為三章辯護 第 57 章

But how do they say the synod is Nestorian for not defending, nor in any way excusing, the writings of Theodore, whom they accuse as the teacher of Nestorius, when they would not dare to call Athanasius an Arian for defending the writings of his predecessor Dionysius? For neither, when the Arians wished to adopt certain of the sayings of the venerable Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, as testimony and proof of their error—so that from this they might show that Arius was not the inventor of a new dogma, since Dionysius had once taught that the Son of God was a created thing, and not proper by nature but extraneous from the essence of the Father, and that the same Son was not before he was made, and other similar things contained in the same work—

Athanasius, a genuine pattern and approved example of catholic doctrine and virtue, constantly took these up, and although they were hard to our ears and difficult to excuse, he did not refuse to defend them; and first he wished their author Dionysius to be cleared through this and freed from the crime of the Arians, because he himself, unlike Arius, was not, while he lived, accused of impiety or cast down from the episcopate; nor did he, as one defending a heresy, depart from the Church, as that one did, but remained in its unity: then he tried to interpret these very things better. Whence I think it more fitting that, if not all—because that is lengthy—yet some things I should show in his own words.

'For indeed,' he says, 'the Lord rebuked the Jews also in the things in which they acted against the law, saying: This Abraham did not do (John 8:40); and the same Truth itself rebukes these impious and lying men, since Dionysius the bishop neither held anything of Arius's, nor was ignorant of the truth. But both at that time the Jews, and now these new ones, have inherited from their father the devil this fury rebellious against Christ: which is a great indication that they wish only to calumniate that man, and not to attend to the fact that he was neither accused of impiety by other bishops, nor cast down from the episcopate, as these men were from the clerical office;

nor did he, as one defending a heresy, depart from the Church, but died well in it, and his memory is celebrated even now with the Fathers, and his name is written. For if he held anything of these things, or did not make excuse for the things which he wrote, without ambiguity he too would suffer the like. And indeed these things would have sufficed for the refutation of the new Jews, of those who denied Christ, and accused the Fathers, and are known to deceive all Christians. But since they think they have grounds of accusation for accusing the bishop, come, let us look at some parts of his letter, and at them themselves:'

'so that their emptiness may be shown to them in this also, and that they may cease at least to blaspheme the Lord among themselves, and may confess, even if together with the soldiers, seeing the creature bearing witness, that truly this is the Son of God and is not of the creatures. They say, then, that in that letter the blessed Dionysius said that the Son of God was made and a created thing; and that he was not proper by nature, but extraneous from the essence of the Father, just as the farmer is to the vine and the shipwright to the ship; and that, as a created thing, he was not before he was made. So it is, he wrote it: we too confess that such a letter of his exists. But just as he wrote that one, so he wrote very many others as well;

and it behooved them to read those also, so that from all, and not from this one alone, the faith of that man might be recognized.' And then there follows the excuse of the things we have mentioned: which let the reader seek, not in this work because it was lengthy, but in his own work. But you see, O Augustus, what the blessed Athanasius took up to excuse in Dionysius, for no other reason than that the things which are said are to be estimated not from the light sound of words, but from the intention of the speaker. But the intention of the speaker, when the person is already deceased, is more religiously estimated from communion. For this is what he says: 'For if he held anything of these things, or did not make excuse for the things which he wrote, without ambiguity he too would suffer the like': as though saying:

We ought not to attend to what sounds in the words, but rather to believe, concerning the Church of Christ—which He Himself rules who redeemed it with His own blood—that unless he brought these things forth with a good intention, or the offense were taken away by his other sayings, without doubt Dionysius would not remain a bishop in it. Therefore Athanasius, who was an assertor of the unity of the Trinity not so much by the teaching of the word as by his sufferings, and whose whole life was a martyrdom, subjects himself to the authority of the Church, and judges this alone—that he communicated with Dionysius until the end—to suffice for his clearing, so that he presumes not to condemn him for such sayings, nay, not even to blame him lightly; knowing that, if he did so, he would blame the whole Church which communicated with him.

And I know not who—whom would that we truly did not know!—presume to condemn Theodore, proclaimed by such great Fathers, to the reproach of the Church, and moreover the holy synod, because it did not presume to charge him with this. But what is it that they had already found inexcusable in him, if in Dionysius it could be excused that he says the Son of God was made, and extraneous from the essence of the Father, and that he was not before he was made—when the Fathers at Nicaea anathematized those who say: 'There was when he was not, and before he was born he was not'; and those who say the Son of God was made or is of another essence?

But Athanasius, a man founded on great reason and gravity, and to whom, as to a most experienced commander, the highest battles against the enemies of the Church were deservedly entrusted, knew, trained by the very dangers themselves, how to take up prudently the deceits of heretics. For they too, with no less—nay, with more crafty—cunning, frequently delude the unwary, so that those whom they have seen wise and strong in the catholic Church, as in the camp of some great commonwealth, since they cannot make them their own, they at least make suspect to us, lest we believe their counsel or be confirmed by their example. And on this account he was not, like certain light men, moved in all directions by their factions:

so that, as malicious and timid—and as much malicious as timid—commanders of an army are wont to do, because the Arians wished Dionysius to seem to them privy and a friend, he should cruelly and rashly condemn him, and exclude from the heavenly camp him whom he had as a defender with him against the enemies. This most learned and most holy man, therefore, O most clement emperor, we ought to imitate, and to follow his reasoning and his observance regarding the peace of the Church. For we deride the cruelty of those who, slothful to defend their own but hasty to condemn, catch at an ignominious glory, common with heretics, from the reproach of their elders.

For I believe that you would command the masters of your soldiery to observe, in the camps entrusted to them by you, regarding the wiles of the enemy and the defense of their own, that caution which Athanasius, the master of the soldiery of Christ, observed: and therefore you would not judge worthy as prelates of the Churches of God those whom, if you had them in your camps, you would judge unworthy. Now therefore, if the Nestorians should say to me:

'Theodore of Mopsuestia, who both died in the episcopate, and was greatly praised with proclamation not only in the letter which our synod pronounced orthodox, but also in those letters by whose authority it defended the dogmatic letter of Leo of Rome, thought concerning Christ just as Nestorius did; and in defense of his dogma, as the Arians did concerning Dionysius, they have brought forth certain chapters from his books tending to another meaning and written against others, which need to be excused,'—I shall at once follow the form which the blessed Athanasius furnished us concerning Dionysius, and in the very same words by which he answered the Arians I too shall answer these on behalf of Theodore of Mopsuestia, saying:

You calumniate that man for nothing, who was neither accused of impiety by other bishops, nor cast down from the episcopate, like Nestorius, nor did he, as one defending a heresy, depart from the Church, but died well in it. For if he held anything of these things, or did not make excuse for the things which he wrote, without ambiguity he too would suffer the like. In other matters too, holding the order of his response, I shall say again that, just as Theodore wrote these things, so he also wrote very many others, and you ought to read those as well, so that from all, and not from these, the faith of that man may be recognized. And I shall bring forth many of his sayings contrary to the Nestorian error, of which I have appended a few in my books.

I shall also show them the reason why he wrote such things, and teach that it was against the Synousiasts—who in his times raged most especially—that, wherever an occasion was found, he spoke such things the more freely, while the perfidy of Nestorius was not yet inciting him from the other side. And for me indeed, or for any catholics, these things alone against the Nestorians will suffice, which sufficed the great Athanasius against the Arians at that time. But what more we have on behalf of Theodore than Athanasius had on behalf of Dionysius, I shall not defer to show—nay rather, to commemorate the things already shown.

For the mercy of the Lord provided, whether for our ignorance—who are less able to defend—or for the obstinacy of our opponents—who are unwilling to acquiesce in the manifest truth—that Theodore could be excused in many more ways than Dionysius. For what we assert—that Nestorius was so different from the sense of Theodore that, admonished by the most reverend John of Antioch, he did not dare to defend his evil sayings by the testimonies of that man's sayings (which he surely would not have omitted, unless he saw the catholic man's doctrine to be contrary to himself)—the blessed Athanasius had nothing of this kind to say in defense of the venerable Dionysius: because Arius had not been admonished and refuted by the example of Dionysius, as Nestorius had been by that of Theodore.

Then, that Theodore, of his own accord reprehending himself in his exposition of the psalms, confessed that very many things had been carelessly composed by him, and especially those which are the first, and that he declared that some things had been inserted into his books by the Apollinarists. We can therefore say to the Nestorians that those very things which they think agree with their dogma are to be believed to be of those many things carelessly composed by him, or of those which he complained the Apollinarists had inserted into his books. We can also bring forth what the same Theodore says in the fifth book On the Incarnation, which we have set down in our earlier work, namely that wherever, disputing about Christ, he says 'one and another,' he says 'another' not as to person, but as to nature.

All these things which abound to us were lacking to the blessed Athanasius for excusing the letter of Dionysius. Since the Eutychians or the Semi-Eutychian Acephali do not dare to blame him, how do they blame the Council of Chalcedon, which did not wish to excuse the sayings of Theodore, but was unwilling to condemn one unexcused?