Edition Masquer
De Trinitate

III.

[III 4] Quamobrem ut iam etiam de his quae nec dicuntur ut cogitantur nec cogitantur ut sunt respondere incipiamus fidei nostrae adversariis, inter multa quae Arriani adversus catholicam fidem solent disputare hoc sibi maxime callidissimum machinamentum proponere videntur cum dicunt: ‚Quidquid de deo dicitur vel intellegitur non secundum accidens sed secundum substantiam dicitur. Quapropter ingenitum esse patri secundum substantiam est, et genitum esse filio secundum substantiam est. Diversum est autem ingenitum esse et genitum esse; diversa est ergo substantia patris et filii.‘

Quibus respondemus: Si quidquid de deo dicitur secundum substantiam dicitur, ergo quod dictum est: Ego et pater unum sumus, secundum substantiam dictum est. Una est igitur substantia patris et filii. Aut si hoc non secundum substantiam dictum est, dicitur ergo aliquid de deo non secundum substantiam, et ideo iam non cogimur secundum substantiam intellegere ingenitum et genitum. Item dictum est de filio: Non rapinam arbitratus est esse aequalis deo. Quaerimus secundum quid aequalis. Si enim non secundum substantiam dicitur aequalis, admittunt ut dicatur aliquid de deo non secundum substantiam; admittant ergo non secundum substantiam dici ingenitum et genitum. Quod si propterea non admittunt quia omnia de deo secundum substantiam dici volunt, secundum substantiam filius aequalis est patri.

Traduction Masquer
The Fifteen Books of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop of Hippo, on the Trinity

Chapter 3.--The Argument of the Arians is Refuted, Which is Drawn from the Words Begotten and Unbegotten.

4. Wherefore,--to being now to answer the adversaries of our faith, respecting those things also, which are neither said as they are thought, nor thought as they really are:--among the many things which the Arians are wont to dispute against the Catholic faith, they seem chiefly to set forth this, as their most crafty device, namely, that whatsoever is said or understood of God, is said not according to accident, but according to substance, and therefore, to be unbegotten belongs to the Father according to substance, and to be begotten belongs to the Son according to substance; but to be unbegotten and to be begotten are different; therefore the substance of the Father and that of the Son are different. To whom we reply, If whatever is spoken of God is spoken according to substance, then that which is said, "I and the Father are one," ¹ is spoken according to substance. Therefore there is one substance of the Father and the Son. Or if this is not said according to substance, then something is said of God not according to substance, and therefore we are no longer compelled to understand unbegotten and begotten according to substance. It is also said of the Son, "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God." ² We ask, equal according to what? For if He is not said to be equal according to substance, then they admit that something may be said of God not according to substance. Let them admit, then, that unbegotten and begotten are not spoken according to substance. And if they do not admit this, on the ground that they will have all things to be spoken of God according to substance, then the Son is equal to the Father according to substance.