驳斥亚流-CONTRA ARIANOS 1.11
亚他那修
Chapter XI.—Texts Explained; And First, Phil. II. 9, 10 Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine: e.g. . Whether the words ‘Wherefore God hath highly exalted’ prove moral probation and advancement. Argued against, first, from the force of the word ‘Son;’ which is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Next, the passage examined. Ecclesiastical sense of ‘highly exalted,’ and ‘gave,’ and ‘wherefore;’ viz. as being spoken with reference to our Lord’s manhood. Secondary sense; viz. as implying the Word’s ‘exaltation’ through the resurrection in the same sense in which Scripture speaks of His descent in the Incarnation; howthe phrase does not derogate from the nature of the Word.
第十一章--解经。第一处，腓利比2：9-10，被用来教导与大公教会相对教义的经文：如Phil. II. 9,10。‘所以，神将祂升为至高’证明了道德的增高。反论，首先，从‘子’这个词本身的含义而言，不合乎这样的解释。接着，审视香港段落。教会对于‘升为至高（highly exalted）’，‘赐给（gave)’和‘所以（wherefore）’的解释；就是指我们主耶稣之为人。另一个意义；就是指道借由复活的‘升高（exaltation）’，就如同圣经所记载的他在道成肉身中的降世为人一样；这些经文如何没有减损道的本性。
37. But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense[2023], it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error. They say then, that the Apostle writes, ‘Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name; that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth[2024];’ and David, ‘Wherefore God even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows[2025].’ Then they urge, as something acute: ‘If He was exalted and received grace, on a ‘wherefore,’ and on a ‘wherefore’ He was anointed, He received a reward of His purpose; but having acted from purpose, He is altogether of an alterable nature.’ This is what Eusebius[2026] and Arius have dared to say, nay to write; while their partisans do not shrink from conversing about it in full market-place, not seeing how mad an argument they use. For if He received what He had as a reward of His purpose, and would not have had it, unless He had needed it, and had His work to shew for it, then having gained it from virtue and promotion, with reason had He ‘therefore’ been called Son and God, without being very Son. For what is from another by nature, is a real offspring, as Isaac was to Abraham, and Joseph to Jacob, and the radiance to the sun; but the so called sons from virtue and grace, have but in place of nature a grace by acquisition, and are something else besides[2027] the gift itself; as the men who have received the Spirit by participation, concerning whom Scripture saith, ‘I begat and exalted children, and they rebelled against Me[2028].’ And of course, since they were not sons by nature, therefore, when they altered, the Spirit was taken away and they were disinherited; and again on their repentance that God who thus at the beginning gave them grace, will receive them, and give light, and call them sons again.
因着他们根据自己的看法，扭曲了神圣的启示，并曲解了（圣经），我们就必须像他们辨明这些经文，好叫它们能够展现出正统的教义，以及我们对手的错误。他们宣称，使徒写下，‘所以，神将他升为至高，又赐给他那超乎万名之上的名，叫一切在天上的、地上的，和地底下的，因耶稣的名无不屈膝；’大卫也说，‘所以神，就是你的神用喜乐油膏你，胜过膏你的同伴。’他们极力主张如下的激进论点：‘若祂是因为某种‘某种原因（wherefore）’而被高举并领受了恩典，也因为‘某种原因（wherefore）’而被膏，他乃是因着他的毅力而得到了奖赏；因着他是根据他的毅力行事为人，他的本质就是会改变的。’这就是优西比乌和亚流胆敢教导并撰写的。而他们的党羽则完全无视于他们使用（的教导）是多么疯狂的，而勇于在各处的市场鼓吹它。即使祂因着祂的毅力而领受了奖赏，除非祂需要，并展现出相称的道德和道德的提升，而使得祂被成为儿子（Son）和神（God），祂也无法保有它（奖赏）。因为，在本质上从另一位来的，乃是真流出，就像以撒对于亚伯拉罕，约瑟对于雅各，光辉对于太阳（的关系）一样；然而那些从美德和恩典而被成为众子（sons）的，乃是因恩典的本质而得到了一个地位，他乃是与恩典本身不同的另一个东西；就如同人经由分享而得到圣灵，关于这些人，经上说‘我生了儿女，将他们高升，他们竟悖逆我（译者：70士译本，英文重译）。’他们从本质上而言不是众子（sons），这是理所当然的。而当他们改变时，圣灵就被取走，他们也失去了继承（圣灵）的地位；而当他们悔改后，那位起初赐恩典给他们的神，会在接纳他们，给他们光，并再次称他们为众子（sons）。
38. But if they say this of the Saviour also, it follows that He is neither very God nor very Son, nor like the Father, nor in any wise has God for a Father of His being according to essence, but of the mere grace given to Him, and for a Creator of His being according to essence, after the similitude of all others. And being such, as they maintain, it will be manifest further that He had not the name ‘Son’ from the first, if so be it was the prize of works done and of that very same advance which He made when He became man, and took the form of the servant; but then, when, after becoming ‘obedient unto death,’ He was, as the text says, ‘highly exalted,’ and received that ‘Name’ as a grace, ‘that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow[2029].’ What then was before this, if then He was exalted, and then began to be worshipped, and then was called Son, when He became man? For He seems Himself not to have promoted the flesh at all, but rather to have been Himself promoted through it, if, according to their perverseness, He was then exalted and called Son, when He became man. What then was before this? One must urge the question on them again, to make it understood what their irreligious doctrine results in[2030]. For if the Lord be God, Son, Word, yet was not all these before He became man, either He was something else beside these, and afterwards became partaker of them for His virtue’s sake, as we have said; or they must adopt the alternative (may it return upon their heads!) that He was not before that time, but is wholly man by nature and nothing more.