Now let us bring forth those things in which they are convicted of having impugned even the testimony of blessed Cyril by their own judgment. For while affirming that he is the author of some work or other, in which certain sayings of holy Diodore, bishop of Tarsus, and of Theodore are faulted, they cannot deny that he said therein: 'There were written by the great Theodore against the heresies of the Arians and Eunomians perhaps twenty and yet more books, and besides these he interpreted other evangelical and apostolic writings. And these labors indeed no one has dared to censure, but rather to honor by a favorable decree the zeal for right dogmas which is in them.
But these men on the contrary reprehend this same Theodore in his exposition of the Gospel, in which — whoever is the author of that work — he attests that his labors no one dared to censure, but rather to honor by a favorable decree: and hence they call him impious because he said that the Lord, in His passion, both feared and was troubled, so that they even said this:
'We shudder even at the mere memory of his blasphemies, and we beseech God to become propitious to us, that we at all endure upon the tongue such men asserting that He could tremble in the passion — He who gave to His own servants, who underwent martyrdom for His name's sake, such grace that with joy and readiness and eagerness they went to their sufferings.' But this reprehension and detestation of the writings of Theodore impugns the sound doctrine of blessed Leo, author of the Council of Chalcedon, who, writing to Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, says (Letter 78): 'Use therefore, dearest brother, the most invincible proofs of the catholic faith, and defend the preaching of the evangelists by the testimony of the holy places in which you dwell.
With you is Bethlehem, in which the saving birth of the Davidic Virgin shone forth, which received the swaddled Child amid the straits of the inn, laid in a manger. With you is the infancy of the Savior, declared by angels, adored by the magi, and sought by Herod through the deaths of many infants. With you is the place where His boyhood grew up, where His youth came to maturity, and where through all bodily increments the nature of the true man advanced into a perfect man — not without the food of hunger, not without the sleep of rest, not without the tears of compassion, nor without the fear of dread. For one and the same is He who both in the form of God wrought great miracles of power, and in the form of a servant underwent the cruelty of the passion.
If, therefore, the heretics ask us why we do not also condemn Leo, who preached, and compelled others to preach, that Christ underwent the cruelty of His Passion not without the dread of fear, what shall we answer concerning Theodore, who is now condemned for such a confession? Either we must deny that that letter is Leo's, fleeing to the customary refuge of falsehood, or we must grant that Leo himself, together with Theodore, must be condemned. Behold what sort of things are said to have been composed for the defense of the Council of Chalcedon and of Leo of Rome, which by their own prejudice compel us to condemn both the very synod and Leo: and those who, out of the fear of God, refused to be associated with such men, and have taught that these things were drawn up to the prejudice of the Church, are pronounced worthy of exile, worthy of prison.
Yet this is no wonder; for the world has ever thus requited the truth that reproves it. But what is this, that in the very same book in which Theodore is said to have passed over into the madness of the devil's transgression—because he confessed that our Lord feared and was troubled in His Passion—Athanasius is approved, who, writing in the third book Against the Arians concerning the properties of the two natures of Christ, also says this: «For indeed to be troubled is proper to the flesh; but to have power to lay down and take up the soul whenever He wills—this is not proper to a man, but is of the power of the Word»? Behold, these very men, not elsewhere but in the same book, forgetful of themselves, confess that the blessed Athanasius truly said that in the Passion the Lord was troubled.
Why then, contradicting themselves—in the very point in which they approve Athanasius, so as to prejudice the great Council—do they condemn Theodore? For this same blessed Athanasius also spoke thus in the book which he composed concerning the Trinity: «For the Word and Son of God was always Lord God, and it was not after the crucifixion that Jesus Christ was made Lord, but, as I said before, His divinity made His humanity Lord and God. And when He says: Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine be done: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak (Matt. XXVI, 39, 41), He here shows two wills: the human, which is of the flesh, and another truly, which is of the Godhead;»
«and the human indeed, on account of the weakness of the flesh, refuses the Passion, while His divinity is willing.» Since therefore the holy Athanasius confesses two wills in Christ—the human indeed, refusing the Passion on account of the weakness of the flesh, and the other truly, which is of the Godhead, willing—the Eutychians ought now to recognize that, just as it follows that if Theodore is justly condemned for such a confession, Roman Leo cannot be absolved, so likewise of necessity neither can Athanasius himself, whom they say they venerate, be absolved.
But why do I speak of Athanasius, when they have not hesitated to assail even the very Evangelists, since by the condemnation of Theodore they aim at the injury of blessed Leo and of the Synod of Chalcedon, because it pronounced orthodox the letter of Ibas which contained his praises? For again, when Theodore resisted the Apollinarists—who, like the Eutychians now, wished to do away with the human nature in Christ—and said, in proof of that human nature of Christ, that when the moment of the Passion was at hand He prayed the more earnestly and was strengthened by an angel, it is said by these men: «How did He who works the angels have need of the consolation of an angel? as the Apostle says: For in Him were created all things which are in heaven,»
«and that are on earth, visible and invisible, were created in Him (Col. I, 16). And they add also that which we mentioned above, saying: Or how did He dread the Passion who granted to His own servants—who underwent martyrdom for His name—such grace, that they approached their sufferings with joy and readiness and eagerness?» All which things they said there, not against Theodore, nor against the letter of the venerable Ibas which praised Theodore, nor against blessed Leo who taught the like, but rather against John and Luke the Evangelists. For John too relates that the Lord said: Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour (John XII, 27). And Luke also: There appeared to Him an angel from heaven, strengthening Him;
and being in an agony, He prayed the more earnestly: and His sweat became as it were drops of blood running down to the ground (Luke XXII, 43, 44). Wherefore those most grievous insults which they heaped upon Theodore on account of this opinion, wishing thereby to stain blessed Leo and the Council of Chalcedon—let all who are of sound mind recognize that they were rather heaped upon the Evangelists. But if we accept these men when they say: How did He who works the angels have need of the consolation of an angel? so as to believe that He needed no consolation in the nature He had assumed, then we shall also not accept the Apostle Paul when he says: For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sake He became poor, though He was rich, that through His poverty you might be rich (II Cor.
VIII, 9). But, resisting all the things which are written of Him, let us too say: How did the Bread of angels have need of breasts and of a mother's milk? or how did He who carries all things by the word of His power have need to be borne in human arms and on the bosom? or how did He who neither slumbers in keeping watch over Jerusalem have need of sleep? So that now we may say in word only that His natures are two, while by the very facts we empty out what we profess in voice—just as we say also that we honor the Council of Chalcedon, whose judgment we oppose. But those who resist the Gospel would not say:
How did He dread the Passion who granted to His own servants—who underwent martyrdom for His name—such grace, that they approached their sufferings with joy and readiness and eagerness? if indeed they were speaking of human matters as men, or at least as concerning men. What then? Did the martyrs not dread to die? or, moved by natural feeling, did they not shrink in dread before death, which is assuredly a punishment not from nature but from sins? And do we believe that, through hope of things to come, they thus approached their sufferings with joy and eagerness, so that they were in no way moved by the dread of present evils? Surely not; for they would, if they could, have arrived at that toward which they were striving without passing through death. For this reason the Lord Himself also said to Peter: Amen, amen, I say to thee:
When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldest not. Now this He said, as the Evangelist taught us, signifying by what death he should glorify God (John XXI, 18, 19). They hear the Truth saying: Another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldest not, and yet they vainly boast that there was in the martyrs no dread of suffering. So they might say that even if someone, despairing of life from a deadly ulcer, on the physician's promise that he can restore his health by the knife, so rejoices in hope of future health that he does not dread the present distress of the cutting. But let him attend to what the Apostle Paul also says, speaking of the very death of the body:
For we know that if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this also we groan, desiring to be clothed over with our habitation which is from heaven, if so be that being clothed we be not found naked. For we also who are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened, because we would not be unclothed, but clothed over, that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life (II Cor. V, 1-4). The Apostle, then, calling the body a house or tabernacle, says that he would not be unclothed of it; but rather, if it could be done, be clothed over with immortality, so that he might pass to it not by the unclothing of the body. But somehow they say that the martyrs, to whom it was said:
When they persecute you in this city, flee into another (Matt. X, 23)—the martyrs did not dread to die, nay rather they dreaded not to die. They would not have died, if it could have been; but they preferred, by devotion and obedience, the will of God to their own natural will. This too those words of the Lord signified, when, while He said: Father, if Thou wilt, remove this cup from me, He there immediately subjoined, saying: Nevertheless not my will, but thine be done (Luke XXII, 42). And as for what He says: Fear not those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matt.
X, 28)—He did not command that which is against nature, namely that no dread of death should touch the human mind, otherwise He would be said to have impugned His own precept, since He Himself gave counsel of flight; but, that fear might be conquered by fear, He said: Fear not those who kill the body. Therefore, following on, He added: but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. But let us also observe what the fellow-disciple of the aforesaid Theodore of Mopsuestia, holy John of Constantinople, said on this matter. He, expounding this same passage of the Gospel according to Matthew, speaks thus: «He indeed prays more intently, lest the matter should seem to be a pretense, and the sweat flows down for this same cause once again:»
«and lest the heretics should say that He was feigning the agony, for this reason both the sweats like drops of blood, and the angel appearing and strengthening Him, and a thousand proofs of fear. And lest anyone should say it is a fiction of words, therefore both the prayer—and indeed to say: If it be possible, let it pass—shows His humanity; but to say: Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt—shows how, through zeal for virtue and through patience, we are taught, even when our nature draws us back, to follow God.» He also, in the commentary which he made on the Gospel of John, in the twenty-sixth chapter, whose beginning is: He who loves his soul shall lose it, spoke thus:
«Lest they should say that He, being a stranger to human griefs, easily philosophizes about death, and admonishes us while Himself free from danger, He shows that He does not refuse the agony for our benefit's sake: but these things belong to the dispensation, not to the divinity; therefore He says: Now is my soul troubled (John XII, 27). Otherwise, unless this be so, what consequence has it that it was said, and to say: Father, save me from this hour? to be so troubled as to seek deliverance, if indeed there were a possibility of escape? These things belong to the weakness of human nature; but I have nothing to say, He says, seeking deliverance: for this cause I came unto this hour; as if He said: Even if we are troubled and disturbed, let us not flee death. For,»
«I, now troubled, do not say that I may flee; for it is fitting to bear what befalls. I do not say: Deliver me from this hour; but what? Father, glorify Thy name. And although the trouble urges Him to say this, He on the contrary says: Glorify Thy name—that is, while I go to the cross: which much demonstrates that which is human, and shows the nature unwilling to die, but eager for the present life, proving that He was not a stranger to human passions. For just as neither to drink is a crime, nor to sleep, so neither is it to have a desire for the present life. But Christ had a body clean from sins, not freed from the necessities of the flesh; otherwise it would not even have been a body.»
Did not Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is condemned to the prejudice of blessed Leo and of the Synod of Chalcedon, confess—in order to assert the humanity of Christ, just as did his fellow-disciple the blessed John—a thousand proofs of fear in His very Passion? or has he anywhere been shown by them, in the way that this illustrious doctor of the Church, to have said that Christ was so troubled and disturbed in His Passion that He even sought deliverance, if indeed there were a possibility of escape; and many other things which John attests insinuate His human nature as unwilling to die but eager for the present life—since just as to drink is no crime, nor to sleep, so neither is it to have a desire for the present life?
And what is greater, and destructive of the novel doctrine of certain men in some manner, he concludes his opinion in this: that to take these things away from the sufferings of Christ is nothing else than to deny the very substance of His body, when he says: «But Christ had a body clean from sins, not freed from the necessities of the flesh; otherwise it would not even have been a body.» But why should I bring forward other testimonies on this matter, whether of the aforesaid Fathers or of other venerable Fathers, when they have already sufficiently answered themselves in that same book of theirs, bringing forward against themselves—as we mentioned above—the testimony of holy Athanasius, in which he says: «For indeed to be troubled is proper to the flesh;»
«but to have power to lay down and take up the soul whenever He wills—this is not proper to a man, but is of the power of the Word.» Why then do they there, on the contrary, as though it were something great, allege that blessed Athanasius said of Christ, in that same third book Against the Arians: «How would He who is God dread, or why would He fear death, while He Himself is Life, and delivers others from death; or how, while saying: Fear not him who kills the body, would He Himself dread?» Let them understand that he said this according to His divinity, against the Arians, who transferred to the injury of His divinity those things which belonged to His humanity. For how else could he say both, not only in the same work, but in the very same book?
unless perchance we believe Athanasius to be like these men, so that he too might be said to have been thus self-contradictory. This I would say also concerning the testimonies of the other Fathers, which they glory there to have heaped together against the evangelical teaching. There are many other things in that very book of theirs by which they assail themselves, speaking contrary to themselves, which it would now be long to pursue, and which we better leave to you to refute, since this can most easily be done: and that work, elaborated by whomever you please, ought to be adorned with the title of your name, by which the falsehood cunningly devised to the prejudice of the great Synod is refuted.