為三章辯護 第 71 章

If the noble priests held to this truth, and were not willing therein to please princes—wherein deceitful parasites are accustomed to mock unwary patrons—they would never say, to the insult of the holy synod of Chalcedon: 'If anyone says that the impious letter to Maris is correct, or defends it, and does not anathematize it, let him be anathema'; nor would they decree that, if anyone does not anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and his dogmas, and those who either held or hold opinions like his, they should be anathema.

In which, as we have shown, they have condemned under anathema not only the aforesaid synod of Chalcedon and that of Antioch, but also the Church of an earlier time which had communion with Theodore, and all the faithful now present in the body of Christ who are ignorant both of his dogmas and of his name; nay more, persons holy and dear to Christ, the very apostles, and the Catholic faith itself. And from this they think themselves excusable, because they did this not of their own accord, but followed another's judgment—little heeding that the shepherds ought to lead the flock, not three shepherds. Whence not the error of the shepherds is imputed to the flock, but the flock's to the shepherds, if they do not reprove it. To Ezekiel the Lord says:

'Son of man, I have made thee a watchman to the house of Israel, and thou shalt hear the word from my mouth. When I shall say to the sinner, Thou shalt surely die, and thou hast not spoken that the wicked man may beware of his way; he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at thy hand. But if thou forewarn the wicked of his iniquitous way, and he turn not from it; he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul' (Ezek. III, 17-19). Now it is certain that the princes of the people also belong to this house of Israel, and that watchmen are set over them too; whose faults, if the priests dissemble out of respect of persons, will without doubt be imputed to those priests as accomplices.

But even if it be granted that they had not the power of forbidding, who will grant that they lacked the power of avoiding? And therefore, even if they could not prohibit these things from being done, they could at least have declined to do them. But why should the priest, whose office it is to bear the people's sins, not take thought for his own burden, so as to forbid every sin for whose sins he bears the sacrifice as a burden? For it is written: 'And Aaron shall bear the judgments of the children of Israel' (Exod. XXVIII, 29). By which we understand that for the sins of the people the priests will be judged. Whence also the Apostle says that which we mentioned above: 'Obey your prelates, and submit to them: for they themselves watch, as having to render an account for your souls' (Heb. XIII, 17).

Hence again it is said: 'And Aaron shall bear their sins' (Exod. XXVIII, 38). Wherefore, if princes are not strangers to the people of God, and the sacrifice is offered for them also, it is necessary that the priests bear their sins too. And therefore let it be reckoned neither to rashness nor to arrogance, if a priest forbids even a prince to sin. For it is a human word, and worthy of all acceptance, of one who says: 'Do not make heavier the burden which I have taken up to bear for your salvation.' For it is nothing else, when a priest says to anyone, 'Do not sin,' than as if he said, 'Do not weigh down the pack which I bear for you.'

And on this account, if a prince also wishes to have a priest as an intercessor for his sins, let him not disdain to bear him also as a chastiser in his sins, so that, interceding for him, he may be heard; lest there be said to him what was said to Jeremiah: 'Do not pray for this people, nor ask to have mercy on them, nor approach me on their behalf, for I will not hear thee' (Jer. VII, 16). Fearing which, the elder Theodosius, emperor of blessed memory—whose memory will ever be worthy of remembrance in the Church of Christ—although he often triumphed in battles against great barbarians and over the mightiest tyrants, yet not from the frequency of such victories, in which he cannot be compared to Trajan, that son of Gehenna, did he merit true glory;

but from the humble and public penance for his sin, which—the prelate Ambrose chastising him—he undertook with composure and humility, his royal eminence being overcome, and which, removed from the communion of the Church, he fulfilled for the appointed time of due satisfaction enjoined upon him. Most piously believing and wisely understanding that he could attain to life not from the temporal power by which he had been set even over the priests of God, but from this, that he himself was subject to them. Whence it is to be believed that, if God were now to raise up some Ambrose, neither would a Theodosius be lacking. But where there is less confidence in demanding, there is also less devotion in rendering. And he is no great lover of truth to whom the authority of the person commends it.

But since at length we have arrived at that to which we were tending by the long circuit of our discourse, I beseech you, most clement emperor, by the meekness and modesty of Christ, that you receive me, unworthy as I am, not unworthily, nor despise me. For if the things that are said are true, they ought not to be cast aside on this account, that an abject person insinuates them to you. For what does it matter to you through whose mouth the truth speaks to you—truth which once deigned to speak even through the mouth of a she-ass? But if the prophet Nathan seems to need to be sought out whenever a prince has transgressed, where shall we now find a Nathan, that the prince may be rebuked who has certainly sinned as David did? And therefore let him who has sinned not seek another Nathan, since I think that he himself would not presume to compare himself in merits to holy David.

Since indeed not only in kingship, but also in that very prophecy of which alone Nathan had the authority, King David was far more excellent. And he, vehemently rebuking, was exposing a hidden sin; but we as suppliants ask that this be amended which, even if we wished, we could not conceal, nor do we exaggerate that which has not been sinned against many. Nor do we ask that anything be corrected such as that which Ambrose avenged with excommunication. For that deed, although it was wickedly done, had nevertheless been entrusted to the power of Theodosius. But that which has now been done, even if it had been right, would not rightly be done: because it is granted to none of the kings to do anything in this matter, but to priests alone.

But thus too, taking precaution lest I seem to have transgressed the measure—not indeed of my office, but of my merit—let me presume to impute nothing in this matter. This only I simply ask: that you consider with faithful mind those very persons whom we have proved to be condemned in that novel decree. First Philip and Thomas, the disciples of Christ, who have been made anathema for this, that they once held opinions like those which Theodore is said to have held. Then the holy Fathers who had assembled at Chalcedon, and who by their judgment declared the letter of Ibas, the most reverend bishop, to be correct; nor did they anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia, when they heard his praises recited from it:

moreover, they defended the letter of blessed Leo by the example or testimony of those letters in which this same Theodore was both shorn and praised. Of which venerable Fathers, contemplate first in your mind the aforesaid Leo, who—because, the acts of that same council being approved, he did not anathematize the aforesaid letter—was made anathema together with the very Council of Chalcedon by which he was judged orthodox.

Behold also the Eastern synod, which we have shown to have been assembled by the most wise John of Antioch and approved by the Council of Chalcedon: which not only did not anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and his dogmas, but even forbade them to be anathematized, because it found that many things had been said likewise both by others before him and by his glorious Fathers. Look upon John of Constantinople, the fellow-disciple of Theodore, and Gregory of Nazianzus, as presiding over this holy synod of the Easterns; in agreement with whose opinion it defended the writings of this same Theodore against the slanderous disturbers of the Church.

To this synod let blessed Cyril also approach, who, consenting to its decree, and at the same time forbidding certain sayings of Theodore to be refuted, said that they would furnish occasion to the contrary dogma, by which were held fast those who wished it to be condemned. Let blessed Proclus of Constantinople also approach, who not only likewise forbade Theodore to be abdicated, but even testified that he had never at any time blamed him while alive. Let the venerable Domnus of Antioch also approach, who, holding to the opinion of his predecessor John and of the other colleagues who went before, was the first to resist Eutyches the heresiarch when he attempted to renew the impiety of Apollinaris, and on this account presumed to anathematize Diodore and Theodore, writing to the emperor Theodosius.

Against all of whom, in order that prejudice might be cast against the Council of Chalcedon concerning the person of Theodore, anathema was likewise pronounced—seeing that by their example, or testimony, or decree they had forbidden that either they themselves or his dogmas should be declared anathema. But behold, religious emperor, with whatever effort we have brought so many holy and reverend persons into the sight of the mind at that time:

who will grant that you too, considering that those have been condemned out of the number of those who, in the regeneration of the just, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his majesty, shall themselves also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel—that you may gaze upon them with those eyes by which you do not doubt that you are to be judged by them, not with those by which you now behold the priests of Christ subjected to you for a time? Behold therefore with the eyes of the faith by which you believe in Christ, as though seated in a certain heavenly court, in the highest and first place Philip and Thomas the reverend apostles, then in the following order all those whose opinions we have recounted, and whom we have shown to have been condemned together with them—the most blessed Fathers:

to whom, although for the merit of so great a cause we can by no means commend words, because neither did their person permit it, who, nevertheless, conscious of their condemnation, could endure even their silent aspect, when by their very silence they the more terrify one who understands faithfully? For by this they seem to have reserved their condemnation for the future judgment, unless it be removed as quickly as possible—of which judgment the sentence will be irrevocable, and that which has followed the sentence will be everlasting without end.