← All books · Latin Fathers › In Defence of the Three Chapters

Facundus of Hermiane

In Defence of the Three Chapters 29

Latin original · 23 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss

29:1

Age nunc illud etiam quod superest, probare incipimus et ostendere quam indigne de sententia super epistola venerabilis Ib.e prolata Chalcedonensis synodus accusetur. Namque cum eamdem magnam synodum praedictus Ibas episcopus adiret, conquerens ac deplorans injustitiam se ab Eutyche et falsa crimina pertulisse, atque in Ephesina secunda synodo a non dicenda absentem et innoxium, sicut idoneorum documentorum testificatio demonstrabat, sub Dioscoro, Entychis atque Eutychiani dogmatis defensore, fuisse damnatum, et in quadraginta mansiones per diversas distractum provincias, viginti et amplius carceres mutasse. Hæc ' acclamantibus episcopis, et dicentibus: Absentem nemo condemnat;

Come now, let us begin to prove and to show that remaining point also: how undeservedly the Council of Chalcedon is accused concerning the sentence pronounced about the letter of the venerable Ibas. For when the aforesaid bishop Ibas approached that same great synod, complaining and lamenting that he had suffered injustice and false charges from Eutyches, and that at the Second Council of Ephesus — though absent and innocent, as the testimony of suitable documents demonstrated — he had been condemned, under Dioscorus the defender of Eutyches and of the Eutychian dogma, by that council which is not to be named, and had been dragged through forty halting-places across various provinces, and had been moved through twenty and more prisons. At these things the bishops cried out, saying: No one condemns a man in his absence;

現在，讓我們也開始證明並顯明所餘的那一點：迦克墩會議因論到可敬伊巴書信所宣布的判決而受指控，是何等不應當。因為當前述的伊巴主教前往那同一偉大會議，控訴並痛陳他從歐迪奇手中所受的不義與虛假的罪名，又陳明他在第二次以弗所會議上——雖如合宜文獻的見證所示，本是缺席且無辜的——卻在歐迪奇及歐迪奇教義的維護者狄奧斯庫若手下、被那不該提名的會議定了罪，並被拖經四十處驛站、輾轉各省，換押過二十多座監牢。眾主教為此高聲呼喊說：無人定缺席者的罪；

29:2

male fecerunt qui eum præter canones damnaverunt; quæ adversus absentem facta sunt evacuentur: hæc omnes dicimus, nemo condemnat absentem. Postea Theopbilus diaconus, qui inter alios ipsius vencrabilis Ibæ adversarios existebat, contra protulit gesta, quibus cum eo fuerant apud Photium et Eustachium 2 atque Uranium episcopos, ex dclegato Theodosii principis altercati: earum se lectione promittens ostendere, quod non injuria condemnatus fuerit. In quo Photii et Eustachii atque Uranii judicio jactavcrant accusatores, memoratum episcopum Ibam se probaturos Nestorianum: idque conficere nitebantur ex epistola quam aliquando scripserat ad Marim aliquem Persam:

those did wrong who condemned him contrary to the canons; let the things done against an absent man be annulled: this we all say, no one condemns the absent. Afterward Theophilus the deacon, who was among the other adversaries of that venerable Ibas, brought forth in opposition the acts in which they had contended with him before the bishops Photius and Eustathius and Uranius, by delegation of the emperor Theodosius: promising to show by the reading of them that he had not been condemned unjustly. In that judgment of Photius and Eustathius and Uranius the accusers had boasted that they would prove the aforesaid bishop Ibas a Nestorian; and this they strove to accomplish from a letter which he had once written to a certain Maris, a Persian:

『那些違反教規定他罪的人作了惡；凡對缺席者所作的，都當作廢：』我們眾人都這樣說，無人定缺席者的罪。後來，執事提阿非羅——他是可敬伊巴眾敵中的一個——提出相反的記錄，就是他們從前奉皇帝狄奧多西委派、在主教弗提烏、優斯塔修和烏拉尼烏面前與他爭訟的案卷：他應許藉宣讀這些案卷，顯明他並非不公地被定罪。在弗提烏、優斯塔修和烏拉尼烏的那次審判中，控告者曾誇口要證明前述主教伊巴為涅斯多留派；他們竭力要從他從前寫給某波斯人馬里斯的一封書信中證實這事：

29:3

eo quod in illa viderctur de beato Cyrillo, Nestorii damnature, aliter quam res habuit pro suspicione sua locutus, quæ illi, sicut primo l.bro docuimus, communis erat cum Orientalibus aliarumque provinciarum episcopis. Quemadmodum vero in ipso Photii et Eustachii, Uraniique judicio, pro eadem sua epistola Nestorianus judicari non potuit, quoniam baec fieri non sinebat fidei recta confessio, quæ ibidem continetur: ita nec apud magnam synodum condemnatus est, cum ibi ex eisdem gestis, ab ejus adversario prolatis, supradicta relegeretur epistola, sed ex ejus est magis tenore purgatus.

because in that letter he seemed to have spoken concerning blessed Cyril, the condemner of Nestorius, otherwise than the matter stood, according to his own suspicion — which, as we taught in the first book, was common to him with the bishops of the East and of other provinces. But just as in that very judgment of Photius and Eustathius and Uranius he could not be judged a Nestorian on account of that same letter of his — since the right confession of faith contained therein did not allow this to happen — so neither was he condemned before the great synod, when there, from those same acts brought forward by his adversary, the aforesaid letter was read again; but rather he was cleared by the very tenor of it.

就是因為在那書信中，他似乎按自己的疑慮，論到那定涅斯多留之罪的至福的區利羅，所說與事實不符——而這疑慮，正如我們在第一卷所教導的，是他與東方並其他各省主教所共有的。然而正如在弗提烏、優斯塔修和烏拉尼烏的那次審判中，他不能因這同一封書信被判為涅斯多留派——因為其中所含正確的信仰認信不容此事發生——照樣，在那偉大的會議前他也未被定罪；因為在那裡，當從他敵人所提出的那同一案卷中重讀前述書信時，他反倒因該信本身的內容得了開脫。

29:4

Nam sic duas naturas in ea confessus est, quod Eutychianos offendit, unde et condemnari eam quæsierunt, ut etiam, quod Nestorianos impugnat, unam confiteatur 3 esse personam, quod est unus Filius Dominus Jesus Christus. Porro Eutychiani, volentes ejusdem sanctæ synodi auctoritatem infringere, simulant in. juriam se dolere beati Cyrilli, et hinc eam culpabi. lem dicunt, quod prædictam epistolam pronuntiavit orthodoxam. Addunt et alia in reprehensionem ipsius epistolæ, quæ nec ipsi accusatores Ibæ, quamvis calumniosi ac pertinaces, in tantis qua; sunt experti judiciis, aliquando aut alicubi objecisse monstrantur, nec erubescunt impudentiores toties refutatis accusatoribus inveniri.

For he so confessed two natures in it — which offended the Eutychians, whence they sought to have it condemned — that also, in opposing the Nestorians, he confesses there to be one person, which is the one Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore the Eutychians, wishing to break the authority of that same holy synod, pretend that they grieve over injury done to blessed Cyril, and on this ground they call it blameworthy: that it pronounced the aforesaid letter orthodox. They add other things too in reproach of that letter — things which not even the accusers of Ibas themselves, however slanderous and obstinate, are shown ever or anywhere to have objected in the so many trials they underwent; nor do they blush to be found more shameless than accusers so often refuted.

因為他在信中如此認信兩性，以致冒犯了歐迪奇派（他們因此尋求定它的罪），同時又在駁斥涅斯多留派時，認信只有一個位格，這位格就是獨一之子、主耶穌基督。再者，歐迪奇派想要破壞那同一聖會議的權威，便假裝為至福的區利羅所受的傷害憂傷，並以此稱它有罪，因它宣布前述書信為正統。他們還在責難這書信時加上別的話——這些話連伊巴的控告者本身，雖然滿口讒言又頑固，在他們所經歷如此眾多的審判中，也未曾在任何時候、任何地方被指出提出過；而他們竟不以比屢屢被駁倒的控告者更無恥而臉紅。

29:5

Nam illi hoc solum prædicto Ibx episeopo ex memorata ejus epistola objecerunt, volentes eum Nestorianum videri, quod in ea beato Cyrillo Nestorii condemnatori detraxerit: cæterorum vero, quæ isti nunc adjiciunt, nec qualemcunque mentionem facere præsumpserunt: quæ nos, omni tenore proposito ipsius epistolae, ex ordine refellemus. Sed videtur nobis quod prius breviter quædam dicere debeamus de hoc quo jaclatur vituperationem beati Cyrilli synodus approbasse, et de quo illam maxime ac principaliter adversarii criminantes vel scandalizant, vel si hoc non possunt, exagitant minus instructos:

For they objected only this one thing to the aforesaid bishop Ibas out of his aforementioned letter — wishing him to be seen as a Nestorian — namely, that in it he disparaged blessed Cyril, the condemner of Nestorius; but of the other things which these men now add, they did not presume to make any mention whatever: which we shall refute in order, having set forth the whole tenor of the letter itself. But it seems to us that we ought first to say briefly certain things about this, on which it is boasted that the synod approved a vituperation of blessed Cyril, and on which the adversaries, leveling charges, chiefly and principally either scandalize others, or, if they cannot do this, agitate the less instructed:

因為那些人從他前述書信中只向前述主教伊巴提出這一項控告——意欲使他被看作涅斯多留派——就是他在信中詆毀了那定涅斯多留之罪的至福的區利羅；至於這些人如今所添加的其餘各項，他們卻不敢作絲毫的提及：這些我們將擺出該書信的全部內容，按次序加以駁斥。但我們以為，當先簡略說幾句關於這一點——就是人所誇稱會議核准了對至福的區利羅的詆毀，以及敵人為此尤其首要地提出控告，藉以絆倒人，或在不能如此時，便擾動那些較缺教導的人：

29:6

quorum aliqui, licet eamdem sanctam synodum pro suæ fidei pictate ac devotione defendant, tamen quia dare non possunt exitum quaestioni, persuadentibus hæreticorum fautoribus, asserunt non ab ea fuisse susceptam. Nos autem evidentis menda. cli et ab adversariis ministrati suffragium pudet; quod si evidens non fuisset, indignum esse debuit Christianæ conscientiæ mendaciter defendere veritatem. Habet enim suas assertiones veritas, non a mendacio mutuatas, quibus testimonio conscientiæ non repugnet, et invicta permanens adversariorum calumnias frangat: quas si quis invenire non potest, tacere potius eligat quam mentiri, et sola sit decretorum auctoritate contentus.

Some of these men, although they defend that same holy Synod out of love and devotion for their faith, nevertheless, because they cannot find an answer to the question, are persuaded by the abettors of the heretics and assert that the letter was not received by it. But we are ashamed of a clear-cut support that is supplied even by our adversaries; for if it had not been evident, it would have been unworthy of a Christian conscience to defend the truth by lying. For the truth has its own assertions, not borrowed from falsehood, by which it does not contradict the testimony of conscience, and remaining unconquered shatters the calumnies of its adversaries. And if anyone cannot find these, let him choose rather to keep silent than to lie, and let him be content with the authority of the decrees alone.

這些人中有些，雖然出於對信德的虔愛與熱忱而為那同一聖會辯護，然而因為他們無法給這問題一個解答，便受異端之黨羽慫恿，主張那封書信並非為大公會議所接納。但我們對於連敵對者也供給的一種明顯支持感到羞愧；因為倘若此事本不明確，基督徒的良心以謊言來維護真理便是可恥的。因為真理自有其論據，並非向虛謊借來，這些論據不與良心的見證相牴觸，且常存不敗，能粉碎敵人的誣謗；若有人找不到這些論據，寧可選擇緘默，也勝過撒謊，並當以諸決議的權威為滿足。

29:7

Nam si nos haeretici viderint in rebus perspicuis suo uti mendacio, quales nos in aliis putabunt, quae videntur obscura? Et ideo jam, religiose imperator, attende quam former ealumnias haereticorum et sine ulla difficultate dissolvam, exempla proferens divinae Scripturae, quomodo a majore et meliore parte de multis soleat ferre sententiam: eujus formam sicuti in omnibus sancta synodus Chalcedonensis secuta est, ut epistolam venerabilis Ibæ, quamvis de beato Cyrillo aliter quam res habuit suspicantis, tamen pro vera fidei confessione qnaiu de Christo tenet 1, orthodoxam judicaret. Sic regem Jnda Asa, quem scimus non in parvis nec in paucis fuisse culpatum, cadem Scriptura laudavit:

For if the heretics see us using our falsehood in matters that are clear, what will they suppose us to be in other matters that seem obscure? And therefore now, O religious Emperor, attend to how I shall fashion the calumnies of the heretics and dissolve them without any difficulty, bringing forward examples from divine Scripture: namely, how Scripture is accustomed to pass judgment on many things according to the greater and better part. The holy Synod of Chalcedon followed this pattern in all things, so that it might judge the letter of the venerable Ibas to be orthodox on account of the true confession of faith which it holds concerning Christ, even though its author suspected something other than the truth regarding the blessed Cyril. Thus the very Scripture praised King Asa of Judah, whom we know to have been blamed not in small matters nor in few:

因為倘若異端者見我們在明白的事上用謊言，他們又會怎樣看待我們在那些似乎隱晦之事上的態度呢？所以如今，虔敬的皇帝啊，請留意我將如何陳列異端者的誣謗，並毫無困難地予以化解，引用神聖經卷的事例，說明聖經如何慣於依較大且較佳的部分對眾多事物作出判斷；迦克墩聖會在凡事上遵循這一範式，故此判定可敬之伊巴斯的書信為正統，乃因其中所持關於基督的真信德告白，縱然其作者對有福的區利羅所臆度的與事實不符。聖經正是如此稱讚了猶大王亞撒，我們知道他並非在小事或少數事上受責備：

29:8

cujus quae fuerint culpæ prius memorare debemus, ac deinde quomodo ab ca fuerit prædicatus. Primum itaque dicitur, quia illi commune cum multis regibus fuit, quia non destruxit excelsa (III Reg. xv, 14): in quibus licet Domino sacrificaretur, contra ejus tamen præceptum fiebat, quia in templo sibi sacrificari præceperat. Deinde quia dato argento et auro quod inventum est in thesauris domus regis, contra Basa regem Israel regis Syriæ male quæsivit auxilium (Ibid., 18): unde cum et increpavit Anania prophola, dicens quod insipienter egerit confisus in regem Syriæ, et non in Dominum Deum suum (II Paral. xvi, 7).

We ought first to recall what his faults were, and then how he was nevertheless commended by Scripture. First, then, it is said that he had a fault common with many kings, namely that he did not destroy the high places (1 Kings 15:14); upon which, although sacrifice was offered to the Lord, it was nevertheless done against His commandment, for He had commanded that sacrifice be offered to Him in the temple. Next, that having given the silver and gold which was found in the treasuries of the king's house, he wickedly sought the aid of the king of Syria against Baasha king of Israel (ibid. 18); for which the prophet Hanani rebuked him, saying that he had acted foolishly in trusting in the king of Syria and not in the Lord his God (2 Chron. 16:7).

我們應當先述說他有哪些過失，然後再說他如何受到聖經的稱讚。所以首先說到，他有一過失與許多君王相同，就是他沒有除掉邱壇（列王紀上十五14）；在那些邱壇上雖然是向上主獻祭，卻仍是違背祂的命令而行，因為祂曾吩咐當在聖殿中向祂獻祭。其次，他將王宮府庫中所找到的金銀拿出，惡意地求亞蘭王的幫助來對抗以色列王巴沙（同上18節）；先見哈拿尼為此責備他，說他依靠亞蘭王而不依靠上主他的神，行事愚昧（歷代志下十六7）。

29:9

Insuper quia et ipsum Ananiam propbelam, propter quod eum arguerat, indignatus tradidit in custodiam nervi. Postremo de illo Scriptura dicit: Et infirmatum est AMa in anno trigesimo et nono regni sui dolore pedum vehementi; verum neque in ægrotatione sua quæsivit Dominum, sed medicos (Ibid., 12). In quo non propterea credimus esse culpatum, qood ordinatum a Deo medicorum solatium requisivit, sed quia sic in illorum arte confisus est, ut ipsorum potius quam Dei per ipsos exspectaret auxilium.

Moreover, because of the very thing for which the prophet Hanani had reproved him, he in his indignation cast that same prophet into prison stocks. Finally, Scripture says of him: And Asa fell sick in the thirty-ninth year of his reign with a severe disease of his feet; yet even in his sickness he sought not the Lord, but physicians (ibid. 12). In which we do not believe him to be blamed for this reason, that he sought the comfort of physicians ordained by God, but because he so trusted in their skill that he expected help from them rather than from God through them.

此外，他因哈拿尼先見責備過他的緣故，便惱怒，把那同一位先見下在監牢的木狗裡。最後，聖經論到他說：亞撒作王第三十九年，他的腳患病甚重；可是他患病的時候，並不尋求上主，只尋求醫生（同上12節）。我們並不認為他在此事上受責備，是因他尋求了神所設立的醫生之安慰，乃是因他如此倚賴醫生的醫術，以致他指望從醫生本身得幫助，而非藉醫生從神得幫助。