created,' and also that, 'Thou hast made all things in wisdom'? But this John too has pursued: 'All things were made through Him': how 'all things,' if you deny it to have been said of the Son of God, even 'and God made the firmament; and God divided through the midst of the water'? Therefore Moses too introduces the Son as Maker, not made.
因為你若不相信整個世界的建造都是藉著子所造——不如說一切不能看見的和能看見的也都是——你又怎能在信裡接受使徒的話：「一主，就是我們的耶穌基督，萬有都是藉著祂」，並我們上面所引的「萬有都是在祂裡面造的」，以及那句「你以智慧造成萬物」呢？這也是約翰所接續陳明的：「萬物是藉著祂造的」：怎能是「萬物」，倘若你否認連「神就造出穹蒼，將水從中分開」這話也是論到神的兒子說的呢？所以摩西也是引出子為創造者，而非被造者。
2:20
Si enim factum sancto Spiritu revelante didicisset, inter caetera quae facta describebat, ipsum quoque prius facium esse memorasset. VI. Sed absolutius inferius prosequitur, ubi jam fabricati mundi incola faciendus est : Et dixit Deus, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram (Gen . I , 26). Non est enim unius personae dicere, faciamus ad imaginem et similitudinem no- stram , sed neque diversae deitatis. Nam pluralitas PATROL. XIII horum verborum, id est faciamus, et nostram , pa- tris et filii personas significat. Quod autem singulari- ter imaginem dicit, una deitas, una virtus utriusque personae manifestator. Si creatura est Christus, quo- modo in opera Deo consors adhibetur?
For if he had learned by the revelation of the Holy Spirit that He was made, among the other things which he was describing as made, he would have recorded that He too was made first. VI. But more absolutely does he proceed further below, where now the inhabitant of the framed world is to be made: 'And God said, Let us make man after our image and likeness' (Gen. 1:26). For it is not of one person to say, 'Let us make after our image and likeness,' nor yet of a diverse deity. For the plurality of these words, that is, 'let us make' and 'our,' signifies the persons of the Father and the Son. But in that he says 'image' in the singular, the one deity, the one power of both persons is manifested. If Christ is a creature, how is He admitted as a partner with God in the work?
因為他若藉著聖靈的啟示曉得祂是被造的，那麼在他所描述為被造的其他事物中，他必也會記載祂是先被造的。六、但他在下文更加確切地接續陳述，那裡如今要造這建成之世界的居民：「神說，我們要照著我們的形像、按著我們的樣式造人」（創一26）。因為說「我們要照著我們的形像、按著我們的樣式」既不屬於一個位格，也不屬於不同的神性。因為這些言詞——即「我們要造」與「我們的」——的複數，指明父與子的位格。而他用單數說「形像」，便顯明兩個位格的一個神性、一個能力。基督若是受造之物，怎能被接納為神在工作上的同夥呢？
2:21
ad ipsum enim dicitur, faciamus . Si non est verus filius, quomodo una illi cum patre imago est? Adoptivus filius non habet imaginem adoptantis : potest quidem habere munificentiam, non autem potest imaginis habere naturam. Scio quidem esse discretiones imaginum, quas nunc exsequi longum est, et non necessarium. Sed quod facit ad causam, vindico, dicens : Hoc in loco nulla discretio est imaginis, ubi patris et filii una imago perhibetur. Non enim dixit, Faciamus ad imagines nostras, sed, ad imaginem nostram .
For it is to Him that it is said, 'Let us make.' If He is not true Son, how is there one image to Him with the Father? An adoptive son does not have the image of the one adopting: he can indeed have bounty, but he cannot have the nature of the image. I know indeed that there are distinctions of images, which it would now be long and unnecessary to pursue. But what bears upon the matter I claim, saying: In this place there is no distinction of image, where one image of the Father and the Son is declared. For he did not say, 'Let us make after our images,' but, 'after our image.'
因為這話是對祂說的：「我們要造。」祂若不是真子，怎會與父有同一個形像呢？被收養的兒子並不具有收養者的形像：他固然可以得著恩賜，卻不能具有那形像的本性。我固然曉得有形像的種種分別，如今逐一探究既冗長又不必要。但凡與本題有關的，我便加以主張，說：在此處毫無形像的分別，這裡所宣稱的乃是父與子同一個形像。因為他並沒有說「我們要照著我們的諸形像」，乃說「照著我們的形像」。
2:22
Et ne forte stupida mente, o quisquis ille es haereticus, usurpares etiam de una persona dici potuisse facta· mus , ut scilicet apud se cogitantis affectio sit, non designabo personarum; subsequitur, et fecit Deus hominem, ad imaginem Dei fecit eum (Ibid . 27). Quae coram in luce posita sunt, si quis non videt, caecus est : Deus , inquit, fecit, ad ima- ginem Dei fecit . Nonne apertissimum est, quod jam tunc Spiritus sanctus per Moysen evangelica sacra- menta tractabat dicens, Deum et Deum , non tamen duos deos, quia una imago est patris et filii? Et, o quam prospecte omnia edita sunt!
And lest perchance with stupefied mind, O whoever you are, you heretic, you should usurp the claim that 'let us make' could be said even of one person — namely as if it were the affection of one deliberating within himself, not the designation of persons — there follows, 'and God made man; after the image of God He made him' (Gen. 1:27). The things which are openly set in the light, if anyone does not see them, he is blind: 'God,' he says, 'made; after the image of God He made.' Is it not most plain that already then the Holy Spirit through Moses was handling the evangelical mysteries, saying 'God and God,' yet not two gods, because the image of the Father and the Son is one? And, O how providently are all things set forth!
又恐怕你這個——無論你是誰——的異端者，以痴愚的心擅自宣稱「我們要造」也可以對一個位格說——就是好像那是一個在自己裡面思量者的心意，而非位格的指明——故接著說：「神就造人，乃是照著神的形像造的」（創一27）。凡公開擺在光中的事，若有人看不見，他便是瞎眼的：他說「神造了，照著神的形像造了」。這豈不是極其明顯麼，就是早在那時聖靈便藉著摩西在處理福音的奧祕，說「神與神」，卻不是兩位神，因為父與子的形像乃是一個？並且，啊，一切被陳明得是何等周詳！
2:23
Deum et Deum sacra Scriptura pronuntiat, ut Sabellium excluderet defendentem patris et filii unam esse personam : et ne duos deos introduceret, inter verba quibus plu- ralis significatio personarum est, unam imaginem inseruit. Hoc ita esse invenies, intendens testimonio dicenti, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram . Quid 1 agis, impietas Ariana? Si creatura Christus est, quomodo creaturae et creatori una imago est? VII. 2 Sed ne iterum Arius sub occasione perso- narum, diversitates induceret naturarum, diversitas naturae non admittit unius formae communionem. Multae sunt voces in libris Moysi, quibus redargui possint impii in filium, immo et in patrem :
The sacred Scripture proclaims 'God and God,' so as to exclude Sabellius, who defends that the person of the Father and the Son is one; and lest it should introduce two gods, among the words by which there is a plural signification of persons, it inserted one image. That this is so you will find, attending to the testimony which says, 'Let us make man after our image.' What are you doing, Arian impiety? If Christ is a creature, how is there one image to the creature and the Creator? VII. But lest again Arius, under the occasion of persons, should introduce diversities of natures, diversity of nature does not admit the communion of one form. Many are the voices in the books of Moses by which the impious against the Son — nay, even against the Father — may be refuted:
聖經宣告「神與神」，是為排除撒伯流——他堅持父與子的位格乃是一個；而為免引進兩位神，便在那些有位格之複數含義的言詞之間，插入了一個形像。你若留意那說「我們要照著我們的形像造人」的見證，便要發覺事情正是如此。亞流派的不虔啊，你在作什麼呢？基督若是受造之物，受造者與創造者怎會有同一個形像呢？七、但為免亞流又藉位格的機會引進本性的種種差異——本性的差異是不容許共有一個形像的。摩西的書中有許多話，可用來駁倒那些抵擋子的不敬虔者——甚至抵擋父的：
2:24
nam quomodo non et in patrem haec tendit impietas, quae profano spiritu exercetur 3 in filium, cum patri adi- munt quod vere patris est, auferentes filio quod vere filii est : quomodo enim paler est vere, qui secandum ipsos non genuit? quomodo Christus vere filius est, quem negant vere de ipso generatum? Sed, ut dixi, multae sunt voces in libris Moysi, quibus redargui haec eorum possit impietas :
for how does this impiety not extend against the Father also, which with profane spirit is exercised against the Son, when they take away from the Father what is truly the Father's, taking away from the Son what is truly the Son's? For how is He truly Father, who according to them did not beget? How is Christ truly Son, whom they deny to have been truly begotten of Him? But, as I said, many are the voices in the books of Moses by which this impiety of theirs may be refuted:
因為這以褻瀆之靈抵擋子的不虔，怎能不也伸向父呢——當他們從父奪去那真實屬乎父的，又從子奪去那真實屬乎子的之時？因為祂若照他們所說並沒有生子，怎能是真實的父呢？基督既被他們否認是真實地由祂所生，又怎能是真實的子呢？但正如我所說，摩西的書中有許多話，可用來駁倒他們這種不虔：
2:25
sed quia haec ipsa non studio librum scribentis exsequimur, sed veluti in scheda certas summas quasi properantes 4 delimamus, ut tuo qualitercumque videamur obe- disse praecepto, caeterae voces praetereundae sunt, maxime quia in divinis vocibus non numerus testi- moniorum, sed auctoritas requirenda est; quae ido- nea est etiam si una voce proferatur. Sufficit interim de hoc uno capitulo Moysen concordasse cum £van- geliis et apostolis. Deum et Deum praedicat Moyses : sicut superius testimonium 1 loquimur de Genesi, ita et Joannes Deum et Deum annuntiavit dicens : In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum (Joan . I , 1).
but since we do not pursue these very things with the diligence of one writing a book, but as it were, like men in haste, we trace certain summaries on a sheet, that we may seem in some way to have obeyed your command, the other voices must be passed over, especially since in divine utterances it is not the number of testimonies, but the authority that is to be sought, which is fitting even if it be brought forth by a single voice. Let it suffice meanwhile concerning this one passage that Moses agrees with the Gospels and the apostles. Moses proclaims 'God and God': just as we spoke above of the testimony from Genesis, so John also announced 'God and God,' saying: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God' (John 1:1).
但既然我們追究這些並非懷著著書者的勤勉，乃彷彿匆忙之人，在一張紙上勾勒出若干要點，好叫我們看來總算在某種程度上順從了你的命令，那麼其餘的話便當略過，尤其因為在屬神的言語中，所當尋求的不是見證的數目，乃是權威；這權威即使只憑一句話說出來也是充足的。如今單就這一段話，摩西與福音書並眾使徒相合，便已足夠。摩西宣告「神與神」：正如我們上面講到創世記的見證，照樣約翰也宣告了「神與神」，說：「太初有道，道與神同在，道就是神」（約一1）。
2:26
Nemo dixit duos deos, licet Deum et Deum diceret : nemo non unam imaginem patris et filii annuntiavit, et ideo unum Deum novit dicere in confessione fides catholica : non tamen ut per confessionem 2 unius Dei filias ne- getur esse quod Deus est : quia sicut pater Deus est, ita et filius Deus est : nam si non sicut pater Deus est, ita et filius Deus; quomodo iliis una imago est secundum Moysen? vel quomodo secundum Paulum, in forma Dei Christus est aequalis existens Deo? VIII. Sed ei Joannes cum Verbum Deum asserit in principio apud Deum esse, non extra Deum esse; per hanc Verbi Dei a Deo inseparabilitatem idem mihi videtur significare, quod in significantia imagi- nis et formae est.
No one said two gods, although he said 'God and God'; no one but announced one image of the Father and the Son, and therefore the Catholic faith knows to say one God in its confession; yet not so that through the confession of one God the Son should be denied to be what God is — because just as the Father is God, so also the Son is God. For if the Son is not God just as the Father is God, how is there one image to them according to Moses? Or how, according to Paul, is Christ in the form of God, existing equal to God? VIII. But when John too asserts the Word to be God, in the beginning to be with God, not to be outside God, by this inseparability of the Word of God from God He seems to me to signify the same thing which is in the significance of image and form.
沒有人說有兩位神，雖然他說了「神與神」；沒有人不宣告父與子是同一個形像，因此大公的信仰在它的告白中曉得說一位神；卻不是要藉著對一位神的告白，便否認子也是神所是的——因為正如父是神，照樣子也是神。因為子若不像父那樣是神，照摩西所說他們怎會有同一個形像呢？或照保羅所說，基督怎會在神的形像中，存在而與神同等呢？八、但當約翰也主張道是神，太初與神同在，並非在神之外時，藉著神的道與神這種不可分，祂在我看來所表明的，與形像和形狀所表明的乃是同一件事。
2:27
Nam si per unam imaginem eam- demque formam, patris et filii inseparabilitas osten- ditur, cur non cum Joannes Dei et Dei inseparabili- tatem annuntiat per hoc quod ait, et Verbum eras apud Deum, et hoc erat in principio apud Deum , unam imaginem eamdemque formam patris et filii si- gnificasse credatur? Plane hic sensus videatur am- biguus, si non idem evangelista hoc ipsum paululum infra apertius prosecutus est dicens, et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre (Ibid . 14) : sicut una imago, eademque forma, ita et gloria non alia est filii, quam quae patris est. interea qui Christum de adoptione filium dicis, quomodo intelligis gloriam ejus quasi unigeniti a patre ?
For if by one image and the same form the inseparability of the Father and the Son is shown, why should it not be believed that, when John announces the inseparability of God and God by this which he says, 'and the Word was with God, and this was in the beginning with God,' he has signified one image and the same form of the Father and the Son? This sense would plainly seem ambiguous, were it not that the same Evangelist pursued this very thing a little below more plainly, saying, 'and we saw His glory, glory as of the only-begotten of the Father' (John 1:14): just as the image is one and the form the same, so also the glory of the Son is no other than that which is the Father's. Meanwhile you who call Christ Son by adoption, how do you understand His glory as that of the only-begotten of the Father?
因為若藉著同一個形像、同一個形狀，父與子的不可分得以顯明，那麼當約翰藉著他所說的「道與神同在，這道太初與神同在」宣告神與神的不可分時，為什麼不該被信為他已表明了父與子同一個形像、同一個形狀呢？這意思固然顯得含混，但若不是同一位福音書作者在稍下文更明白地接續陳明此事，說：「我們也見過祂的榮耀，正是從父而來、獨生子的榮耀」（約一14）：那麼正如形像是一個、形狀是相同的，照樣子的榮耀也與父的榮耀無異。同時，你這稱基督為因收養而為子的人，你又怎樣理解祂那從父而來、獨生子的榮耀呢？
2:28
Quod si plures esse Dei filios, de adoptione profiteris : quod si et Christus adoptivus est, quomodo unigenitus a patre est, cum non sic unigenitus existentibus quo- que aliis per adoptionem filiis? Quod si vere unige- nitus a patre est ideo quia ipse solus de ipso vero patre generatur, quomodo adoptivus asseritur, cum adoptivus inter plures adoptivos proprietatem unige- niti a patre habere non possit? Sed etsi adoptivi sunt, de nullo tamen eorum dictum est, et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre . Sed de Christo solo dictum est, et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre : non ergo adoptivus est, de quo hoc dicitur, quod de adoptivis dici non potest.
For if you profess that there are many sons of God by adoption — and if Christ too is adoptive — how is He only-begotten of the Father, since He is not so only-begotten while there exist also others by adoption as sons? But if He is truly only-begotten of the Father for this reason, because He alone is begotten of that true Father, how is He asserted to be adoptive, since one adoptive among many adoptive cannot have the property of being only-begotten of the Father? But even if there are adoptive sons, yet of none of them is it said, 'and we saw His glory, glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.' But of Christ alone it is said, 'and we saw His glory, glory as of the only-begotten of the Father': therefore He is not adoptive, of whom this is said, which cannot be said of the adoptive.
因為你若聲稱有許多因收養而成的神的兒子——又若基督也是被收養的——祂怎能是從父而來的獨生子呢，既然有別人也藉收養而為子時，祂便不是這樣的獨生子？但祂若因這緣故真是從父而來的獨生子，就是因為唯有祂是由那真父所生，那麼祂怎能被主張為被收養的呢，既然眾多被收養者之中的一個被收養者，不能具有從父而來獨生子的特性？但縱然有被收養的兒子，論到他們中間卻沒有一個說過「我們也見過祂的榮耀，正是從父而來、獨生子的榮耀」。唯有論到基督才這樣說：「我們也見過祂的榮耀，正是從父而來、獨生子的榮耀」：所以那論及此話的，便不是被收養的，因為這話不能論到被收養者說。
2:29
Et merito illi una imago cum patre est, quia ipse solus unigenitus a patre est . Quid ergo mirum, si in filii imagine patris imago Signatur? Ideo et ipse Salvator dicebat, Qui me videt, videt et patrem (Joan . XIV , 9) : non hoc, ut Sabellius, dico quasi se ipsum patrem dicat esse, qui sit et filius. Confiteor enim patrem esse, qui genuit : filium vero esse, qui natus est. Sed cum dicit, Qui me videt, videt et pa- trem , sicut patris et filii non unam ostendit esse per- sonam, ita unam ostendit esse deitatem; cum in patris et filii substantia nulla diversitas invenitur. IX. Herum in hoc quoque loco dicam, si creatura est filius, quomodo qui videt filium, videt et patrem?
And rightly is there to Him one image with the Father, because He alone is only-begotten of the Father. What wonder then, if in the image of the Son the image of the Father is sealed? Therefore the Savior Himself also said, 'He who sees Me, sees the Father also' (John 14:9): I do not say this, as Sabellius does, as though He were saying that He Himself is the Father, who is also the Son. For I confess that He is the Father, who begot; but that He is the Son, who was born. But when He says, 'He who sees Me, sees the Father also,' just as He shows that the person of the Father and the Son is not one, so He shows that the deity is one, since in the substance of the Father and the Son no diversity is found. IX. Again in this place too I will say: if the Son is a creature, how is it that he who sees the Son, sees the Father also?
祂與父有同一個形像，乃是合宜的，因為唯有祂是從父而來的獨生子。那麼，若在子的形像中印著父的形像，這有什麼可希奇的呢？因此救主自己也說：「人看見了我，就是看見了父」（約十四9）：我說這話並不像撒伯流那樣，彷彿祂是說那也是子的祂自己就是父。因為我承認那生子的是父；那被生的是子。但當祂說「人看見了我，就是看見了父」時，正如祂顯明父與子的位格不是一個，照樣祂也顯明神性乃是一個，因為在父與子的本質裡找不出任何差異。九、我在此處也要再說：子若是受造之物，那看見子的怎能也看見父呢？
2:30
Nemo in visione creaturae patrem videt : de inspec- tione enim creaturae creator videri potest; pater au- tem non videtor nisi de Inspectione filii. Si ergo Christus creatura est, et non vere filius, non potest in creaturae visione pater videri : et quomodo ait, Qui me videt, videt et patrem , nisi quia vere filius de Deo patre natus est? et ideo cum videris filium, necesse est ut et patrem videris. Sine filio enim pa- ter non est, sicut nec filius sine patre. Inde etiam subdidit, Ego in patre, et pater in me (lbid ., 10) : non utique per quamdam passivam confusionem; sed quia consequens est ut ubi pater est, illic esse cognoscatur et filius;
No one sees the Father in the vision of a creature: for from the inspection of a creature the Creator can be seen; but the Father is not seen except from the inspection of the Son. If therefore Christ is a creature, and not truly Son, the Father cannot be seen in the vision of a creature; and how does He say, 'He who sees Me, sees the Father also,' except because He is truly Son born of God the Father? And therefore when you see the Son, it is necessary that you see the Father also. For without the Son there is no Father, just as neither is there Son without the Father. Hence too He added, 'I am in the Father, and the Father in Me' (John 14:10): not indeed through any passive confusion; but because it follows that where the Father is, there the Son also is known to be;
沒有人在看見受造之物時看見父：因為從觀看受造之物可以看見創造者；但父唯獨從觀看子才被看見。所以基督若是受造之物，並非真子，父便不能在看見受造之物時被看見；那麼祂怎能說「人看見了我，就是看見了父」呢，豈不正因為祂是真實地由父神所生的子？因此當你看見子時，你就必看見父。因為沒有子就沒有父，正如沒有父就沒有子。故此祂又加上說：「我在父裡面，父在我裡面」（約十四10）：這固然不是藉著某種被動的混雜；乃是因為按理父在何處，子也就在那裡被認出；
2:31
et ubi filius est, illic etiam patrem exstare cognoscas. Est et alius sensus dicti istius, Qui me vidit, vidit et patrem : non qui corpo- reis oculis in corpore vidisset Jesum, vidisse patrem refertur; alioquin absurda est increpatio Domini ad Philippum dicentis, Tanto tempore vobiscum sum, et non me nosti, Philippe (Ibid ., 9)? secundum corpus enim non solum Philippus videbat Jesum, sed et omnes Judaei qui ei adversabantur : nec tamen per hoc quod videbant secundum corpus Jesum, patrem quoque vidisse credendi sunt. Quid ergo est, Qui me vidit, vidit et patrem ? intende cordis aciem, et vide secundum fidei spiritualis obtutus 9 Christum filium Dei non creaturam esse, sed creatorem :
and where the Son is, there too you may know the Father to exist. There is also another sense of that saying, 'He who saw Me, saw the Father also': not that he who saw Jesus with bodily eyes in the body is said to have seen the Father; otherwise the Lord's rebuke to Philip is absurd, when He says, 'So long a time I am with you, and you have not known Me, Philip?' (John 14:9). For according to the body not only Philip saw Jesus, but also all the Jews who opposed Him; nor yet through this — that they saw Jesus according to the body — are they to be believed to have seen the Father also. What then is, 'He who saw Me, saw the Father also'? Direct the gaze of your heart, and see, according to the discernment of a spiritual faith, that Christ the Son of God is not a creature, but the Creator:
子在何處，你也可在那裡曉得父存在。那句話「人看見了我，就是看見了父」還有另一個意思：並不是說那用肉眼在肉身中看見耶穌的就被算為看見了父；不然，主對腓力的責備就成了荒謬：祂說「腓力，我與你們在一起這樣久了，你還不認識我嗎？」（約十四9）。因為按肉身看見耶穌的不只腓力，還有一切敵對祂的猶太人；然而他們並不因按肉身看見了耶穌，就被信為也看見了父。那麼「人看見了我，就是看見了父」是什麼意思呢？你要定睛於心的鋒銳，照屬靈信仰的洞察去看：基督神的兒子不是受造之物，乃是創造者：
2:32
intende eum vere esse Deum sine initio sempiternum; et se- cundum hoc, quod Deus 9 invisibilem 9 inaestimabi- lem, incorruptibilem, indemutabilem, et per omnia talem, qualis est et pater ejus qui eum genuit : et ita vi- dens filium, patrem quoque te vidisse non dubium est. X. Hoc sensu accipe et illud quod ait, Ego in pa- tre, et pater in me . Pater cum sit perfectus, perfec- tam filium genuit; et eum sit invisibilis, incompre- hensibilis, inaestimabilis Deus et verum lumen; et filius tatis natos est v qualis est ille qui eum genuit : et ideo ait, Ego in patre, et pater rn me : cum enim omnia qua sunt paternae virtutis et deitatis habean- tur in filio, pater in filio est, et fidus In patre :
behold Him to be truly God without beginning, everlasting; and according to this, that He is God, invisible, inestimable, incorruptible, unchangeable, and in all things such as is also the Father who begot Him: and thus, seeing the Son, that you have seen the Father also is not doubtful. X. In this sense receive also that which He says, 'I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.' Since the Father is perfect, He begot a perfect Son; and since He is invisible, incomprehensible, inestimable God and true light, the Son too was born such as is He who begot Him: and therefore He says, 'I am in the Father, and the Father in Me'; for since all the things that are of the paternal power and deity are held in the Son, the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father:
你要看見祂是真實的神，無起頭、永遠長存；並照著這事，就是祂是神，不能看見、不可測度、不能朽壞、不能改變，並在一切事上都與那生祂的父一樣：這樣，你既看見了子，就無疑也看見了父。十、你也要照這意思領受祂所說的：「我在父裡面，父在我裡面。」父既是完全的，便生了完全的子；祂既是不能看見、不能測透、不可估量的神，又是真光，子也就被生為與那生祂者一樣：所以祂說「我在父裡面，父在我裡面」；因為凡屬父之能力與神性的一切，都存於子裡，故父在子裡，子在父裡：
2:33
et ideo praemisit; Si me sciretis, et patrem meum scire- tis (Ibid ., 7); et hic ostenditur quod eadem sit pa- tris et filii substantia, eo quod sit una utriusque cognitio. Sed creatura et creatoris non est una cognitio, quia non est una substantia. Patris autem et filii una cognitio est; ergo non est filius creatura, sed creator est, sicuti et pater creator est : et Deus est, sicuti et pater, non tamen per haec duos deos dicimus. Hic est ubi, impie haeretice, diabolico fu- rore quasi in stultitiam istius confessionis inardescis, cum Deum et Deum audis, nec tamen duos deos di- cimus. Inflatus enim de littera saeculari, in hac quae- stione insanabiliter aegrotas;
and therefore He prefaced it: 'If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also' (John 14:7); and here it is shown that the substance of the Father and the Son is the same, in that the knowledge of both is one. But the knowledge of a creature and of the Creator is not one, because the substance is not one. But of the Father and the Son the knowledge is one; therefore the Son is not a creature, but is Creator, just as the Father too is Creator; and He is God, just as the Father too is, yet not on this account do we speak of two gods. This is where you, O impious heretic, with diabolical fury, kindle as it were into folly at this confession, when you hear 'God and God,' and yet we do not say two gods. For, puffed up with secular letters, in this question you are incurably sick;
因此祂先說：「你們若認識我，也就認識我的父」（約十四7）；這裡顯明父與子的本質是相同的，因為對二者的認識是一個。但對受造之物的認識和對創造者的認識並非一個，因為本質不是一個。然而對父與子的認識卻是一個；所以子不是受造之物，乃是創造者，正如父也是創造者；祂是神，正如父也是神，然而我們並不因此說有兩位神。不敬虔的異端者啊，正是在此，你帶著魔鬼般的狂怒，彷彿因這告白而發狂上火，當你聽見「神與神」，我們卻不說兩位神之時。因為你被屬世的學問所膨脹，在這問題上病入膏肓、無可救藥；
2:34
et putas te debere con- stringere, ut duos deos dicamus, cum Deum et Deum confitemur. Noli infelix adversus Christum Dominum totius creaturae, Aristotelis artificiosa ar- gumenta colligere, qui le Christianum qualitercum- que profiteris, nec adversus piam confessionem ine- narrabilis de Deo sacramenti ut calculo calumniator, quasi ex disciplina terrenae supputationis 1 circum- scriptor advenias. Inspice potius divinos libros, et de divina fide divinis utere sermonibus. Legisti uti- que, Et in lumine tuo videbimus lumen (Psal . XXXV , 10). Quae hic distantia luminis a lumine est? po- suisset enim et distantiam, si fuisset, ne quis lumi- nis a lumine nullam distantiam crederet :
and you think that you ought to constrain us to say two gods, since we confess 'God and God.' Do not, O wretched one, gather against Christ the Lord of all creation the artful arguments of Aristotle — you who in some fashion profess yourself a Christian — nor come against the pious confession of the ineffable mystery concerning God as a slanderer with a counting-board, as it were a circumscriber from the discipline of earthly reckoning. Rather look into the divine books, and concerning the divine faith use divine discourses. You have surely read, 'And in Thy light we shall see light' (Ps. 35:10). What distance is there here of light from light? For it would have set down a distance, had there been one, lest anyone should believe there to be no distance of light from light:
你以為當強逼我們說有兩位神，既然我們承認「神與神」。可憐的人哪，不要把亞里士多德那些工巧的論證搜羅起來，去攻擊基督，那全造之物的主——你既以某種方式自稱為基督徒——也不要像個帶著算盤的譭謗者，彷彿出於屬地計算之術的勾劃者，前來攻擊那論到神不可言說之奧祕的虔敬告白。你倒要查考屬神的書，並論到屬神的信仰，使用屬神的言語。你必讀過：「在你的光中，我們必得見光」（詩三十六9）。這裡光與光之間有什麼距離呢？若有距離，聖經本會把距離寫出來，免得有人以為光與光之間毫無距離：
2:35
quod si nulla distantia est, non ergo duo lumina, sed unum lumen est, cum in lumine patris, filii lumen agno- scitur. Hoc lumen est de quo et Daniel loquitur di- cens, Et lumen cum ipso est (Dan . II , 22) : non enim de aliqua creatura hoc dicitur, sed de splendore ip- sius Dei existentis sempiterni luminis. Si pater sempiternum lumen est, sine dubio et filias lumen est sempiternum. Si vero negatur filius Dei lumen esse sempiternum, quomodo in patris sempiterno lumine lumen filii, quod non est sempiternum,' vi- detur? Sed in laudibus Dei non est haec falsa dictio sanctorum : Et in lumine tuo videbimus lumen . Ergo et filii lumen sempiternum est, quod non distat a pa- tris lumine sempiterno;
but if there is no distance, then they are not two lights, but one light, since in the light of the Father the light of the Son is recognized. This is the light of which Daniel too speaks, saying, 'And the light is with Him' (Dan. 2:22): for this is not said of any creature, but of the splendor of God Himself, who is everlasting light. If the Father is everlasting light, without doubt the Son too is everlasting light. But if the Son of God is denied to be everlasting light, how in the everlasting light of the Father is seen the light of the Son, which is not everlasting? But in the praises of God this saying of the saints is not false: 'And in Thy light we shall see light.' Therefore the light of the Son too is everlasting, which does not differ from the everlasting light of the Father;
但若沒有距離，那麼它們便不是兩個光，乃是一個光，因為在父的光中認出子的光。這就是但以理也論到的光，他說：「光明也與祂同在」（但二22）：因為這不是論到任何受造之物，乃是論到神自己的光輝，祂是永遠長存的光。父若是永遠的光，子無疑也是永遠的光。但子神若被否認為永遠的光，那麼在父永遠的光中，怎能看見子那並非永遠的光呢？然而在對神的讚美中，眾聖徒這話並非虛假：「在你的光中，我們必得見光。」所以子的光也是永遠的，與父永遠的光毫無差別；
2:36
et ideo licet lumen sit fi- lius, et paler lumen sit; unam tamen patris et filii lumen est, quia in patre et filio nulla discretio est, nulla separatio luminis est, quomodo nec imaginis secundum Moysen, nec formae secundum apostolum Paulum. XI. Sacramentum autem inseparabilis unitatis se- cundum hoc, quod uterque, id est, pater et filius aequaliter et indivise, neque secundum portionem, Deus unus : et pluralitatis secundum hoc, quod unus pater est, et unus filius. Etiam de huc capitulo ma- nifestatur quod legimus in Evangelio, ipso Salvatore dicente, Ego et pater unum sumus (Joan . X , 30). Su- mus enim pluralitatem significat personarum, quia hic pater, el hic filius :
and therefore, although the Son is light, and the Father is light, yet the light of the Father and the Son is one, because in the Father and the Son there is no distinction, no separation of light, just as neither of image according to Moses, nor of form according to the apostle Paul. XI. But the mystery of the inseparable unity is according to this, that both — that is, the Father and the Son — equally and indivisibly, and not according to a portion, are one God; and the mystery of plurality is according to this, that there is one Father, and one Son. Even from this passage is made manifest what we read in the Gospel, the Savior Himself saying, 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). For 'are' signifies a plurality of persons, since here is the Father, and here the Son:
因此，子雖是光，父也是光，然而父與子的光乃是一個，因為在父與子裡毫無分別，光毫無分隔，正如照摩西所說形像毫無分別，照使徒保羅所說形狀也毫無分別。十一、那不可分之合一的奧祕，乃在於此：二者——就是父與子——同等地、不可分地，並非按部分地，乃是一位神；而複數的奧祕乃在於此：有一位父、一位子。從這段話也顯明了我們在福音書中所讀的，就是救主自己說：「我與父原為一」（約十30）。因為「原為」指明位格的複數，因為這裡有父，那裡有子：
2:37
Unum autem unam eamdem- que in patre et filio substantiam deitatemque con- signat, ut vere pater et filius unus Deus sit; cum ambo. id est, pater et filius unum sunt secundum deitatem, non unus secandum personas. Ego et pa- ter unum sumus : hac una voce et Sabellius excludi- tur, et Arius 2 confutatur. Sabellius enim ipsum di- cit patrem, qui sit et filias, hoc modo, tamquam si unus habeat duo nomina, et interpretator unum ideo dictum, ut unius personae singularitas crederetur. Contra vero Arius respiciens ad hoc qnod ait, sumus , in hoc sermone, pluralitatem intelligens, introduxit impiam pluralitatem deorum, credens unum sempi- ternum Deum, et alium qui esse coeperit Deus;
but 'one' marks out the one and the same substance and deity in the Father and the Son, so that the Father and the Son are truly one God; since both — that is, the Father and the Son — are one according to deity, not one according to persons. 'I and the Father are one': by this one utterance both Sabellius is excluded and Arius is refuted. For Sabellius says that the Father Himself is also the Son, in this manner, as though one had two names, and he interprets 'one' to have been said for this reason, that the singularity of one person might be believed. On the contrary, Arius, looking to this which He says, 'are,' understanding in this word a plurality, introduced an impious plurality of gods, believing one everlasting God, and another who began to be God;
但「為一」標明父與子裡同一個本質與神性，使父與子真是一位神；因為二者——就是父與子——按神性是一，並非按位格是一。「我與父原為一」：藉這一句話，撒伯流既被排除，亞流也被駁倒。因為撒伯流說父自己也就是子，是這樣的：彷彿一位有兩個名字，並把「為一」解作是為這緣故而說的，即叫人相信只是一個位格的單一性。亞流則相反，看著祂所說的「原為（複數）」，在這字裡領會出複數，便引進了不敬虔的眾神之複數，相信有一位永遠的神，又有另一位才開始為神的；
next part →
← ch. 1ch. 3 →
123

Tell me when new readings are published

One email per new chapter reading. Double opt-in; one-click unsubscribe.