17# 后来，我问在哪里可以找到主张分为三个位格的神性三位一体，且头脑最为敏锐的学者。有三个人现身；我对他们说：“你们怎么能将神性三位一体分为三个位格，并断言每个位格都独自或单独为神、为主呢？嘴上对神是一的承认，岂不是如此远离你们脑子里的想法，就像南方远离北方一样吗？”对此，他们回答说：“一点也不远，因为这三个位格拥有一个本质，神性本质是神。在世上，我们教导一体三位，或说是一体三位的守护者，我们负责监护我们的信仰，即：每个神性位格都有自己的职责：圣父神负责归算和赐予，圣子神负责代求和调解，圣灵神负责展开归算和调解的工作。”
我问道：“你们所说的‘神性本质’是什么意思？”他们回答说：“我们的意思是全能、全知、全在、无垠、永恒、同尊同荣。”对此，我回答说：“如果这本质能从几位神中制造出一位神，那么你们还可以添加更多的神，如摩西、以西结和约伯提到的被称为‘沙代神’的第四位神。古代的希腊人和意大利人就是这么做的，他们将同等的属性和相似的本质赋予他们的诸神，如萨图恩或萨图尔努斯、朱庇特、尼普顿、普鲁托、阿波罗、朱诺、狄安娜、密涅瓦，以及墨丘利和维纳斯；但他们仍不能说所有这些人都是一位神。此外，我理解你们三个人在学问上是同等的，因而在这方面具有相同的本质，但你们不能把你们自己合并成一个学者。”他们闻言笑着说：“你在开玩笑。这与神性本质不同；神性本质不是三部分，而是一，是不可分割的，因而不可分割；分割和分裂不适用于它。”
听到这些话，我回答说：“那就让我们下到竞技场，把这个问题当作讨论的主题，一决高下。”然后我问道：“你们所说的‘位格’是什么意思？这个词表示什么？”他们说：“‘位格’这个词是指没有另一个位格的任何部分或品质，而是自身存在之物。所有教会领袖都是这样定义‘位格’的，我们同意他们的定义。”我说：“这就是你们对‘位格’的定义吗？”他们回答说：“是的。”对此，我回答说：“既然圣子里面没有圣父的任何部分，圣灵里面也没有圣父或圣子的任何部分，那么可推知，每一位在审判权、管辖权或权利和能力方面都是独立的；因此，除了适合每一位，因而可随意交流的意愿外，没有什么东西能把他们结合起来。那么，这三个位格不就是三位神吗？再听听这个：你们还将‘位格’定义为自身存在之物；因此，你们将神性本质分成了三种实质；然而，你们又说这个本质不能分割，因为它是一，是不可分割的。此外，你们将不存在于其他位格中，甚至无法传给其他位格的属性，即归算、调解和运作归给每种实质，也就是每个位格。除了这三个‘位格’是三位神外，由此还能得出什么结论呢？”听到这些话，他们退缩了，说：“我们会认真考虑这些要点，然后给你答复。”
站在旁边的一位智者听了这场讨论，说：“我不想通过如此精细的网络或微妙的论证来审视这个重要、崇高的话题；抛开这些细节不说，我清楚看到你们在思维上有三神观。然而，你们羞于向全世界公布这种观念，因为你们若这样做，就会被称为疯子和傻瓜。因此，为了避免这种耻辱，你们觉得最好嘴上承认一位神。”然而，这三个人仍固执己见，不理会他的话；他们离开时，低声咕哝着一些玄学术语。我由此推测，这就是他们想从中给出答复的神谕。
17. 後來, 我打聽哪裡能找到智力超群,卻贊同將上帝一分為三的學者, 誰知剛好有三位這樣的學者在場。我就問:"你們怎能將上帝分為三位, 聲稱每一位都單獨是上帝和主呢？毫無疑問, 你們口頭的宣稱與思想相去甚遠, 有如南轅北轍。"
"根本沒有區別, "他們回答說:"三位擁有同一神性本質, 這個神性本質就是上帝。在人間, 我們是三位一體的捍禦者, 這樣的信仰就是我們照管的被保護者。這樣的信仰就是, 每一位都有自己的職能:父上帝歸算與恩賜, 子上帝代求與調解, 聖靈上帝實現歸罪和調解之工。"
[2]我就問:"你們所說'神性本質'是什麼意思呢？"他們說是全能,全知,全在,無限,永恆, 以及同尊同榮。我說:"如若這樣的本質可以使三位成為一位上帝, 難道你不可以加上更多嗎？譬如加上摩西,以西結,約伯曾提到的'全能者', 作為第四位？古希臘和古羅馬的人就是這樣做的, 他們給自己的諸神如薩圖恩,朱庇特,尼普頓,布魯圖,阿波羅,朱諾,狄安娜,密涅瓦,墨丘利,維納斯賦予同等的神性和一樣的本質。雖然如此, 他們不會稱以上諸神是一位。事實上, 你們是三個人, 雖然在我看來你們見解相同, 在學問上也可以說有相同的本質, 但你們不能合併為一個學者。"對此他們覺得好笑, 說:"你真會開玩笑！這與上帝的本質不同。上帝的本質為一, 不能分作三份。它是獨一不可分割的, 分解分離之法不適用於它。"
[3]對此我回敬道:"那好, 我們就此好好討論一番。你們如何理解'位(person)'這個詞？它表示什麼意思？"
"'位'表示沒有部分或特性於其它之中,而自行存在者。這是'位'一詞的定義, 教會領袖如此定義, 我們贊同這樣的定義。" 他們回答說。
"這真是你們對'位'一詞的定義嗎？"我問道。
"是的。"他們回答。
"那麼就沒有父的部分(或特性)在子之中, 也沒有父的部分(或特性)在聖靈之中。如此說來, 每一位自行支配, 擁有各自的權與能。除了各按其願的溝通, 沒有絲毫將他們聯結一起的因素。這樣不是使三'位'成為三個不同的上帝嗎？再聽, 你們已將'位'定義為自行存在者, 因此就有了你們將神性本質分割開來的三個實質了。然而你們又說這樣的分割無法做到, 因為神性本質是一,且不可分割。再者, 對每個實質——也就是每'位', 你們歸因於不同的特性——各自特性互不交融,各不連接, 也就是歸算,調解和運作的特性(父歸罪,子調解,聖靈運作)。除了三"位"即是三位上帝, 還能得出什麼結論呢？"
聽了這樣的評論, 他們有點退縮, 說:"容我們討論一下這些說法, 然後再給你答覆。"
[4]當時旁邊站著一位智者, 聽了這些辯論, 就對他們說:"我無意於通過嚴密的邏輯去討論如此高深的話題。撇開這些奧秘不說, 我分明看出你們思想中有三位上帝的觀念。要是在世人面前公佈你們的觀點, 你們必要蒙羞, 你們要麼被認為瘋子, 要麼被視為傻子。所以宣稱一位上帝, 只是有助你們保持尊嚴。"
三位學者執意堅持自己的觀點, 不予理睬。離開時, 他們嘴裡咕噥著一些玄奧的詞藻。這提醒我, 玄學是他們賴以辯答的詞庫。
17. Afterward I asked where I might run into the scholars with the sharpest wits who stand in favor of a divine Trinity divided into three persons. There happened to be three such people present. I asked them, "How can you divide the divine Trinity into three persons and claim that each person is individually or by himself God and Lord? Surely your verbal confession that there is one God is as distant from your thought as the south is from the north. "
"There is no distance at all," they replied. "Those three persons have one essence, and the divine essence is God. In the world, we were tutors teaching the trinity of persons; the pupil we were responsible for was our faith. In our faith each divine person plays his own role: God the Father's role is to give spiritual credit or blame and to bestow [grace], God the Son's role is to intercede and mediate, and God the Holy Spirit's role is to put into effect the actual credit or blame and the mediation. "
[2] So I asked, "What do you mean by 'divine essence'?"
They said, "We mean omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immensity, eternity, and equality of majesty. "
To this I said, "If that essence makes many gods one God, couldn't you add even more? How about a fourth god mentioned by Moses, Ezekiel, and Job: God Shaddai? The ancient people in Greece and Italy did something similar. They assigned equal attributes and a similar essence to their gods, such as Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto, Apollo, Juno, Diana, Minerva; and Mercury and Venus as well. But nonetheless they couldn't call all of them one God. In fact, you are three people, and to my mind you seem academically similar, so you have a similar essence as far as scholarship goes; but you couldn't combine yourselves into one scholar. "
They laughed at this, and said, "You're joking! It is different with the divine essence. The divine essence is one thing; it doesn't come in three parts. It is single and undivided. Partition and division don't apply to it. "
[3] When I heard this I retorted, "Then let's go down into the ring and fight. - What do you understand a person to be?" I asked. "What does that mean?"
They answered, "The term person means that which is not a role of, or a quality in, someone else, but an entity subsisting on its own. This is the definition of person used by all - by the leaders of the church and by us as well. "
"Is this truly your definition of person?" I asked.
"It is," they said.
So I replied, "Then the Father and the Son have nothing in common, and neither of them has anything in common with the Holy Spirit. Therefore each one has his own free choice, responsibility, and power. They share nothing, then, other than the fact that each one has a will, which he can communicate if he wishes. Aren't these three persons three distinct gods? And listen to this: You have in fact defined a person as someone who subsists on his or her own. Therefore there are three 'subsistings' or substances into which you have divided the divine essence, and yet you said that the divine essence is indivisible; you said there was one undivided essence. Furthermore you attribute to each substance or person characteristics that are not in the others and could not be shared with them: giving spiritual credit or blame, mediating, and putting into effect. What other conclusion is possible except that the three persons are three gods?"
At my saying this, they drew back and said, "We will discuss these points among ourselves, and after our discussion we will give you our response. "
[4] A wise person was standing nearby. On hearing all this, the wise person said to them, "I do not wish to sift such a sublime topic with such a fine mesh. Setting subtleties aside, I see in a clear light that there are three gods in the ideas of your thought. If you publicized your views before the whole world it would cause you shame, because you would be labeled either insane or stupid. Therefore saying that there is one God helps you avoid losing respect. "
The three scholars, however, held on to their opinion and paid no attention. As they went away they were muttering terms borrowed from metaphysics. This alerted me that metaphysics was the oracle they planned to consult in giving their response.
17. Later on I asked where I could meet the sharpest minds among the learned who stood for a Divine Trinity divided into three Persons. Three came forward, whom I addressed thus: 'How can you divide the Divine Trinity into three Persons and assert that each Person by Himself or singly is God and Lord? If so, your verbal profession that God is one is as far removed from what you think as the south is from the north.'
To this they replied: 'It is not removed at all, because the three Persons have one essence, and the Divine Essence is God. In the world we were guardians of the Trinity of Persons, and the ward whom we protected was our faith, according to which each Divine Person has been given His own role to play. The role of God the Father is to impute and grant, of God the Son to intercede and mediate, and of God the Holy Spirit to carry out the services of imputation and mediation.'
[2] 'What,' I asked, 'do you understand by the Divine Essence?' 'We understand,' they said, 'omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immensity, eternity, and equality of majesty.'
To which I replied: 'If that essence can make a number of gods into one, you could add more still, as for example a fourth, who is mentioned by Moses, Ezekiel and Job under the title of God Shaddai. The ancients in Greece and Italy did the same, assigning similar attributes and a like essence to their gods, Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto, Apollo, Juno, Diana, Minerva, even Mercury and Venus. Yet they were unable to say that all those were one God. The three of you, as I can tell, are equally learned and share the same essence in that respect, but you cannot combine yourselves into a single scholar.'
They laughed at this, and said: 'You are joking. It is different with the Divine Essence, which is one and not divided into three, so it is individual and undivided; it cannot admit partition and division.'
[3] To this I answered: 'Let us go down into this arena and do combat.' I asked: 'What do you understand by 'Person'? What does this word mean?'
'The word Person,' they said, 'does not mean any part or quality in another, but what exists in its own right; that is how all the Fathers of the church define Person, and we follow them.'
'Is this,' I said, 'the definition of Person?'
'Yes,' they answered.
To this I retorted: 'Then there is no part of the Father in the Son, nor of either in the Holy Spirit. From this it follows that each has His own judgment, rights and powers, and there is nothing to link them except the will, which is peculiar to each individual, and so can be communicated if desired. Then are not the three Persons three separate gods? Listen to this: you have defined Person as that which exists in its own right; consequently you are saying that there are three substances, into which you split the Divine Essence. Yet this, as you too say, cannot be split, since it is one and undivided. Moreover you attribute to each substance, that is, each Person, properties distinct from another's, and which cannot be shared with another, namely, imputation, mediation and working. What can result from this but that the three Persons are three gods?'
At this they withdrew saying: 'We will discuss these points and reply when we have discussed them.'
[4] A wise man was standing near, who on hearing these things said: 'I do not wish to subject a matter of such supreme importance to such subtle refinements, but these subtleties apart I can see perfectly clearly that your thought contains the idea of three gods. But since you are ashamed to say this publicly before the whole world - for if you did, you would be called crazy and fools - you find it expedient to have the profession of one God on your lips in order to avoid disgrace.'
At this, however, the three still clung to their opinion and paid no attention, and as they went away they were muttering some terms borrowed from metaphysics; this told me that that was the oracle whose responses they wished to give.
17. Afterwards I asked where I could find those of the learned with the keenest minds who stood for a Divine trinity divided into three persons. Three of these presented themselves; and I said to them, "How can you divide the Divine trinity into three persons, and assert that each person, by Himself or singly, is God and Lord? Is not a confession of the mouth that God is one thus made as remote from the thought as the south from the north?"
To this they replied, "It is not at all remote, since the three persons possess one essence, and the Divine essence is God. In the world we were guardians of a trinity of persons, and the ward under our charge was our faith; in that faith each Divine person had his office - God the Father to impute and bestow, God the Son to intercede and mediate, and God the Holy Spirit to carry out the work of imputation and mediation."
[2] But I asked, "What do you mean by the 'Divine essence?'"
They said, "We mean omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immensity, eternity, and equality of majesty."
I replied, "If that essence makes one God of several you might add more yet, for example: a fourth, mentioned by Moses, Ezekiel, and Job, under the name of 'God Schaddai.' Something of this kind was done in Greece and Italy by the ancients, who ascribed equal attributes and a like essence to their gods, for example, to Saturn, Jove, Neptune, Pluto, Apollo, Juno, Diana, Minerva, and even Mercury and Venus; although they could not say that all these were one God. Moreover, yourselves, who are three persons, and as I apprehend alike in learning and therefore in that respect of a similar essence, are not able to combine yourselves into one learned man."
They laughed at this, and said, "You are joking. With the Divine essence it is different: it is not tripartite, but one; not divisible, but indivisible; partition and division do not apply to it. "
[3] Hearing this I said, "Let us come down to this ground and discuss the matter." And I asked, "What do you mean by a 'person?' and what does the term signify?"
They said, "The term 'person' signifies that which has no part or quality in another, but subsists by itself. Thus do all the heads of the church define it, and we agree with them."
I said, "Is this the definition of 'person'?"
They replied, "It is."
To this I answered, "There is then no part of the Father in the Son, or of either in the Holy Spirit. From this it follows that each is at His own disposal, and possesses His own rights and powers, and therefore there is nothing that joins them together except the will, which is proper to each, and thus communicable at pleasure. Does not this make the three persons three distinct Gods? Listen again: You have also defined 'person' as that which subsists by itself; consequently there are three substances into which you divide the Divine essence; and yet you say that this is incapable of division, since it is one and indivisible. Furthermore, to each substance, that is, to each person, you attribute properties that do not exist in the others, and even cannot be communicated to the others, namely, imputation, mediation, and operation. What can follow from this except that the three 'persons' are three Gods?"
At these remarks they withdrew, saying, "We will canvass these statements and then answer you."
[4] There was present a wise man who, hearing the arguments, said, "I do not care to view this lofty subject through such fine network; but apart from these subtleties I see clearly that in your thought you have the idea of three Gods; but as you would incur disrepute by publishing this idea openly to all the world (for if you did so you would be called madmen and fools), it is expedient for you, in order to avoid that ignominy, to confess with your lips one God."
But the three, tenacious of their opinions, paid no attention to this; and as they went away they muttered some terms culled from metaphysical lore: from which I saw that metaphysics was their tripod from which they wished to give responses.
17. Afterwards I enquired where I might meet some of those highly intellectual men who maintain that the Divine Trinity is divided into three Persons. Three presented themselves, and I said to them: "How can you separate the Divine Trinity into three Persons and assert that each person by Himself or singly is God and Lord? Is not this confession of the lips that there is one God as far removed from the thought in your minds as south is from north?" They replied: There is not a whit of difference, because the three Persons have but one Essence, and that Divine Essence is God. In the world we taught a Trinity of Persons and our charge was the faith that each Divine Person has His own function to perform: God the Father imputes and grants; God the Son intercedes and mediates; and God the Holy Ghost effects the purposes of imputation and mediation."
[2] When I enquired what they meant by the Divine Essence they answered: "Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immensity, eternity and equality of majesty." To this I replied: "If that Essence makes one God out of several you can still add more, as for example a fourth, called God Shaddai, who is mentioned by Moses, 1 Ezekiel and Job. This is what the people of old did in Greece and Italy, who assigned equal attributes and a like essence to their deities, Saturn, 2 Jupiter, 3 Neptune, 4 Pluto, 5 Apollo, 6 Juno, Diana, 7 Minerva 8 and also to Mercury and Venus; 9 but still they could not say that all these were one God. You yourselves are three, and I gather of like learning, and in that respect of like essence. Yet you cannot combine yourselves into one learned man."
At this they laughed, saying, "You are jesting; it is otherwise with the Divine Essence, which is one and not tripartite, indivisible and so not divided: it is not subject to partition and division."
[3] When I heard these words I rejoined, "Well, let us make this the subject of discussion." I then asked, "What do you understand by Person, and what does it mean?" They replied: "The word Person means not any part or duality in another, but what subsists of itself. This is how all the Leaders of the Church define Person, and we agree with them." I said, "Is this then your definition of Person?" and they replied, "It is." So I continued: "As there is no part of the Father in the Son, and no part of either in the Holy Ghost, it follows that each is independent in judgment, jurisdiction and power. There is nothing, therefore, to unite them but the will, which is one's own, and only communicable at pleasure; are not the three Persons thus three Gods? Further, you have defined Person as what subsists of itself. Consequently there are three substances into which you separate the Divine Essence, and yet this Essence, you also say, is incapable of division, being one and indivisible. Moreover to each substance, that is, to each Person, you attribute properties which are not in another and which cannot he communicated to another, namely, imputation, mediation and operation. What conclusion can follow from this but that the three Persons are three Gods?" At these words they withdrew, saying that they would consider those points and afterwards give their answer.
[4] A wise man who was standing by and heard this discussion said: "I have no desire to examine this important subject by means of such subtleties of argument; but apart from these I clearly see that in the thoughts of your minds there are three Gods. You are ashamed, however, to publish these thoughts abroad to the whole world, for if you did so you would be called madmen and fools. Therefore, to avoid that ignominy you find it convenient to confess one God with your lips." The three disputations, however, still holding their own opinion, paid no regard to his words, and as they departed kept muttering some terms borrowed from Metaphysics. From this I presumed that this was the oracle from which they would give their answers.
Footnotes:
1. Moses, the Books of the Bible comprising the Pentateuch, traditionally ascribed to Moses.
2. Saturnus, Saturn, earliest king of Latium, became Roman god of civilization.
3. Jupiter or Jove, son of Saturn.
4. Neptune, god of the sea.
5. Pluto, king of the lower world.
6. Apollo, god of divination, healing, poetry and music.
7. Diana, sister of Apollo, goddess of the chase.
8. Minerva, daughter of Zeus, goddess of wisdom.
9. Venus, goddess of love.
17. Postea quaesivi, ubinam offenderem ex Eruditis illos, qui acutissimo ingenio sunt, et pro Trinitate Divina in tres Personas divisa stant; et aderant tres, ad quos dixi, quomodo potestis Divinam Trinitatem in tres Personas dividere, et asserere, quod unaquaevis Persona per se seu singulatim sit Deus et Dominus, numne sic confessio oris, quod Deus Unus sit, tantum a cogitatione distat, quantum meridies a septentrione; ad quod responderunt, non hilum distat, quia tribus Personis est Una Essentia, et Divina Essentia est Deus; nos fuimus in Mundo Tutores Trinitatis Personarum, ac Pupillus, cujus tutelam gessimus, fuit fides nostra, in qua unaquaevis Persona Divina partem suam nacta est, Deus Pater illam partem quod imputet ac donet, Deus Filius illam quod intercedat et mediet, et Deus Spiritus Sanctus illam quod imputationis et mediationis usus efficiat.
[2] At quaesivi, quid per Divinam Essentiam intelligitis; dixerunt, intelligimus Omnipotentiam, Omniscientiam, Omnipraesentiam, Immensitatem, Aeternitatem, Aequalitatem Majestatis; ad quae dixi, si Essentia illa facit ex pluribus diis Unum, potestis adhuc plures addere, ut pro exemplo quartum, qui apud Mosen, Ezechielem et Hiobum memoratur, et vocatur Deus Schaddai: similiter etiam fecerunt Antiqui in Graecia et Italia, qui parilia attributa et sic similem essentiam assignaverunt suis diis, ut Saturno, Jovi, Neptuno, Plutoni, Apollini, Junoni, Dianae, Minervae, imo etiam Mercurio et Veneri, sed usque non potuerunt dicere, quod omnes illi unus Deus essent: et quoque vos, qui tres estis, ac, ut percipio simili eruditione, et sic simili essentia quoad illam, usque non potestis vos combinare in unum hominem eruditum; sed ad haec riserunt, dicentes, jocaris; aliter est cum Essentia Divina, haec est una, et non tripartita, et est individua et sic non divisa; partitio et divisio non cadit in illam:
[3] his auditis regessi, descendamus in hanc aream, et dimicemus; et quaesivi, quid intelligitis per Personam, et quid significat illa, et dixerunt, Nomen Personae significat non partem aut qualitatem in alio, sed quod proprie subsistit; ita omnes 1 Primores Ecclesiae Personam definiunt, et nos cum illis; et dixi, est haec definitio 2 Personae, et responderunt, est; ad quae retuli, ita non est aliqua pars Patris in Filio, nec aliqua utriusque in Spiritu Sancto, ex quo sequitur, quod quisque sit sui arbitrii, juris et potestatis, et sic non aliquid quod conjungit, nisi voluntas, quae cuivis propria est, et sic communicabilis ex beneplacito; suntne ita tres Personae tres distincti Dii: audite adhuc; definivistis etiam Personam, quod sit quod proprie subsistit, consequenter quod sint tres substantiae, in quas partimini Essentiam Divinam, et tamen haec, ut quoque dicitis, est impartibilis, quia una et individua; et insuper unicuique substantiae, hoc est, Personae, attribuitis proprietates quae non sunt in altera, et quoque quae non communicari possunt alteri, quae sunt Imputatio, Mediatio, et Operatio; quid tunc inde resultat aliud, quam quod tres Personae sint tres dii; ad haec dicta retraxerunt se, dicentes, ventilabimus illa, et post ventilationem respondebimus.
[4] Adstitit quidam Sapiens; hic audiens illa dixit, ego non volo per tam subtiles transennas hanc supremam rem inspicere, sed extra subtilitates illas video in clara luce, quod in ideis cogitationis vestrae sint tres Dii; sed quia pudoris est coram universo Mundo propalare illas, nam si propalaveritis, vocabimini insani et fatui, quare prodest ad evitandum ignominiam, ut unum Deum ore confiteamini: sed ad haec illi tres tenaces sententiae suae nihil attenderunt, et in abeundo emurmurabant aliquos terminos commodatos ex Arte Methaphysica, ex quo animadverti, quod illa esset illorum tripos, ex quo responsa vellent dare.
Footnotes: