為三章辯護 第 53 章

If any credit be given me, O emperor, I greatly grieve at the lot of my present work, from which I expect not so much fruit as I have undertaken labour. For what more do I strive, by so many manifold proofs and arguments, to persuade mortals of, than that they should not presume to be judges of the dead? This indeed needs no persuasion, nor in such a cause would I wish to spend time, the loss of which no one can recover. But since I saw certain men, under the false name of defenders, secretly assailing the Church, and, as though for her purgation, condemning as heretics those whom she always held in honour, I did not think I ought to be silent, lest I fall into that which Isaiah says:

'See that all are blinded, they all knew not to be wise; dumb dogs that could not bark, dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber. And most shameless dogs, knowing no fullness; and they are evil, knowing no understanding: all have followed their own ways, every one after his own portion' (Isa. LVI, 10, 11). 'See how the just man perisheth, and no one taketh it to heart; and just men are taken away, and no one considereth' (Isa. LVII, 1). One might think this said properly of the present cause. But since the condition of question and answer is not the same, nor can what is briefly accused be also forthwith briefly excused:

just as the difficulty of staining and wounding is not so great as that which attends us in cleansing and healing, it is necessary for us to act somewhat more laboriously, especially knowing how hard it is for the obstinate to cast off what they have once rashly assumed. But I hope, most clement emperor, that it may seem so to your moderation as well as to all the gravest men into whose hands these things shall perchance come, that I rather seem to be excused by the obstinacy of those who resist than that the length of my discourse should excuse them. For if even with such efforts we shall not have achieved among them what we desire, I shall be found provident rather than prolix.

Although, then, it has been shown in the foregoing that certain of the sayings of Theodore, for which he is thought to have deserved condemnation by the Council of Chalcedon, were corrupted by the partisans of the Eutychians; and that others are similar to the doctrine of the holy Fathers whom they themselves say they venerate: although this too has been demonstrated, that the same Theodore was praised with great proclamation by the aforesaid holy Fathers both while he survived and after his death: although finally also it has clearly appeared, by evident proofs of his sayings, that he is attacked by the slanderous accusations of his adversaries.

Yet since the intention of the religious reader awaits not so much the clearing of Theodore, in whom the standing of the Church does not consist, as the absolute defence of the Council of Chalcedon: we ought to show how, even if certain things in the books of Theodore be judged blameworthy, the council is not to be reproved for not having condemned him, although it heard his praises read out from the letter of Ibas—so that the Eutychians may recognize how vainly they spend day and night in malicious counsels, and with such great expense which they lay out upon their accomplices and partisans, accomplish nothing. Let us therefore grant, as has been said, that certain things in the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia may seem reprehensible.

In the first place, whence can it be proved that the Council of Chalcedon knew this? For it could have happened that it escaped the council, just as it escaped even the very accusers of Ibas, although they were calumnious and obstinate and of practised malice. For although they often accused this same Ibas before the Council of Chalcedon in episcopal trials, they did not attempt to object anything to him concerning the praise of Theodore. But it is one thing if it be said to have escaped the notice of the accusers, another if it be said to have escaped the notice of the council. Let it be otherwise, let us grant it: but is it therefore necessary that it be established that it did not escape the council? Whatever they may say, however many words be permitted them, even this beyond doubt will be granted, that it is one thing to suspect, another to demonstrate by sure reasoning that this did not escape the synod.

For I think that these men, for all their suspicion, would not say that even the accusers of Ibas could have escaped notice, were they not overcome by the outcome of events. Not therefore, even if that council had to be judged, could it be judged from suspicion—especially that of enemies—but from sure proofs. For if suspicions are to dictate the sentence of judgments, there is absolutely nothing that may not be judged this way and that. Most rightly indeed was it provided that we should call judges not conjecturers but rather examiners. But these men wish so great a synod, confirmed through so many years with such great peace of the universal Church, to be judged—and they bring forward nothing that we may know, but only this, that they would have us suspect at their own discretion.

Therefore, if they desire that I too should join them in reproving this synod, let them seek out and bring forth something suitable for destroying it, that may be as certain to me as it is certain to me that I exist. Let us see, nevertheless, what follows from this slender suspicion of theirs; and whether it suits even the Eutychians themselves, that they may charge us with not suspecting along with them. For if it be believed that certain writings under the name of Theodore, which are called Nestorian, could not have escaped the Council of Chalcedon, how shall it be believed that they escaped the Church, in whose peace and honour the same Theodore died?

And if for that reason the Council of Chalcedon be judged to have held views like Nestorius, because it did not condemn the dead Theodore, whom it could not previously interrogate or correct: how will the Church of the earlier time not be affirmed to have held the same views as Nestorius, which honoured him, while he lived, among the most illustrious bishops? But when the Church of Christ is said to have held, in the earlier time, the same views as Nestorius, beyond doubt the Nestorian heresy is excused—if indeed it is now to be called a heresy, when whoever holds otherwise is himself rather found to be the asserter of a new dogma against the ancient doctrine. This is the whole of what the Eutychians have been able to obtain at great expense through their satellites.

But O the pitiable felicity of the Nestorians, who fight for the wages of the Eutychians! Moreover, since the Eutychians cannot accuse the catholic Church—before the Council of Chalcedon and Ephesus—of the dogma of Nestorius, in whose communion the bishop Theodore died; nor can they accuse the holy Council of Chalcedon save imprudently, which ought not to have come against the judgment of the Church itself, even if the accusers of the bishop Ibas raised some questions about the praise of Theodore. And so, if for this reason they say that the Church of the earlier time is not to be blamed, which condemned neither Theodore nor the writings in his books that are to be censured, because it did not know them;

let them believe that the Council of Chalcedon too could have been ignorant of these things. But if they should say that the same writings, which they now allege that the Nestorians abuse, the Church in whose communion he died accepted in a different and better sense, let them believe that the Council of Chalcedon too accepted them similarly in a better sense. And these things indeed may suffice for the clearing of the great synod, by which it can be defended in the case of Theodore no less than the earlier Church, which can in no way be accused by the Eutychians of the Nestorian dogma before Nestorius.

But since we are not content merely to prostrate the most foolish pride of the Eutychians themselves—which, though often cast down against the sentence of so many priests of Christ, still rears itself up—but also to trample it down and grind it to pieces: what further shall we bring forward to you in overflowing abundance after this full defence? For it is more credibly affirmed that the doctrine of Theodore, when it was held in writing, could escape the Council of Chalcedon, than the Church of the earlier time, in which, as is shown, he always disputed even with his own voice. For blessed John of Antioch and the Eastern council say that in the expositions which he made in all the Eastern churches,

and in which he appears to have been greatly approved in the royal city, was found upright in the sight of priests, and emperors, and peoples. It seems also easier and more ready that, by the preceding judgment of the Church, by which he was always held most learned, the Council of Chalcedon too should think well of him, than that the Church of the earlier time itself, with no judgment preceding, should by a spontaneous motion have received his sayings interpreted in a better sense. Finally, it would be exceedingly rash and impious, with no example leading to it, for the synod to condemn one who died without complaint in the communion of the Church;

but prudently and religiously, with many preceding examples, would the Church bring into examination one living, when it could also correct him, if it seemed necessary. It is certain therefore that the senseless Eutychians or Acephali, when they know not what they say, by the calumnies with which they assail the Council of Chalcedon, rather accuse the faith of the Church which existed before Nestorius, in whose communion they falsely claim to have remained. Whence we too defend the Council of Chalcedon itself against their calumnies, not without the Church of the ancient time.

And therefore, even if it be granted that the same Church of the earlier time, or afterwards the Council of Chalcedon, did know what in the books of Theodore is judged reprehensible, and could not interpret it in a better sense: why even so should they be reproached for not having condemned Theodore, when they could believe that these things had been inserted into his books by heretics, just as Theodore himself complained? For thus he says at the beginning of a certain work of his, to which he gave the title 'On Apollinaris and His Heresy': 'For already thirty years ago we composed a volume on the incarnation of the Lord, extending to fifteen thousand lines:

in which, throughout that whole work, we examined the offences of Arius and Eunomius on this matter, and also the vain presumption of Apollinaris: so that, as my opinion holds, I might pass over nothing of those things which pertained both to the firmness of ecclesiastical orthodoxy and to the refutation of their impiety. But these men, who most easily presume everything, and who moreover were in turn trained by Apollinaris, who had been the chief of this heresy, made our work manifest to all who think alike, to see if in any way they might find something able to refute the things that are written therein.'

But since no one ventured to take up the contest against us in writing, they imitated weak and crafty athletes who, when they cannot fight against stronger opponents, attempt to overthrow them by ambushes and contrivances of every sort. For they certainly composed among themselves certain foolish things, such as would never in the least be uttered by us. Then they inserted these very things into some portion in the midst of our own writings, and displayed them to their intimates, and sometimes even to our people, who in their simplicity listened to everything with credulous minds; and this they offered to onlookers as though it were, as they supposed, a proof of our impiety. Now one of these forged writings was to say that there are two sons.

For thus they made us speak in this work, saying that one ought to think and to say that there are two sons, and that we vehemently defend this assertion, while in that very writing we everywhere plainly declare that one ought not to say there are two sons. It was therefore necessary that those forged writings should appear to the hearers not only foolish but also feeble; for it was impossible to establish this by any sound or fitting reasoning. And for that very reason it was composed with such feebleness, so that the one who had written it might more easily be refuted thereby.

One of our own people, therefore, on account of his great simplicity, believed these writings to be ours; and for this reason he who had read them through was deemed by those men worthy of trust, and he reported to us the things that had been written. When, therefore, we had heard this, we indeed blamed him, that he had believed words spoken against us concerning these matters, which he had often heard us declare both in the church and in private, when he ought to have judged our living voice more trustworthy than writings, as a proof of our opinion, which it is our resolve to preserve in our doctrines.

You have learned, most clement emperor, with what envy ever, and with what deceit, the founders of the Eutychians, the Synousiasts, lay in wait against the sayings of Theodore, and in what manner they attempted to turn the more fickle of the catholics away from his teaching: so that they not only perversely interpreted those things which he taught in a right sense, meeting their folly head-on, but also corrupted his books by inserting falsehood. Yet from this very fact he confidently convicted either their malice or the catholics' credulity, in that he openly preached in the Church of Christ the things that accorded with sound doctrine, and his voice was more trustworthy than the writings, as a proof of his opinion.

For the writings of an absent man, which could be corrupted by the enemies of the Church, ought not to have been preferred to the testimony of his living voice. What then, if either the Church of that time, or afterward the Council of Chalcedon, recognizing those things for which Theodore is blamed as though the master of Nestorius, and being unable to interpret them better so as not to condemn him, believed them to have been inserted by heretics into his books? Ought this pious belief to be reckoned a crime of heresy, since on the one hand Theodore himself complains of it, and on the other his many and manifest writings demonstrate how far they were from the error of Nestorius? But if they say that Theodore ought not to be believed, because he falsely claimed that the Apollinarists had inserted certain heretical matters into his books—

for he himself wrongly seized upon what he wished to be imputed to those men—I will not stubbornly contend against this, but will for now even grant them to suspect what they will. In the meantime this much is manifestly true, this cannot be denied, that Theodore testified that these things were not his own. Let him therefore be said to have deserved rebuke, if he is shown to have lied, in that, after he came to his senses—though he prudently acquiesced in the truth—he nevertheless was sometimes ashamed to confess his own errors humbly. Yet even one who lied would not justly be called a heretic, who in any manner whatsoever renounced his errors. Writing also to Cerdo concerning his exposition of the Psalms, as we recalled in the third book, this same Theodore says: «We did not have as much diligence in this matter as we ought to have had.

For we suffered such things as happen to beginners who, as is wont, are set amid inexperience in writing. Indeed many alterations of ours also took place at that time, which it is not for the present occasion to recount; for which cause very many things were composed by us rather carelessly, and most of all those which were the first.» If, then, either the earlier Church, or the later Council of Chalcedon, believed that what it could not interpret in a better sense in his books belonged among those many things which he confesses to have been composed by himself carelessly through inexperience, it must be said to have curbed error in this: that in those matters for which he of his own accord blamed his own ignorance and negligence, it did not judge him a heretic, and for the other blameless things it believed him to be praised.