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

Facundus of Hermiane

In Defence of the Three Chapters 5

Latin original · 32 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss

5:1

Veri autem et proprii filii quis nisi absurdissimus neget vere et proprie esse matrem ? quod æque monstravimus magnæ synodi Chalcedonensis sententiæ convenire, et nos secundo partitionis loco promisimus asserturos. Insinuandum vero est quod hanc quoque confessionem qua beatam ManaiM vere et proprie dicimus matrem Dei, quidam etiam communicantes Ecclesiæ a putent non debere suscipi, cum Nestorium fateantur, propter quod eam matrem Dei negabat, debuisse damnari.

But who, save the most absurd, would deny that of a true and proper son there is a true and proper mother? This too we have shown equally to accord with the judgment of the great Council of Chalcedon, and we promised to assert it in the second place of our division. But it should be intimated that this confession also, by which we call blessed Mary truly and properly the Mother of God, some even who are in communion with the Church think ought not to be received—though they confess that Nestorius deserved to be condemned for the very reason that he denied her to be the Mother of God.

然而，除了最荒謬的人，誰會否認一個真實本來的兒子有一位真實本來的母親呢？這事我們已同樣表明與加采東大公會議的裁決相符，並且我們在劃分的第二處也曾應許要加以論證。但應當指出：這一信認，即我們真實地、本來地稱榮福瑪利亞為天主之母——有些甚至與教會共融的人，竟認為不該接納；雖然他們承認聶斯多留正是因為否認她是天主之母而理應被定罪。

5:2

Quibus, antequam Nestorianis respondeamus, respondendum I puto, sicut et in superiore quaestione jam factum est, quod omnino stullum ac turpe sit, et condemnationem probare Nestorii, ct beatam Mariam negare quod vere et proprie sit mater Dei. Nam si qua hinc esse potuit quaestio, cum ipso Neslorio simul exclusa est, qui eam matrem Dei esse negabat. Hoc enim et ad credendum difficile, et dignum controversia videbatur, utrum Deum illa virgo genuerit: cæterum quod vere et proprie genuerit, quidquid est ille quem genuit, nulli 2 dignum disceptationis apparet.

To these, before we answer the Nestorians, I think we must answer, as was already done in the previous question, that it is altogether foolish and shameful both to approve the condemnation of Nestorius and to deny that blessed Mary is truly and properly the Mother of God. For if any question could arise on this point, it was excluded together with Nestorius himself, who denied her to be the Mother of God. For this seemed both difficult to believe and worthy of controversy: whether that virgin gave birth to God; but that she truly and properly gave birth—whatever he is whom she bore—appears to no one worthy of dispute.

對這些人，在我們答覆聶斯多留派之前，我認為應當先答覆他們，正如在前面的問題中已經做過的：就是既贊同聶斯多留被定罪，又否認榮福瑪利亞真實地、本來地是天主之母，這實在是極愚昧而可恥的。因為若在這一點上曾可能有任何爭議，那爭議已隨聶斯多留本人一同被排除了，他正是否認她是天主之母的人。因為從前看來既難以相信、又值得爭辯的是：那童貞女是否生了天主；至於她真實地、本來地生了——無論她所生的那一位是誰——這在任何人看來都不值得爭辯。

5:3

Qui ergo concedunt quia Deum Virgo genuit, quod incapabile est, et unius singulariter matris, cur eam negant vere et proprie genuisse, quod commune omnibus matribus, et nullius dignum est quæstionis? Et audent insuper hoc, quod dicimus beatam Mariani vere et proprie matrem Dei, Eutychiano dogmati deputare, non intelligentes neque quæ loquuntur, sicut dicit Apostolus (I Tim. I, 7), neque de quibus aflirmant, cum sancta Chalcedonensis synodus, a qua ipse damnatus est Eutyches, sicut memoravimus (In allocut. ad Marcian.), dicat:

Those, then, who grant that the Virgin gave birth to God—a thing incomprehensible, and proper to one mother singularly—why do they deny that she truly and properly gave birth, which is common to all mothers and worthy of no question? And they moreover dare to ascribe this—our saying that blessed Mary is truly and properly the Mother of God—to the Eutychian dogma, understanding neither what they say, as the Apostle says (1 Tim. 1:7), nor whereof they affirm; whereas the holy Council of Chalcedon, by which Eutyches himself was condemned, as we have recalled (in the Allocution to Marcian), says:

那麼，那些承認童貞女生了天主（這是不可思議之事，且是唯獨一位母親所獨有的）的人，為什麼又否認她真實地、本來地生育——而生育乃一切母親所共有、不值得任何爭議的呢？他們甚至膽敢把我們所說「榮福瑪利亞真實地、本來地是天主之母」這話歸入歐迪奇派的教條，卻既不明白自己所說的，正如宗徒所言（弟前一7），也不明白自己所斷言的；而至聖的加采東公會議——歐迪奇本人正是被它定罪的，如我們所提及的（在致馬爾基安皇帝的演辭中）——卻說：

5:4

< Quomodo Dei genitrix sit virgo vocitata propter eum qui virginitatem ejus dignatus est etiam sacrare post partum, vulvamque, ut decebat Deum, integritate signare, quomodo secundum veritatem mater dicta sit propter carnem, quam ex se omnium Domino ministravit. » Cum igitur, ut isli Patres docuerunt, propterea secundum veritatem mater a dicta sit, quia carnem ex se omnium Domino ministravit, quod Eutyches negat, quomodo putatur Eutychiano dogmati deputandum, cui magis invenitur esse contrarium ? Non enim potest beatam Virginem vere et proprie dicere matrem Dei, sed nuncupative potius ac perfunctorie, quam non credit carnem cx se omnium Domino ministrasse.

'How the virgin was called Mother of God on account of him who deigned even to consecrate her virginity after childbirth, and to seal her womb, as befitted God, with integrity; how she was according to truth called mother on account of the flesh which she ministered from herself to the Lord of all.' Since therefore, as those Fathers taught, she was according to truth called mother for this reason, that she ministered flesh from herself to the Lord of all—which Eutyches denies—how is it thought that this should be ascribed to the Eutychian dogma, to which it is rather found to be contrary? For one cannot call the blessed Virgin truly and properly the Mother of God, but rather nominally and perfunctorily, who does not believe that she ministered flesh from herself to the Lord of all.

「那童貞女如何因著那一位而被稱為天主之母——那一位甚至俯允在她生產之後仍聖化她的童貞，並如天主所宜地以完整無損印證她的胎；她又如何按真理因著肉軀而被稱為母親，這肉軀是她從自己身上供給了萬有之主的。」既然如此，正如那些教父所教導的，她正是因為從自己身上把肉軀供給了萬有之主（這正是歐迪奇所否認的），才按真理被稱為母親，那麼怎能認為這話該歸入歐迪奇派的教條呢？其實反倒發現它與該教條相反。因為凡不相信她從自己身上把肉軀供給萬有之主的人，就不能真實地、本來地稱榮福童貞女為天主之母，而只能是名義上、敷衍地稱呼而已。

5:5

Non ergo Nestorianam tantum, verum etiam Eutychianam hæresim destruit ista confessio, qua dicitur beata Maria vere et proprie mater Dei. Quod si nos rectæ fidei esse non credunt, et aliquid suspicantur in bis verbis occulere, inquirant a nobis id ipsum quemadmodum volunt, et interrogationibus suis quid sentiamus eliciant. Si autem de rectitudine quidcm fidei nostrae non dubitant, sed putantes ipsam fidem rectam non rectia verbis pronuntiari, dicunt quod sensu quidem sumus perfecti, non autem sumus perfecti sententia, cum Apostolas in utroque nos hortetur perfectos 4 dicens: Sitis autem perfecti in eodem sensu et in eadem sentenlia (I Cor. i, 10):

This confession, therefore, by which blessed Mary is called truly and properly the Mother of God, destroys not only the Nestorian but also the Eutychian heresy. But if they do not believe us to be of right faith, and suspect that something is hidden in these words, let them inquire of us about this very thing in whatever way they wish, and by their questionings draw out what we hold. But if they do not doubt the rightness of our faith, yet, thinking that this right faith is not pronounced in right words, say that we are indeed perfect in mind but not perfect in expression—whereas the Apostle exhorts us to be perfect in both, saying: 'Be ye perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment' (1 Cor. 1:10):

因此，這一信認，即稱榮福瑪利亞真實地、本來地為天主之母，所摧毀的不僅是聶斯多留派異端，也包括歐迪奇派異端。倘若他們不信我們持守正信，並懷疑這些字句中隱藏了什麼，就讓他們隨意向我們查問此事本身，藉著他們的詰問引出我們的見解。但若他們對我們信仰的正確並不懷疑，卻以為這正確的信仰未以正確的字句表達出來，便說我們在見識上固然完備，在言詞上卻不完備——其實宗徒勸我們在兩方面都要完備，他說：「你們要在同一心意、同一見解上彼此團結」（格前一10）：

5:6

ipsi doceant quatenus illa Virgo, quod non abnuunt, mater Dei dicatur, utrum vere et proprie, an nuncupative et perfunctorie. Quod si dicunt non esse consequens ut, si vere et proprie non sit, nuncupative et perfunctorie sit mater Dei, ipsi dicant modum quo contra nos prædicanda sit mater Dei. Omnis enim qui alterius prædicationi repugnat, dicere debet aliquid quod aut contrarium ei sit aut diversum. Sicut 5 Arianis dicentibus quod minor Patre sit Filius, contra nos dicimus quod æqualis ci sit; sicut Manichæis dicentibus quod phantastica, id est falsa caro fuerit ejusdem Filii Dei, contra nos dicimus quod in vera carne homo fuerit factus:

let them themselves teach in what way that Virgin—whom, as they do not deny, is called Mother of God—is so called: whether truly and properly, or nominally and perfunctorily. But if they say that it does not follow that, if she be not so truly and properly, she be Mother of God nominally and perfunctorily, let them themselves state the manner in which, against us, she ought to be proclaimed Mother of God. For everyone who opposes another's proclamation ought to say something either contrary or different to it. As, when the Arians say that the Son is less than the Father, we say against them that he is equal to him; as, when the Manichees say that the flesh of the same Son of God was phantasmal, that is, false, we say against them that he was made man in true flesh:

就讓他們自己說明，那位童貞女（他們並不否認她被稱為天主之母）是以何種方式被如此稱呼：是真實地、本來地呢，還是名義上、敷衍地呢？倘若他們說，即使她不是真實地、本來地為天主之母，也不必然就是名義上、敷衍地為天主之母，那麼就讓他們自己說出，相對於我們，該以何種方式宣稱她為天主之母。因為凡反對他人所宣講之事的人，都應當提出某種與之相反或相異的說法。譬如亞略派說聖子小於聖父，我們便反駁說聖子與聖父平等；譬如摩尼派說同一位天主聖子的肉軀是幻影的、即虛假的肉軀，我們便反駁說他是在真實的肉軀中成了人：

5:7

atque ita et illi vicissim, impugnantes quod verum est atque catholicum, affirmant aliquid suum. Nec quisquam aliter doctrinæ resistit alterius, nisi contra aliquid dicat: cum vero aliquid contradixerit, tum demum si acceptabilis sit illa contradictio, disquiritur. Horum vero qui nos prohibent dicere vere et proprie matrem Dci Mariam, nec dicunt secundum quem modum dicenda sit mater Dei, non est quærendum si acceptabilis sit contradictio. Nam qui contra nihil dicunt, quomodo vel dicere videantur? Et ideo non tam laboriosum studio nostro est eorum absurditati resistere, quam existimationi periculosum, ne videamur superflue non contradicentibus respondere.

and so they too in turn, attacking what is true and catholic, affirm something of their own. Nor does anyone resist another's doctrine otherwise than by saying something against it; and when he has contradicted something, only then is it examined whether that contradiction is acceptable. But of these who forbid us to call Mary truly and properly the Mother of God, and yet do not say in what manner she ought to be called Mother of God, there is no question to be raised whether the contradiction is acceptable. For those who say nothing against us, how can they even seem to say anything? And therefore it is not so laborious for our diligence to resist their absurdity, as it is dangerous for our reputation, lest we seem needlessly to answer those who do not contradict.

如此，他們反過來，既攻擊那真實而公教的道理，也就肯定了自己的某種主張。任何人若要反對他人的道理，除非提出某種反對之說，否則便不算反對；而當他提出某種反駁之後，才會進而審查那反駁是否可以接受。然而對於這些禁止我們真實地、本來地稱瑪利亞為天主之母、卻又不說該以何種方式稱她為天主之母的人，就不必探究他們的反駁是否可以接受了。因為那些對我們毫無反對之言的人，又怎能算是說了什麼呢？因此，以我們的努力去抗拒他們的荒謬，與其說是辛勞，不如說是對我們聲譽有險：恐怕我們顯得多此一舉，去答覆那些根本沒有反對的人。

5:8

Quamvis autem negantes hoc nostrum quod dicimus, vere et proprie esse matrem Dei Mariam, nihil hactenus affirmaverint suum, interrogandi sunt tamen utrum, quod necessario sequitur, vel negare audeant quod nos prohibent confiteri ut addila negatione dicant eam non vere et proprie matrem Dei. Et jam non dicam aures catholicorum, sed frons illorum ferat, si potest, hanc profanam et detestabilem vocem. Si autem non audent dicere, Non vere ct proprie mater est Dei, cur nos prohibent confiteri quod negare non audent?

But although those who deny this assertion of ours—that Mary is truly and properly the Mother of God—have hitherto affirmed nothing of their own, they must nevertheless be asked whether, as necessarily follows, they dare even to deny what they forbid us to confess, so as, with the negation added, to say that she is not truly and properly the Mother of God. And now—I will not say the ears of Catholics—but let their own brow bear, if it can, this profane and detestable utterance. But if they dare not say, 'She is not truly and properly the Mother of God,' why do they forbid us to confess what they dare not deny?

然而，那些否認我們所說「瑪利亞真實地、本來地是天主之母」的人，至今雖未提出自己的任何主張，仍應問他們：照必然的推論，他們是否竟敢否認我們所信認的，以致加上否定詞而說她「並非真實地、本來地是天主之母」。如今，且不說公教信徒的耳朵，就連他們自己的臉面，若能夠的話，又怎能承受這褻瀆而可憎的言語呢？但若他們不敢說「她並非真實地、本來地是天主之母」，那麼為什麼又禁止我們信認他們所不敢否認的呢？

5:9

Cognoscant igilur cum sancta synodo, cujus se profitentur decreta suscipere, quod propterea beata illa Virgo secundum veritatem mater dicta sit Dei, quoniam carnem ex so omnium Domino ministravit, et non se dicant Eutychianis repugnare, negantes vere et proprio matrem Dei Mariam, cum potius eis nescii favere monstrentur, resistendo sententiæ synodi Chalcedonensis, in qua damnati sunt, et negando quod eorum est vanitati contrarium. Illud etiam caveant Nestorianorum experti perfidiam, quibus pro hac quoque confessione jam respondere debemus, ne quasi pro naturarum discretione dicentes quod non homo Christus Jesus, sed Deus Verbum proprius et verus sit filius Dci;

Let them therefore acknowledge, together with the holy synod whose decrees they profess to accept, that the blessed Virgin was according to truth called Mother of God for this reason, that she ministered flesh from herself to the Lord of all; and let them not say that they oppose the Eutychians by denying Mary to be truly and properly the Mother of God, when they are rather shown unknowingly to favor them, by resisting the judgment of the Council of Chalcedon (in which they were condemned), and by denying what is contrary to the Eutychians' vanity. Let them also beware, having experienced the perfidy of the Nestorians—to whom for this confession too we must now answer—lest, as if for the sake of the distinction of natures, saying that not the man Christ Jesus, but God the Word, is the own and true Son of God;

因此，讓他們與那他們聲稱接納其決議的至聖公會議一同承認：那榮福童貞女正是因為從自己身上把肉軀供給了萬有之主，才按真理被稱為天主之母；也不要說他們否認瑪利亞真實地、本來地為天主之母是在反對歐迪奇派，因為這反倒顯出他們在不知不覺中偏袒了歐迪奇派——因他們抗拒了那定他們罪的加采東公會議的裁決，又否認了那與歐迪奇派的妄謬相反的道理。他們也當提防——既已領教過聶斯多留派的奸詐（為這信認我們如今也須答覆聶斯多留派）——免得他們彷彿為了本性的區分，說「不是人基督耶穌，而是天主聖言，才是天主本來的、真實的兒子」；