I will add yet another epistle of the oft-mentioned holy John of Antioch and his synod, written to the blessed Cyril also, for the not-condemning of the sayings of Theodore. «To the bishop Cyril, beloved of God and most holy, John of Antioch, and the bishops, beloved of God, assembling with him from each province that is in the East by the grace of God, in the city beloved of Christ, Antioch, on account of the letters of the most holy bishop the lord Proclus.» And below, speaking of those who, as has been said, importunately wished certain chapters excerpted from the books of Theodore to be condemned, they say thus:
«But now these same men, as if rising from sleep, have set out for the royal city, and, disturbing it, have, as far as in them lies, troubled the peace of the Church. For when the most holy bishop Proclus had sent to us the volume — which he wrote to the Armenians, truly correct and pious in its content — and was seeking our consent, all was done by us, and in nothing did we do less. But this too, in the present time, was superfluous, because already by the grace of God all everywhere keep one and the same pious understanding. For things that seem as it were necessary are wont sometimes, if they are not done opportunely, to receive an increase of disturbance. There is yet another evil in the haste of these men, with hands outstretched, each saying, 'I,'
holding certain excerpts of the blessed Theodore who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and the things which he seems to have said in various books, wishing to bring an anathema against them. For this reason we ask that you apply your readiness to us more zealously than in other matters, and deign to consider that this is an evil work, unless you labor to extinguish it by a common decision. For God has given you, beyond willing, also the power, that you may help all in common. There are in that volume certain uncertain things, and things capable of being understood otherwise than they were said — this we too confess; but very many of them we see to be clear and right without any ambiguity. Yet as for those which are thought obscure, we find many similar things said also by many of his predecessors and glorious Fathers;
and hence hangs no light peril, lest in these we should also dissolve the sayings of those men, by reprobating the sayings of that man — one who indeed died in the episcopate, yet who throughout his whole life was everywhere adorned with countless contests against the Arians and other heretics. And if this should come about, we shall have to reexamine and reprobate many things openly said by other holy Fathers as well. For we find certain things similar to these excerpts in the thrice-blessed and noble Athanasius, certain also in the blessed Basil, certain in both Gregories; and many things often said also in Amphilochius, and not a few in our common Father the blessed Theophilus. For there are things which even your Holiness so confesses, and you have the same understanding of them.
Certain things too were said by the beloved-of-God Proclus himself, in that very volume which he sent to the Armenians, by which he concurs with many of these excerpted opinions. And the day will fail us as we run through the blessed Eustathius, bishop of the city of Antioch, who stood for the right faith in the Council of Nicaea, and the men of great fame of your Alexandria; but also after those most holy bishops, Meletius and Flavian, by whom many things in agreement with these were said. And what shall I now say of those who in the West were adorned according to the same doctrine and the same confession, whom your Holiness knows better? Consider, therefore, I pray, to what precipice they are driving us, who contend with words to no benefit.
What full measure of harm or corruption and confusion would not be engendered from this, if we open the door to those who would overthrow the sayings of the Fathers who have passed away? What damage would not be manifest, not only to refute, but even to anathematize their sayings? For that one thing should please someone, and another not, in the sayings of some — whether of the ancients, or of those who came after, or of those not of our own — is one matter. But that an anathema also should be imposed upon them, we judge would appear bold and harsh, even if the persons together with the sayings are not anathematized. For which of us would hope that he could move another, or which of these things would not furnish an occasion for the peoples always to be disturbed? And this indeed is wont to happen both to the living and to those who have passed away:
and this we say not only to one who knows these things, but also to one able, more than all others, to consider the magnitude of this absurdity. What desirable opportunity would we not furnish from this to the defenders of Nestorius? For who would not honor him, if he were anathematized together with this man and others who laid down their lives in the episcopate? Or where would his opinion not, through this, receive increase? And what one of deceived men, taking occasion from these things, would not call him a confessor, as having suffered on account of that for which he suffered the very things which those too suffered who shone in the Church? And who that has a mind does not know that those things which were harshly said by the blessed Theodore, he said compelled by necessity?
For the whole East in common set him forth, among those who were before us, as one having great power of doctrine against the heresies, against which, fighting and contending, he made use of a certain great division — not coming from a perverse understanding, but judging that he should more effectively use that mode against the heretics: not ignorant of, nor denying, the supreme unity — far be it! — for all his books are full of this; but dividing the more amply the properties of the natures, as the conflict which he had against the heretics dictated to him should be done. This too your Religiosity openly dispensed in your earlier letters, for the satisfaction of certain of our venerable fellow-bishops: which itself also is proper to your virtue and your wisdom.
» But I, O religious prince, as much as I am moved by these sayings — by which the venerable Fathers, through the wisdom given them by God, anticipated whatever we might be able to answer in the cause of Theodore on behalf of the great synod — so much do I grieve, and impute to those men what has been done, who were not accustomed to set these things before you beforehand. For who believes that your religion would resist such great authority, or your prudence such reasoning? For these words of the synod of the East would move not, I will not say, the mind of a God-fearing and wise prince, but of any man whom humanity has not utterly abandoned. For if at that time they could quench a blazing flame, how much more now might they obtain from you that no one rekindle what is extinguished?
But if those men were said to be, as it were, rising from sleep — they who, while they contradicted nothing in the living Theodore, after his death at that time set out with this matter to the royal city, disturbing the peace of the Church, as far as in them lay — what is to be said of these supporters of the heretics, who after a hundred years have begun, worse still, to awaken from the sleep of those who had risen to their own harm?
How, accordingly, can the synod of Chalcedon be justly blamed, because it believed the Eastern Fathers gathered in council, whom it knew — believed that they did not deny that certain things in Theodore's writings could be understood otherwise than they were said, and affirmed that they were uttered in a right sense, just as they understood them by very many of his other sayings, which they said they saw to be clear and right without any ambiguity? Knowing also that these same Easterners had testified that, in those sayings of Theodore which are thought obscure, many similar things had been said also by many of his predecessors and glorious Fathers.
But it was unwilling to reprobate the sayings of that man, who indeed died in the episcopate, but throughout his whole life was everywhere adorned with countless contests against the Arians and the Eunomians and other heretics. Ought it to be blamed for this moderation and reasonableness? Especially since no light peril was impending, lest, with his sayings condemned, all the sayings of those Fathers too should be dissolved. Most well-advised, therefore, and provident — rather than Nestorian — must that synod be called, which prudently took away even the occasions by which the peoples could be disturbed, and furnished neither excuse nor even authority to the Nestorian error;
which it would assuredly have done, had it judged Theodore — proclaimed by so many Fathers — to be the author of the Nestorian dogma. «On account of which they themselves also said: Or which of these things would not furnish occasions for the peoples always to be disturbed? And what desirable opportunity would we not furnish from this to the defenders of Nestorius? For who would not honor him, if he were anathematized together with this man and others who laid down their lives in the episcopate?» — and the rest of the things commemorated by them, which we too see to avail rather for the excusing of Nestorius.
But that holy synod would also seem to have tacitly reproached the blessed Cyril and the other Fathers who had assembled with him at Ephesus, in that it judged it unjust to deem heretics the aforesaid Easterners, who defended this same Theodore and praised him far more. For not the blessed Cyril alone — but ought we not to believe that those priests of his also who were with him at Ephesus, and especially the Egyptians, had come to know this opinion of the Easterners concerning Theodore, who nevertheless all remained in communion with them? Whence you perceive, O Emperor, that those three things which we subjoined to the division of this work are here again and again shown together.
For if the synod of Chalcedon had condemned the epistle of the venerable Ibas because of its praise of Theodore, it would be proved to have excused Nestorius and to have found fault with the blessed Cyril and the Council of Ephesus. For which reasons it acted altogether piously and prudently, in distinguishing the cause of Theodore from the cause of Nestorius. For Nestorius concealed his perfidy under the pretext of harmful diligence, denying that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God; and when admonished and rebuked, he conceived the offense of the whole Church. But Theodore, contradicting not the Church but the heretics, spoke certain things in such a way that, unless the reader looks to the intention of the speaker, he is offended at the words.
Nor did he deny that Christ is one in two natures, as we have shown, but by the necessity of the heretics who assailed him he was compelled greatly to distinguish the properties of the natures. Whence it was said: «For the whole East in common set him forth as one having great power of doctrine against the heresies, against which, fighting and contending, he made use of a certain great division — not coming from a perverse understanding, but judging that he should more effectively use that mode against the heretics: not ignorant of, nor denying, the supreme unity — far be it! — for all his books are full of this kind; but dividing the more amply the properties of the natures, as the conflict which he had against the heretics dictated to him should be done.
» But if it shall be permitted to posterity to scrutinize the simple sayings of the ancient preachers as though they were the fraudulent words of heretics, and not to consider that they were aiming against present heresies, not against future ones which they did not know, then we shall without hesitation condemn very many along with Theodore. For, as these Eastern Fathers testify, many things are found in them which seek not a severe judge, but a pious interpreter.
Since the testimony of the Orientals is not believed, we therefore bring forward a few sayings out of the many of the ancient doctors of the Church, so that the Eutychians or their partisans cannot dissemble the fact that, in the condemnation of the dogmas of Theodore which they sought in the overthrow of the Council of Chalcedon, the doctrine also of those very Fathers whom they claim to venerate is condemned. But even setting these aside, or leaving them aside for a little, the holy synod cannot be reproached for not having judged the letter of the venerable Ibas heretical in its praise of him. First indeed, because it followed the judgment of so many Fathers, which alone suffices for its defence;
next, because neither is this to be disapproved, if either it believed that those who brought charges concerning certain writings of Theodore gave occasion to the contrary dogma by which they themselves were held, and censured those writings through understanding them too little; or [it believed] that Theodore himself had expounded what he meant in less suitable words, which can befall many catholic teachers. For often, even by the very intention of resisting adversaries, due measure is exceeded in speaking; nor is it easy for a man to avoid questions yet to come, when he rises up with the whole effort of his mind against those present before him.
For Theodore frequently contended, both in books and in sermons to the people, against the Synousiasts, or, as they are called from the name of their author, the Apollinarists, the progenitors of the Eutychian madness, who, having arisen in his times, said that there was one nature of Christ. If, in resisting these, he is perchance found to have slipped in a word through human frailty, what impiety did the synod commit, in that, with so many bearing witness, it believed that he remained within the catholic understanding? especially because the Nestorian perfidy had not yet arisen, which would always have made the disputant anxious from the other side; but he attended only to that which he had set himself to overcome.
But if Theodore should be shown to have been beset by some inexcusable error, the holy synod did not act impiously in that, thinking piously concerning the Church of Christ, it believed that he, admonished in time, could have corrected it, so as to remain a bishop within her; and on this account, for the very many other things which he rightly held, it not undeservedly praised his doctrine. These indeed are the words of the Oriental Fathers, in which they spoke concerning Theodore: «For the whole East set him forth in common among those who were before us, as one having great power of doctrine against heresies:» and your Serenity recognizes that this agrees with the letter of blessed Gregory Nazianzen, in which, writing to the same Theodore, he says:
«If indeed the province had another head, one would have to cry out and appeal to him; but since your Reverence is set over us, it is necessary to look to you.» And again: «To restrain these things is not for our age and infirmity, but for your prudence and virtue: since the Almighty has granted to you, together with others, the means for the common defence of the Church.» But what even the angered Cyril wrote back to the Oriental synod, forbidding not only the person but even the sayings of Theodore to be condemned, we have recounted in the third book.