But what sort of thing is that which they boast — that they have condemned this letter because its author seems in it to have thought ill of blessed Cyril — when Gennadius, bishop of this royal city and of blessed memory, also wrote against the same holy Cyril and his Twelve Chapters, yet is not, by these men, named under any reproach in this condemnation, although he handled him in his reply far more vehemently and abusively? For he speaks against him thus: «Woe is me because of these evils: alas, alas! For whence in the present case should anyone take his opening from any other source? What manner of men were the Cyrils of Egypt, and what great blasphemies have I met with, and what great blasphemies have I heard! Who indeed will give water to my head, and to my eyes a fountain of tears?
and I will weep over this day and night: because his tongue has stretched out a lie, and not faithfulness; it has grown strong upon the earth (Jer. IX, 1-3); assuredly, peace to sinners is a deception. For 'on this account,' he says, 'their pride has taken hold of them unto the end; they have devised and spoken in malice, they have spoken iniquity on high; they have set their mouth against heaven, and their tongue has passed over the earth' (Ps. LXXII, 6, 8, 9). These words are the Psalmist's; but those first ones are the prophet Jeremiah's. Well done, O blessed Paul! 'There shall rise up,' he says, 'even from among your own selves, men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them' (Acts XX, 30). Woe to the evil one of Alexandria, his familiar, and now to this second one in his own right — whom corrupted we bewail, and who corrupts:
the mystery of iniquity is now wholly at work, and I fear lest perchance he who restrains may never be taken out of the way (II Thess. II, 7). Well done, prophet Jeremiah! To that same voice a terrible ecstasy has come upon the earth: 'The prophets prophesy iniquities; the priests have clapped with their hands, and my people have loved it so' (Lam. II, 14, 15). For what is there small, or what moderate, in those men? He has hurled every excess of blasphemy against the holy Fathers, against their predecessors the apostles, against the Saviour himself, and has plotted against the resurrection. The humanity indeed which was assumed from us and for us he insults, and contends that His divine nature, impassible though it be, is subject to sufferings.»
Behold how great and what sort of things holy Gennadius poured forth against blessed Cyril, and yet no odium against his name arose from this, because he himself did not take part in the Council of Chalcedon. Moreover, replying to the first chapter of the same holy Cyril, in which he said: 'If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is truly God, and therefore that the holy Virgin is Mother of God — for she bore in the flesh the Word of God made flesh — let him be anathema,' he inveighed against him thus: «God shall anathematize you, you whited wall (Acts XXIII, 3):
for it is most just that you, like Ananias the chief priest of the Jews who moved his tongue against the disciples of Christ, should experience from them a like indignation,» and the rest, which anyone who wishes will find in the same work. Why, then, in this avenging — as they call it — of the wrongs done to blessed Cyril, is not rather the name of holy Gennadius bandied about, both for the authority of his see, as bishop of the royal city, and for the magnitude of his maledictions and insults? But if they have taken this into consideration, namely that Gennadius would not have written such things about Cyril unless he had failed to understand the speaker's intention: this prudent and devout consideration I too accept.
For he himself too, believing what is right concerning the Christian religion, might without understanding have blamed blessed Cyril with good intention, and they reckoned it damnable to condemn a good intention. But if they have also considered this, that if the things which were written a hundred years ago by blessed Gennadius were now to be condemned, it would turn to the reproach of the whole Church, which did not do this before: this too, anyone who is wise and modest will recognize to have been wisely and modestly considered.
But why was this not further considered regarding the letter of the venerable Ibas, which — not to say that it was approved by the universal synod — was at least shown to have been read out there, and is not shown to have been rejected, except because it was condemned as profane for the destruction of that synod itself, and not for any wrong done to Cyril? Finally, the sayings also of the venerable Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, in which he is said to have written things contrary to blessed Cyril, they likewise censured under the pretext of this avenging; and on this account, wishing to make him appear blameworthy because he among the other Fathers was present at the Council of Chalcedon and affirmed the letter of blessed Leo — which the Eutychians anathematize — when it was read out there, to the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops who were in doubt.
Otherwise, why would they act so manifestly against the letter of Ibas and the writings of Theodoret, while keeping silent the names of others whose dignity is greater, whose reputation is more illustrious, and whose very words against blessed Cyril are seen to be more vehement and more biting? For even that most holy man of great glory in the Church of Christ, Isidore the Egyptian presbyter of Pelusium — whom many know to have written two thousand letters for the edification of the Church, and who, for the merits of his life and wisdom, was both honoured and called 'father' by Cyril himself — writes to him thus, or rather writes back: «The examples of the divine Scriptures terrify me, and I am compelled to write back what I ought.
For whether I am a father, as you yourself said, then I fear the condemnation of Eli, who did not chastise his sinning sons (I Kings IV); or whether I am your son, as I rather know, since you bear the character of that great Mark, I dread the condemnation of Jonathan, because he did not restrain his father when he spoke to the woman with a familiar spirit; and being the first to die in battle, before the one who had sinned and who was able to restrain him (I Kings XXVIII; 1 Chron. X, 13). But that neither I may be condemned, nor you yourself be condemned by God, rest from contention, and do not exact from the living Church the avenging of your own injuries which is owed you by mortal men, and do not bring upon her eternal discord under the pretext of piety.»
Nor are the writings of Isidore — who said that Cyril was building up eternal discord for the Church under the pretext of piety — branded with great odium, in the way that the sayings of the bishop Theodoret and the letter of the venerable Ibas are branded. But the same holy Isidore writes to him again, saying: «Compassion indeed dulls the keenness of the eyes; but rivalry blinds them altogether. Do not therefore become the executor of either of these inclinations, but commit the causes to a just examination: for even God, who knows all things before they come to pass, willed in His kindness to come down and to see, after the manner of men, the cry of Sodom (Gen. XVIII, 21), teaching us the lesson of diligent inquiry.
For many deride you as it were in a comedy, among those who were gathered at Ephesus, because — judging a private injury — you did not orthodoxly seek the things that are Christ's: they say that you are the cousin of Theophilus, and that you imitate his will. For just as he poured out open madness against Theodore and our John, so this man too longs to glory, although among those examined there is much that differs.»
Behold, in this letter too he reproves him as one blinded by passion of soul and by rivalry, conducting the causes by violence rather than by a just rule, and being derided by many, because he sought the vindication of a private injury, and not orthodoxly the things that are Christ's, at Ephesus in the case of Nestorius — just as Theophilus too, his cousin and predecessor, had sought the glory of men in the condemnation of John of Constantinople. Therefore holy Gennadius too said of blessed Cyril himself, as we have shown above: 'Woe to the evil one of Alexandria, his familiar, and now to this second one in his own right' — wishing the first to be understood as Theophilus, but the second as Cyril. And although that learned man judges the case of John and of Nestorius to be different, saying:
'Although among those examined there is much that differs,' in which he reproves Nestorius himself: nevertheless he believed that in both there was a purpose of rivalry. He likewise writes other letters to him similarly, in which he testifies that by his own changeableness he was betraying heavenly things, and was contrary to his own self in his own writings, overcome by desire for vain glory. Not, therefore, are Gennadius and Isidore, men most approved, to be believed more innocent in this part than the venerable Ibas and Theodoret his fellow-bishops, but rather more fortunate, because they themselves were found not to be participants in the Council of Chalcedon.