拉丁教父 › 為三章辯護
赫爾米安的法昆杜斯
為三章辯護 第 32 章
拉丁文原文．20 節．部分字詞可點開查義
32:1
Hæc autem dicta sunt, non quod de Christo, sed quod de ipso beato Cyrillo venerabilis Ibas male credideril i nec quod prædicatoris de Christiana fide confessio, sed quod hominis de homine suspicio displiceat in ejus epistola. Cui enim potest catholico displicere differentia naturalis inter templum ct inhabitantem in eo, cum Dei Ecclesia sic confiteatur Verbum carnem factum, ut non deneget, quod ibi sub.. junctum est, quia et habitavit in nobis? Nam Verbum quidem caro factum est, quia sempiternus Filius, qui Verbum est Patris, ipse in plenitudine temporum factus est homo;
然而說這些話,並非因可敬的以巴斯對基督存了不好的看法,乃是對那蒙福的西里耳本人;也並非他信中作為宣道者對基督信仰的承認,乃是其中一個人對另一個人的猜疑,令人不悅。因為對哪一個大公信徒而言,聖殿與住在其中者之間本性的分別會令人不悅呢?既然神的教會如此承認道成了肉身,以致不否認那裡所接著說的,即「並且住在我們中間」?因為道確實成了肉身,因為那永恆的子,就是父的道,他自己在時候滿足時成了人;
But these things have been said, not that the venerable Ibas believed ill concerning Christ, but concerning the very blessed Cyril; nor that the confession of a preacher concerning the Christian faith, but that the suspicion of a man concerning a man, displeases in his letter. For to what catholic can the natural difference between the temple and him who dwells within it be displeasing, since the Church of God so confesses that the Word was made flesh that it does not deny what is there subjoined, namely, that 'he also dwelt among us'? For the Word indeed was made flesh, because the eternal Son, who is the Word of the Father, himself in the fulness of times was made man;
32:2
habitavit autem in nobis, quia nullam conversionem sustinuit inconvertibilis ejus divinitas, bed manens quod erat, naturam inhabitavit assumptam. Et ideo, Verbum caro factum est, Nestorianos eipugnat; Eutychianos autem vel Apolinaristas eorum progenitores, et habitavit in nobis: quia Verbum caro factum est, unam significat esse personam; habitavit autem in nobis, duas mansisse naturas. Non enim possunt duæ esse personæ, quando is qui Verbum est, ipse etiam factus est caro; aut duae non esse naturae, quando aliud sit quod inhabitat, et aliud quod inhabitatur.
但他住在我們中間,因為他不可變的神性並未經歷任何變更,乃是保持其本然,內住於所取的本性。因此,「道成了肉身」攻擊涅斯多留派;而「並且住在我們中間」則攻擊歐迪奇派,或他們的始祖亞波里拿留派:因為「道成了肉身」表明只有一個位格;而「住在我們中間」則表明二性常存。因為既然那作為道者自身也成了肉身,就不可能有兩個位格;既然內住者是一,被內住者是另一,就不可能沒有二性。
but he dwelt among us, because his unchangeable divinity underwent no conversion, but remaining what it was, indwelt the assumed nature. And therefore, 'the Word was made flesh' assails the Nestorians; but 'and he dwelt among us' assails the Eutychians, or the Apollinarists their progenitors: because 'the Word was made flesh' signifies that there is one person; but 'he dwelt among us' signifies that two natures remained. For there cannot be two persons, when he who is the Word himself was also made flesh; nor can there fail to be two natures, when one is that which indwells, and another that which is indwelt.
32:3
Si quis autem non declinans in alterutram partem, sine contentione rem quærat, inveniet quod tam sanctorum orientalium Patrum, quamvis de beato Cyrillo male sentirent, quam ipsius beati Cyrilli, eadem fuerit semper intentio, ut Dominum unum Jesum Christum docerent in duabus naturis, id est divinitate atque humanitate perfectum: ne aut propterea duæ personæ crederentur, quia duæ naturae sunt; aut propterea una crederetur esse natura, quia una persona.
但若有人不偏向任何一方,毫無爭競地探究此事,他必發現:那些聖潔的東方教父——儘管他們對蒙福的西里耳存有惡感——與蒙福的西里耳本人,其本意始終是一樣的:即教導那獨一的主耶穌基督在二性中,就是在神性與人性中,是完全的;免得或因有二性便信有兩個位格,或因有一個位格便信只有一性。
But if anyone, not inclining to either side, should seek the matter without contention, he will find that the intention both of the holy Eastern Fathers—although they thought ill of the blessed Cyril—and of the blessed Cyril himself was always the same: namely, to teach that the one Lord Jesus Christ is perfect in two natures, that is, in divinity and in humanity; lest either two persons be believed, because there are two natures, or one nature be believed, because there is one person.
32:4
Contigit autem nonnunquam inter unius sententiae viros, ut cum de rebus ipsis quæ in quæstione sunt idem sapiunt, de se tamen invicem aliud suspicentur, cum vel a dicente minus aperitur verbis quod corde conceptum est, vel ab audientibus minus inspicitur dicentis intentio. Discernenda est autem impietas qua de Deo male creditur, ab ignorantia qua quisque aliter de suo prolimo, tanquam homo de homine suspicatur. Et, si forte videtur hominis de homine culpanda suspicio, approbanda tamen cst intentio qua veritas fidei quam de Christo habemus asseritur.
但在心思一致的人中間,有時竟會發生這樣的事:雖然他們對所討論的事本身存有相同的看法,卻彼此猜疑出別的意思,或因說話者用言詞太少地表露了心中所構想的,或因聽者太少地看出說話者的本意。如今,當把那對神存有惡信的不虔,與那人對人、如同人對鄰舍另存猜疑的無知,加以分別。倘若一個人對另一個人的猜疑或許可責,然而那藉以堅持我們所持有的關於基督的真信仰的本意,卻當得稱許。
But it sometimes happens among men of one mind that, although they think the same concerning the very things which are in question, they nevertheless suspect something different about one another, either because what is conceived in the heart is too little laid open by the speaker in words, or because the intention of the speaker is too little perceived by the hearers. Now the impiety by which one believes ill of God must be distinguished from the ignorance by which anyone suspects otherwise about his neighbor, as man about man. And if perchance a man's suspicion about a man seems blameworthy, yet the intention is to be approved by which the truth of the faith which we hold concerning Christ is asserted.
32:5
Hanc intentionem volentes obscurare novæ diligentiæ repertores, quomodo totum fideliter ac simpliciter agunt, cum posuissent ex illa epistola quod ibi dictum est: < Conscripsit enim et ipse similiter illi, quia ipse Deus Verbum factus est homo, > transilierunt quod sequitur, < tanquam non sit differentia inter templum et inhabitantem in eo. » Cujus rei causa putamus ? Nunquid ideo quia istæ paucissimæ syllabæ prolixitatem facerent? an ideo potius quia manifeste intentionem oicentis ostenderent? 0 fides ! o integritas: o conscientia recte tractantium sermonem vcritalis! Possunt isti profecto cum Apostolo dicere:
這些自詡為新勤勉之發現者,想要遮蔽這本意——他們行事何等忠實又何等坦率啊!——當他們從那書信中列出那裡所說的「因為他也照樣寫信給那人,說神道自身成了人」之後,便跳過了接下來的「彷彿聖殿與住在其中者之間並無分別」。我們想這是為了甚麼緣故呢?莫非是因為這寥寥幾個音節會使敘述冗長?還是寧可因為這幾個字會明白地顯出說話者的本意?哦,信實啊!哦,正直啊!哦,那些正確講解真理之道者的良心啊!這些人實在能與使徒一同說:
Wishing to obscure this intention, those discoverers of a new diligence—how faithfully and simply they act!—when they had set down from that letter what was there said, 'For he too wrote in like manner to that man, that God the Word himself was made man,' leaped over what follows, 'as though there were no difference between the temple and him who dwells within it.' For what cause, do we suppose? Was it because these very few syllables would have caused prolixity? Or rather because they would manifestly have shown the intention of the speaker? O faith! O integrity! O conscience of those who rightly handle the word of truth! These men can assuredly say with the Apostle:
32:6
Abdicamus occulta dedecoris, non ambulantes in astutia, neque adulterantes verbum Dei, sed in manifestatione veritatis commendantes nosmetipsos ad omnem conscientiam hominum coram Deo (II Cor. IV, 2). Verum in hoc quoque deprehensis ac proditis eorum fraudi us, attende, obsecro, serenissime imperator, quomodo ex aliis quæ sequuntur etiam 1 manifestum fiat, quod non conlra fidem quam de Christo habcmus reverentissimus Ibas in sua epis:ola sii locutus; sed intentionem beati Cyrilli minus intellexerit in ejus capitulis. Nam sequitur adhuc dii ens, quemadmodum integer ipsius epistolæ tenor habet:
「我們棄絕那些可恥的隱情,不行詭詐,不謬講神的道理,只將真理表明出來,好在神面前把自己薦與各人的良心」(林後四2)。但即使在此,他們的詭詐既已被察出揭穿,我懇求至尊嚴的皇帝,請留意:從接下來的其他話語中,同樣顯明那最可敬的以巴斯在他信中所說的,並非反對我們所持有的關於基督的信仰,乃是太少地理解了蒙福西里耳在其諸章中的本意。因為他照他整封書信的全部脈絡,接著還說:
'We renounce the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every conscience of men in the sight of God' (2 Cor. 4:2). But in this also, their frauds having been detected and betrayed, attend, I beseech you, most serene emperor, how from the other things that follow it likewise becomes manifest that the most reverend Ibas, in his letter, spoke not against the faith which we hold concerning Christ, but understood too little the intention of the blessed Cyril in his chapters. For he goes on still further, saying, as the whole tenor of his letter has it:
32:7
< Conscripsit enim 12 capitula, quæ puto et tuam reverentiam cognovisse, quia una natura est deitatis et humanitatis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et quia, sicut dicit, non oportet dividere voces dictas, quas vel ip-e Dominus de semetipso dixit, vel evangelistæ de eo.
「因為他撰寫了十二章,我想閣下的可敬亦已得知,即:我們的主耶穌基督的神性與人性只有一性,並且如他所說,不該將所說的話分開——無論是主自己論到自己所說的,還是福音書作者論到他所說的。」
'For he composed twelve chapters, which I think your reverence too has come to know, namely, that there is one nature of the deity and the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that, as he says, one ought not to divide the sayings which were spoken—those which either the Lord himself spoke concerning himself, or the evangelists concerning him.'
32:8
» Cui non appareat quia, sicut dictum est, non incarnatio is Christi mysterium, sed intentionem beati Cyrilli minus intellexerit reverentissimus Ibas quem, sicut alii quoque orientales Patres et ipsi qui cum venerari se fingunt Acephali, arbitratus est unam deitatis et humanitatis Domini nostri Jesu Christi prædicasse natnram, ct dixisse quia non oportet fecundum naturas dividere voces dictas, quas vel ipse Dominus de se, vel evangelistæ de eo dixerunt ? Denique etiam hoc ab illo per venerabilem Paulum Emcsenum 2 expetiverunt, ut in scriptis apertissime fateretur: quod et venerabilis Ibas in eadem epistola sua narravit, ubi de sancto Joanne Antiocheno dixit:
對誰而言不顯而易見呢?正如所說的,那最可敬的以巴斯太少理解的,並非基督道成肉身的奧祕,乃是蒙福西里耳的本意——以巴斯如同其他東方教父,又如那些假裝尊崇他的無首派(Acephali)一樣,判斷他宣講了我們的主耶穌基督的神性與人性只有一性,並說不該按本性將所說的話分開——無論是主自己論到自己所說的,還是福音書作者論到他所說的。末了,他們甚至藉著可敬的以梅撒的保羅向他要求這一點,叫他在文字中極其明白地承認;這也是可敬的以巴斯在他同一封書信中所記述的,他在那裡論到聖安提阿的約翰說:
To whom would it not be apparent that, as has been said, it was not the mystery of Christ's incarnation, but the intention of the blessed Cyril, that the most reverend Ibas understood too little—he whom, like the other Eastern Fathers and like those very Acephali who pretend to venerate him, he judged to have proclaimed one nature of the deity and the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to have said that one ought not to divide according to natures the sayings which were spoken, those which either the Lord himself spoke concerning himself, or the evangelists concerning him? Finally, they even demanded this of him through the venerable Paul of Emesa, that he should most openly confess it in writing: which the venerable Ibas too narrated in the same letter of his, where he spoke concerning the holy John of Antioch:
32:9
« Postquam litteras imperatoris accepit, sanctissimum et reverentissimum Paulum Emesenum direxit episcopum, scribens per eum veram fidem, et præcipiens ei, quia si huic fidei Cyrillus consentiret, et anathematizaret eos qui dicunt quia deitas passa est, vel dicentes quia una natura est deitatis et humanitatis, ut communicaret ei. » Sane quoniam beatis Cyrillus, Orientalium legatione suscepta, magis quod a consacerdotibus suis expetebatur festinavit implere, quam dictorum suorum in quibus offensi fuerant, sufficientem purgationem facere; ideo putatus est, veluti pristino errore damnato, Orientalium admonitione conversus:
「他既接到皇帝的書信,就差派那至聖至可敬的以梅撒主教保羅,藉他寫去真信仰,並囑咐他:若西里耳同意這信仰,並咒詛那些說神性受苦的人,或說神性與人性只有一性的人,他就與西里耳相交。」誠然,既然蒙福的西里耳接受了東方人的使團,他寧可急於成全他的同為祭司者向他所要求的,而非為他自己那些令他們不悅的言論作出足夠的洗刷;因此他便被認為,彷彿定了自己從前的謬誤之罪,因東方人的勸誡而回轉了:
'After he had received the emperor's letter, he sent the most holy and most reverend Paul, bishop of Emesa, writing through him the true faith, and charging him that, if Cyril should consent to this faith, and should anathematize those who say that the deity suffered, or who say that there is one nature of the deity and the humanity, he should hold communion with him.' Indeed, since the blessed Cyril, having received the embassy of the Easterns, hastened rather to fulfill what was demanded of him by his fellow-priests than to make a sufficient purgation of his own sayings in which they had taken offense, he was for this reason supposed, as though having condemned his former error, to have been converted by the admonition of the Easterns:
32:10
cum ille recuperandæ unitatis cupidus, in defensione dictorum suorum noluerit immorari, ne cum probare diu contendit quod non, ut putabatur, ab eo fuerint dicta, de quibus minus intelligentes aliter sentiebant, controversiae bac dissensione I terminus non daretur. Quod item illis verbis reverentissimus Ibas ostendit, quibus sequenter eumdem beatum Cyrillum retulit sine fatigatione Orientalium fidei consensisse, et hanc suscepisse, atque omnes qui absque hac crederent anathetnatizassc. Sed nunquid beatum Cyrillum putasse conIeCtum, Nestorianum csl crimen?
因為那渴望恢復合一的人,不願在為自己言論的辯護上耽延,免得當他長久爭辯,要證明那些話並非如人所想是出於他口、以致那些理解不足者另有看法時,這場爭端竟因這分歧而得不到了結。這同一件事,那最可敬的以巴斯也藉那些話表明出來,他在其中接著報導:同一位蒙福的西里耳毫不厭倦地同意了東方人的信仰,並接納了它,且咒詛了一切偏離此信仰的人。但認為蒙福的西里耳已回轉,難道就是涅斯多留派的罪嗎?
since that man, desirous of recovering unity, was unwilling to dwell upon the defense of his own sayings, lest, while he should contend long to prove that those things were not said by him, as was supposed, concerning which those who understood too little thought otherwise, no end should be put to the controversy by this dissension. This same thing the most reverend Ibas showed by those words in which he subsequently reported that the same blessed Cyril consented without weariness to the faith of the Easterns, and embraced it, and anathematized all who should believe apart from this. But is it a Nestorian crime to have supposed the blessed Cyril converted?
32:11
Respondeant ergo nobis qui Nestorianam hanc dixerunt epistolam, utrum unum Deum atque hominem Jesum Christum, per quem omnia facta sunt, et qui inter omnia factus est, in duas personas dividere, an Cyrillum servum ejus putasse conversum, baeresis Nestoriana dicenda sit. Multum excusamus Nestorium, si in hoc ejus hæresim constare dicamus, Cyrillum putasse conversum. Unde si Chalcedonensis quoiue synodus idcirco velut Nestorianam hanc epistolam improbaret, hinc potius, quod item promisimus demons randum, excusasse Nestorium videretur.
所以,讓那些把這封書信稱為涅斯多留派的人回答我們:究竟是把那獨一的神而人耶穌基督——藉之造成萬有、又在萬有之中被造成的——分為兩個位格,還是認為他的僕人西里耳已回轉,才當被稱為涅斯多留異端?我們若說涅斯多留的異端在於他認為西里耳已回轉,我們便是大大為涅斯多留開脫。因此,迦克墩會議若也為此緣故把這封書信當作涅斯多留派而責難,反倒會因此顯得是為涅斯多留開脫了——這正是我們同樣應許要證明的。
Let those, therefore, who have called this letter Nestorian answer us, whether to divide into two persons the one God and man Jesus Christ, through whom all things were made and who was made among all things, or to have supposed Cyril his servant converted, ought to be called the Nestorian heresy. We greatly excuse Nestorius, if we say that his heresy consists in this, that he supposed Cyril converted. Hence, if the synod of Chalcedon too were on this account to reprove this letter as Nestorian, it would rather hence seem to have excused Nestorius—which is the very thing we likewise promised to demonstrate.
32:12
Non autem ita debuit rcligiosa illa synodus gravissimum crimen levigare Nestorii, quae bene cognoverat quod longe alia blasphemia sil a quae hujus hæresis nomen accepit. Illa mysterium divinae incarnationis evacuat, in qua salus nostra consistit; illa aliam hominis, aliam Dei subsistentiam dicit, ut bumanam naturam alienet a Deo quae in suis primitiis Verboassumente sanata est. Ibæ autem epistolam perspexit evidentissime confitetem quod isti attingere timuerunt; quia licet duae naturæ sint, una tamen est virtus, una persona, quod est unus Filius Dominus Jcsus Christus.
但那虔敬的會議本不該如此減輕涅斯多留至為深重的罪,因它早已清楚認出:這異端因之得名的褻瀆,乃是大不相同的另一回事。那異端掏空了神道成肉身的奧祕,而我們的救恩正在乎這奧祕;那異端說人有一個自存,神有另一個自存,以致使那在其初熟果子中、藉道之取用而得醫治的人性,與神疏離。然而它察覺以巴斯的書信極其明白地承認了那些人所懼怕觸及的:即雖然有二性,卻有一個能力、一個位格,就是那獨一的子、主耶穌基督。
But that religious synod ought not so to have lightened the most grievous crime of Nestorius, which had well recognized that the blasphemy from which this heresy received its name is something far other. That heresy empties out the mystery of the divine incarnation, in which our salvation consists; that heresy speaks of one subsistence of the man, another of God, so as to estrange from God the human nature which in its own first-fruits was healed by the Word assuming it. But it perceived the letter of Ibas most evidently confessing what those men feared to touch: namely, that although there are two natures, yet there is one power, one person, which is the one Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
32:13
Quocirca si quis bane Nestorianam dicit epistolam, proculdubiocontra Ecclesiam cum Eutychianis affirmat Nestorianum esse, unam Christi personam in duabus prædicare naturis; non enim est aliud unde nunc Eutychiani infamant Ecclesiam, et Nestorianos Christi fideles appellant, nisi quia duas unius Filii Domini nostri Jesu Christi profitentur esse naturas. Ergo non fingant cohibentes hxreticis, quo<J ideo tanquam Nestorianam damnaverint epistolam venerabilis Ibæ, quia beatum Cyrillum dixit esse conversum. Id enim ac si culpandum est, Nestoriani tamen criminis non eat:
因此,若有人稱這封書信為涅斯多留派的,他便毫無疑問地與歐迪奇派一同,違背教會,主張在二性中宣講一位基督乃是涅斯多留派的事;因為如今歐迪奇派誣蔑教會、稱基督的信徒為涅斯多留派,別無他故,只因這些人承認我們的主耶穌基督獨一的子有二性。所以,讓那些約束異端者不要假裝說,他們把可敬以巴斯的書信定為涅斯多留派,是因為他說蒙福的西里耳已回轉。因為這即使該責備,卻仍不屬於涅斯多留的罪:
Wherefore, if anyone calls this letter Nestorian, he without doubt affirms, together with the Eutychians, against the Church, that it is Nestorian to proclaim one person of Christ in two natures; for there is no other reason now why the Eutychians defame the Church and call Christ's faithful Nestorians, except that they confess that there are two natures of the one Son our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore let those who restrain heretics not feign that they condemned the letter of the venerable Ibas as Nestorian for the reason that he said the blessed Cyril was converted. For even if this is to be blamed, it nevertheless does not belong to the Nestorian crime:
32:14
cum potius hæreticorum fautores probentur ob hoc eam Nestorianam pronuntiasse, quia conscriptor ejus duas in illa confessus est Christi esse naturas. Ncque jam dicant quod IIdem beati Cyrilli culpaverit, quod penitus probare non possunt. Primum quidem, quia post unitionem inter Orientales et ipsum factam approbat ejus fidem. Deinde quoniam et ante unitionem, non Cyrilli fidem quam vere habuit, sed quam illum habuisse putavit, accusat.
因為反倒可證明,那些異端的庇護者把它稱為涅斯多留派,正是為這緣故:即其作者在其中承認了基督有二性。他們也不要如今聲稱以巴斯責難了蒙福西里耳的信仰,這是他們斷然無法證明的。首先,因為在東方人與西里耳之間所成的聯合之後,他贊許了西里耳的信仰。其次,因為即便在聯合之前,他所控告的,並非西里耳真正持有的信仰,乃是他所以為西里耳持有的信仰。
since rather the abettors of heretics are proved to have pronounced it Nestorian for this reason, that its writer confessed therein that there are two natures of Christ. Nor let them now say that he blamed the faith of the blessed Cyril, which they can by no means prove. First, indeed, because after the union made between the Easterns and himself he approves his faith. Then, because even before the union, he accuses not the faith which Cyril truly held, but the faith which he supposed him to have held.
32:15
Putavit autem, sicut jam probavimus ipsius epistolæ verba testari, quia sic beatus Cvrilos prædicaverat Denm Verbum hominem factum, ut nulla esset differentia naturarum, hoc est inter templum et inhabitantem in eo, sed una esset natura deitatis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Quicunque igitur dicit quod reverentissimus Ibas in epistola sua fidem beati Cyrilli quam vere habuit, et non quam habuisse eum putabat, arguerit, ipse profecto confirmat quod idem beatus Cyrillus sic prædicaverit ] Dcum Yerbum hominem factum ut nulla esset differentia naturarum, sed una facta esset divinitatis humanitatisque natura. Hoc enim reverentissimus Ibas per suam culpavit epistolam.
但他所以為的——正如我們已證明他這封書信的話語所見證的——乃是:蒙福的西里耳曾如此宣講神道成為人,以致二性之間並無分別,即聖殿與住在其中者之間並無分別,反倒我們的主耶穌基督的神性只有一性。所以,凡說那最可敬的以巴斯在他信中控告了蒙福西里耳真正持有的信仰,而非他所以為西里耳持有的信仰,這人實在是堅稱:同一位蒙福的西里耳如此宣講神道成為人,以致並無二性之別,反倒神性與人性合成一性。因為這正是那最可敬的以巴斯藉他書信所責難的。
But he supposed, as we have already proved that the words of his very letter testify, that the blessed Cyril had thus proclaimed God the Word to have become man, so that there was no difference of natures—that is, between the temple and him who dwells within it—but that there was one nature of the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Whoever, therefore, says that the most reverend Ibas in his letter accused the faith which the blessed Cyril truly held, and not the faith which he supposed him to have held, that man assuredly confirms that the same blessed Cyril so proclaimed God the Word to have become man that there was no difference of natures, but that one nature of divinity and humanity was made. For this is what the most reverend Ibas blamed through his letter.
32:16
Quinam ergo beatum Cyrillum affirmant hæreticum ? utrum nos, qui dicimus quia non ejus fidem, an illi 1, qui dicunt quia ejus fidem accusavit Ibas episcopus? Nos enim qui cum non beati Cyrilli fidem dicimus accusasse, ncgamus utique quod idem Cyrillus differentiam abstulerit naturarum, et unam dixerit ex divinitate atque humanitate compositam esse naturam. Ila reticorum vero fautures, qui dicunt quod fidem Cyrilli Ibas arguerit, ipsi procul dubio assertiones Eutychianorum afiirmant, dicentium, quod beatus (yrillus differentiam non crediderit naturarum, sed unam ex divinitate atque humanitate docuerit factam esse naturam.
那麼,究竟是誰主張蒙福的西里耳是異端呢?是我們這些說以巴斯主教並未控告他信仰的人,還是那些說以巴斯確曾控告他信仰的人?因為我們既說他並未控告蒙福西里耳的信仰,我們便確然否認同一位西里耳除去了二性之別、並說只有一性由神性與人性所合成。但那些異端的庇護者,既說以巴斯責難了西里耳的信仰,他們自己便毫無疑問地堅稱歐迪奇派的主張,就是說蒙福的西里耳不信二性之別,反倒教導神性與人性合成了一性。
Who, then, affirm the blessed Cyril to be a heretic? Is it we, who say that Ibas the bishop did not accuse his faith, or those who say that he did accuse his faith? For we, who say that he did not accuse the faith of the blessed Cyril, certainly deny that the same Cyril took away the difference of natures and said that one nature was composed of divinity and humanity. But the abettors of heretics, who say that Ibas censured the faith of Cyril, themselves without doubt affirm the assertions of the Eutychians, who say that the blessed Cyril did not believe in the difference of natures, but taught that one nature was made out of divinity and humanity.
32:17
Quamobrem si Chalcedonensis quoque synodus reverentissimum Ibam crederet, fidem quam beatus Cyrillus habuit, et non potius errorem in quem cum lapsum putaverat, arguisse, procul duhio affirmaret et ipsa quod unam praedicaverit Christi esse naturam. Cognoscis igitur, religiose imperator, illud quod diximus iterum doceri, quoniam si hanc epistolam magna illa synodus abjiceret tanquam fidem beati Cyrilli culpantem, hinc potius ipsum beatum Cyrillum credidisse hæreticum videretur. Unde nobis quoque fautores haereticorum, ut hoc affirmaremus, persuadere conati sunt, ne quid esset resiJuum quod Eutychianis, quibus cohibent, respondere possimus dicentibus: Qui Nestorianam esse dixistis epi.
因此,迦克墩會議若也認為那最可敬的以巴斯責難了蒙福西里耳所持有的信仰,而非責難了它所以為他陷入的謬誤,它便毫無疑問也會堅稱西里耳宣講了基督只有一性。所以,虔敬的皇帝啊,你便看出我們所說的再次得著教導:即那大公會議若把這封書信當作責難蒙福西里耳信仰的而棄絕,反倒會因此顯得是把蒙福的西里耳本人當作異端了。因此那些異端的庇護者也試圖說服我們堅稱這一點,免得我們再有甚麼餘地,可以回答那被他們約束的歐迪奇派,當他們說:你們既說以巴斯的書信是涅斯多留派的——
Wherefore, if the synod of Chalcedon too were to believe that the most reverend Ibas censured the faith which the blessed Cyril held, and not rather the error into which it had supposed him to have fallen, it would without doubt itself also affirm that Cyril proclaimed there to be one nature of Christ. You see, therefore, religious emperor, that what we have said is taught again: namely, that if that great synod were to reject this letter as blaming the faith of the blessed Cyril, hence rather the blessed Cyril himself would seem to have been believed a heretic. Hence the abettors of heretics tried to persuade us also to affirm this, lest there should remain anything by which we might be able to answer the Eutychians, whom they restrain, when they say: You who have said that the letter of Ibas is Nestorian,
32:18
stolam Ibæ, cujuslibet alterius esse dicatur, quae putavit hæreticum esse ncgare differentiam naturarum, ct unam credere deitatis humanitatisque naturam Domini nostri Jesu Christi ? quomodo vestro judicio Nestoriani non estis, qui similiter dicitis hæreticorum esse negarc differentiam naturarum, et unam credere deitatis humanitatisque naturam Domini nostri Jesu Christi ? aut quomodo jam potestis dicere quod beatus Cyrillus differentiam naturarum docuerit, et non potius unam dixerit deitatis humanitatisque naturam, cum propterea illam damnaveritis epistolam, quod cjus fidem culpaverit, quæ hoc in eo culpasse deprehenditur, quod negaverit differentiam.
那便算作你們所願的任何別人的書信吧,那作者認為否認二性之別、並信我們的主耶穌基督的神性與人性只有一性,乃是異端的事。那麼,按你們自己的判斷,你們豈不也是涅斯多留派麼?既然你們同樣說否認二性之別、並信我們的主耶穌基督的神性與人性只有一性,乃屬異端的事。再者,你們如今怎能說蒙福的西里耳教導了二性之別,而非寧可說神性與人性只有一性呢?既然你們正是為此緣故定了那封書信的罪,即它責難了他的信仰——而那信仰被發現所責難於他的,正是他否認了
let it be said to be the letter of any other man you please, who supposed it heretical to deny the difference of natures and to believe in one nature of the deity and the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. How, by your own judgment, are you not Nestorians, who likewise say that it belongs to heretics to deny the difference of natures and to believe in one nature of the deity and the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ? Or how can you now say that the blessed Cyril taught the difference of natures, and did not rather say that there is one nature of the deity and the humanity, since for this reason you condemned that letter, that it blamed his faith—the faith which is found to have blamed this in him, that he denied the difference
32:19
naturarum, et unam docuerit deitatis humanitatisque naturam? EI idcirco, nec i!lam damnamus epistolam, nec diciDIUS quod fidem Cyrilli culpavit: quia non fidei Cyrilli fuerat quod culpavit. Nam verissime omni impietate plenum est, ad confusionem naturarum accipere, quod de templo natoex Maria dixit evangelista. In principio erat Verbum; aut de Unigeniti deitate, quæ nec augeri nec minui potest, credere quod secundum sui naturam deminuta sit paulo minus ab angelis sicut in 1 uno eodemque homine dicimus, quod interior homo ad imaginem Dei formatus, aut exterior secundum lineamenta membrorum sexusque diversitatem, ex limo terræ creatus.
二性之別、並教導了神性與人性只有一性?因此,我們既不定那封書信的罪,也不說它責難了西里耳的信仰:因為它所責難的,並非西里耳的信仰。因為,把福音書作者論到那從聖殿、即從馬利亞所生者所說的「太初有道」,當作二性的混淆來領會,實在是充滿一切不虔的;又或論到那既不能加增也不能減少的獨生子的神性,卻相信它照其本性被造成比天使微小一點——正如在同一個人身上,我們說那內在的人是照神的形像受造,而那外在的人,則照其肢體的輪廓與性別的差異,由地上的塵土所造。
of natures and taught one nature of the deity and the humanity? And therefore we neither condemn that letter, nor say that it blamed the faith of Cyril: because what it blamed was not the faith of Cyril. For most truly it is full of all impiety to take, for a confusion of natures, what the evangelist said of him who was born of the temple, that is, of Mary: 'In the beginning was the Word'; or to believe of the deity of the Only-begotten, which can neither be increased nor diminished, that according to its own nature it was made a little lower than the angels—just as in one and the same man we say that the inner man is formed after the image of God, while the outer, according to the lineaments of his members and the diversity of sex, is created from the slime of the earth.
32:20
Sed nunquam hoc beatus Cyrillus putasse monstratur v quia idem natura est templum quod ei virgine Maria sumpsit initium, et Verbum Deus, quod in principio erat carens initio. Hoc enim Apolinaristæ sapuerunt; hoc ab Apolinaristis dementes Eu ychiani a traxerunt; hoc si etiam Cyrillus sentiret, verissime diceretur quia lapsus est, et in dogma Apolinaris inventus est indidisse. Nunc autem propterea verum esse non credimus, quia non probatur hoc aliquando sensisse.
但蒙福的西里耳從未被顯明曾以為:那從童貞女馬利亞得著起初的聖殿,與那作為神、太初便存在且本無起初的道,在本性上是同一的。因為這是亞波里拿留派所想的;這是那些瘋狂的歐迪奇派從亞波里拿留派所承襲的;西里耳若也這樣想,那便極真實地當說他已跌倒,並被發現陷入了亞波里拿留的教義之中。但如今我們不信這是真的,正因為他從未被證明曾這樣想過。
But the blessed Cyril is never shown to have supposed that the temple, which took its beginning from the Virgin Mary, is the same in nature as the Word who is God, who was in the beginning without beginning. For this the Apollinarists thought; this the demented Eutychians drew from the Apollinarists; and if Cyril too thought this, it would most truly be said that he had fallen, and was found to have lapsed into the dogma of Apollinaris. But now we do not believe this to be true, for the reason that he is not proved ever to have thought it.