Now therefore let us recall the synodical letter of Domnus of Antioch, who, like his predecessor John, also himself, writing to the Emperor Theodosius, [says]:
«Your piety,» he says, «is compelled to be informed, that the presbyter Eutyches attempts to renew the impiety of the heresiarch Apollinaris, and to undermine the apostolic doctrines, corrupting the dogma of the mystery of the Incarnation, and calling the divinity of the Only-begotten and his humanity one nature, and asserting that a mixture and confusion has taken place, and attaching the saving Passion to the very inviolable Deity, and presumes to anathematize Diodore and Theodore, who were pillars of the truth and defenders of piety, and clearly exercised their power against every heresy; and in this he is like the vanity of Apollinaris. For he moved his tongue against the great Diodore, because Diodore had impiously [zealously] rebuked him for what he was doing.
And this too is a clear sign of the kinship of their dogmas: for whoever assails the great champion of piety Diodore with blasphemous words together with Apollinaris, shows on the contrary that he himself embraces the likeness of that vanity. But this great Diodore has as witness of his piety and of his illustrious contests that great Basil. For he shone in that time in which the patrons of Arius's impiety, then ensnaring the souls of emperors, [strove to] move their power against the truth. And this man held in Antioch a course of contests, struggling against the harshness of the heretics.
But the holy man of God Meletius—from whom the guardians of the apostolic dogmas take their appellation among us (for the followers of Arius call us Meletians)—set the most sacred Diodore over all Cilicia, and committed to him the governance of Tarsus. He, in the royal city, together with Gregory and the rest who were of his zeal, ordained the thrice-blessed Nectarius archbishop. He was the teacher of John the Great, who adorned the see of the royal city and filled the whole world with doctrine. He nourished that most renowned Theodore with pious dogmas, and, teaching him to labour clearly and bravely, sent him forth against the bands of heretics. And the most sacred Diodore flourished together with Athanasius the Great, and Peter and Timothy;
but Theodore [flourished] with Theophilus—men illuminating the world in the stead of luminaries, who adorned the see of Alexandria; yet throughout their whole life these were the praisers of those former men, and no one anywhere openly presumed to accuse them.» It also appears from what we have now brought forward that the most renowned Theodore was a fellow-disciple of the great John, with whom, as Domnus attests, he was nourished in pious dogmas by the holy Diodore also, as by Flavian of Antioch.
This too has at the same time been disclosed: that the Eutychians contracted their hatred against Theodore from Eutyches himself, their father, who called the divinity of the Only-begotten and the humanity one nature, asserting that a mixture and confusion had taken place, and attaching the saving Passion to the very inviolable Deity. It is no wonder, therefore, if the unhappy branches agree with their most bitter root. But here I await the judgment of your piety, as to which opinion you deem we ought to be joined to in the cause of Theodore of Mopsuestia:
whether to the frenzy of Eutyches and his heirs, who, by reason of that peculiar folly by which we are held [in their eyes], have always been armed in vain for his condemnation; or to that of John of Constantinople his fellow-disciple, and of Gregory Nazianzen, then of John of Antioch and the whole Oriental council, of Cyril and Proclus who wrote back to him, and of this Domnus of Antioch? I think, most clement Emperor, that you judge it to be of great wickedness and great profanation to trample, for the sake of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the opinion of these luminaries of the world, and to pass over to the darkness of Eutychian blindness, so that within the catholic Church we should carry on the enmities of heretics, and wage war against our own with another's hatred.
But if it is profane for us, in the condemnation of Theodore alone, to trample the opinion of the Fathers so that the desire of the Eutychians may be satisfied, far more [profane is it] to condemn the venerable Fathers themselves, by decreeing, or by assenting to those who decree, that he be anathema who does not say anathema to Theodore of Mopsuestia. What therefore your religion compels you to judge profane, this the venerable synod of Chalcedon also judged profane, as it ought to have judged—namely, to follow the judgment of Eutyches in the cause of Theodore, against whom it had been assembled, rather than [the judgment] of those Fathers by whose testimonies it refuted him;
and therefore, with Domnus of Antioch and many Fathers attesting that the most renowned Theodore, together with the great John who adorned the see of the royal city, was nourished by Diodore in pious dogmas, [the synod] ought not to have condemned the letter of the venerable Ibas or condemned Theodore, since it observed that his praises were recited from it. Indeed, since it knew this also, that he sustained, together with his master Diodore, a common accusation from the Apollinarists and Eutyches, and likewise knew that Diodore had as witness of his piety and illustrious contests the great Basil and the holy Meletius, from whose name the Arians call us Meletians;
and Gregory, and the other Gregory, with whom he ordained blessed Nectarius bishop in the royal city; and that he flourished together with the Alexandrian bishops, that is, Athanasius the Great, and Peter and Timothy—which also we have shown from their letters in the fourth book—just as Theodore himself likewise [flourished] with Theophilus, men illuminating the world in the stead of luminaries.
And assuredly the great synod of Chalcedon could not escape the crime of intolerable presumption, if it were to follow the Apollinarists and Eutyches, who with false accusations assailed Diodore and Theodore, together with Basil and Meletius, and both Gregories, and John, and Nectarius, and Athanasius, and Peter, and Timothy and Theophilus, men who lived without reproach in the preaching of the truth.
Was this not to make the Apollinarists and Eutyches appear wiser and more diligent, and to condemn so many venerable Fathers, who, agreeing with Diodore and Theodore, are shown never to have reproached these men in any respect? By the authority of these Fathers, therefore, the foolish presumption of the Eutychians ought to have been trampled and crushed, and the synod ought not to have been excused mendaciously—the synod which can more soundly and more strongly be defended by an acceptable reason, as we have said, and by manifest truth.
But while so many and such great masters of the Church of Christ praise the life and doctrine of the most renowned Theodore, and testify that, labouring clearly and bravely, he overthrew the bands of heretics, [he being] nowhere accused by anyone—though certain men did condemn even his dogmas—what have I done arrogantly, religious Emperor, in that this seemed to someone either to think or to say of me: that, standing midway between the two parties, I wished neither to proclaim him nor to condemn him? especially since, as we said above, they have subjected to anathema not Theodore alone, but all who do not also say anathema. In what
way, moreover, could it most easily be proved that anathema is not to be said to Theodore, unless they should join to his condemnation all who do not say anathema to him? How cruel and exceedingly iniquitous this would be—even if it were forbidden by no opinion of the Fathers—is very easy to see. For ought those to be anathema who [cannot pronounce anathema] upon Theodore of Mopsuestia, either because they held him and any of his error unknown and uncertain, if there were any such, or because, he having died in the peace of the Church, they feared to say anathema? For if anyone, wishing to cavil, should object to them and say: What have the innocence of infants or the necessity of the dumb deserved, that they should be made anathema by you, who can say anathema neither to Theodore of Mopsuestia nor to anyone?
they will, as I suppose, seethe greatly for [the sake of] their cleverness. Moreover, how much the minds of these very heretics, in all things but most of all in this deed, were darkened by the zeal of their fury, is sufficiently clear: for while they strive, by the long windings of their faction, to arrive at the annulment of the Chalcedonian synod, they did not realize that those very Fathers whom they claim to venerate were at the same time condemned together with Theodore. For let them teach us—either they themselves or their abettors, if they can truly do anything—how at the same time Theodore is both pronounced such a heretic that from his name those are now called Theodorians who hitherto were called Nestorians;
and yet the praisers of his faith and doctrine do not appear heretics—to say nothing of the whole Church, which held him in honour as long as he lived. Here, then, let them prove the subtlety of their doctrine. Here let them exercise that petulant wit and shameless learning—those who think they philosophize skilfully, who can calumniate others now dead, when they cannot defend their own sayings. And therefore, even now, being admonished, they ought to disavow before us what has been done. But if they will not, let the catholics at least cease to judge of the dead either unjustly or too severely, and to destroy the authority of the synod of Chalcedon with such an argument of heretics.
For to what end is this excessive justice needful, which, while it favours the heretics who argue ill, has overflowed harshly and cruelly into the reproach of the holy Fathers? Is it not properly seen to be forbidden to such men in Ecclesiastes, where it is written: «Be not overmuch just, and argue not excessively, lest perhaps thou be stupefied; act not impiously overmuch, and be not too hard, lest thou die in a time not thine own» (Eccles. VII, 17)? And because there follows, saying: «It is good for thee to spare in this indeed; from this defile not thy hand, for he who fears God escapes all things.»
We, for the fear of God, have preferred—so that we might escape this fault—to spare the venerable Fathers rather than to be mingled with those who defiled their hands, condemning them with an ill-advised subscription. It pertains, therefore, to the justice of your piety, that you, who do not judge as despisers of the paternal opinion those who boast that they have understood more prudently than so many Fathers and have more usefully consulted for the faith, should far less judge me henceforth, who seem to follow in the matter of Theodore not my own judgment, but that of so many Fathers:
which the holy synod of Chalcedon also followed, knowing that he was both proclaimed while living by John of Constantinople and Gregory Nazianzen, and after his death defended by John and Domnus of Antioch, and the whole synod of the East, and Cyril of Alexandria and Proclus of Constantinople, against the calumnies of the heretics by manifold reasoning. Whence it is the more proved how foolishly it is thought heretical on this very account: that in the cause of Theodore it had the same testimony of those Fathers, whose faith—holding to it in its own definitions—it employed to disapprove the heretics.
It seems indeed to be noted and impressed upon the hearts of the faithful—not so much for the cause of Theodore of Mopsuestia as for that of all who have ended, and shall end, their life in the peace of the Church—that all these Fathers whose opinions we have recalled pronounce, in different words indeed but in the same sense, that everyone who in his lifetime does not pertinaciously resist the corruption of the Church ought not, after death, to be repudiated together with his sayings. The holy John of Antioch also, and the whole synod of the East, writing to blessed Proclus, among other things thus complain: «And what renown henceforth would attach to [our] doctrines, with such admirable and most famous men condemned after death?
It is not mine, therefore, to insult the glorious opinions of those who have gone before, nor to judge those who have died in honour, but [this belongs] to the sole Judge of the living and the dead.» Writing also to the Emperor Theodosius, they say: «But if anyone, holy Emperor, should say that something obscure is found in his writings or in those of others, it need not be retracted. For those whose life had its best end in the priesthood and the ministry, to these we dedicate the foremost glory; and we do not judge them by those matters in which certain men atrociously accuse us.» Proclus also thus responded to the aforesaid John, lamenting and complaining, and to the Oriental synod:
«For when did I write to your Holiness that either Theodore, or certain others who have previously died, ought to be subjected to anathema?» And further on: «Nor did I write concerning Theodore, nor concerning anyone else who has already died, O most God-loving one, that they should be either anathematized or repudiated.» Likewise, writing to the deacon Maximus, he says: «How then have I now learned through letters that the names of Theodore of Mopsuestia and of certain others have been set before chapters for anathematizing, since they have already migrated to God, and it is utterly vain to do injury after death to those who have already left this life—men whom we never blamed even while they lived.» Writing also to Cyril, the aforesaid John of Antioch with the Oriental council says:
«What that is not full of harm, or of corruption and confusion, would be brought forth here, if we open a door to those who wish to overthrow the sayings of the Fathers who have passed away? what manifest harm would it be, not only to refute their sayings, but even to anathematize them?» Cyril too, writing back to the same John and his synod, thus says: «Unless perhaps it must be taken to mind what they wish to pursue, when especially neither is the person at hand whom they subject to blame, and the refutation of the chapters is uncertain, and those who do these things are found running into the uncertain and beating the air.» And further on: «But justly will they hear, though unwilling, who furnish causes of this kind: You forget your very selves, in that you stretch the bow against the dust [the dead]:
for there no longer survives the one who was enrolled among you. And let no one blame me for having advanced into these words. For it is a grave thing to insult the dead, even if they were laymen, much more those who laid down this life in the episcopate. For it appears most just to prudent men to yield to Him who foreknows the will of each one, and who knows what manner of man each of us shall be.» These things are to be held in our mind; these are to be set in opposition not only to present, but also to future presumers, if perchance any shall again emerge, lest anyone dare to condemn save him who pertinaciously resists correction.
But if even some one of these Fathers, who with consonant and one voice answered on behalf of Theodore, should be proved—which be far from the conscience and truth of the saints—to have prevaricated from the common opinion of all, and afterward to have held a judgment contrary to himself and to so many Fathers; then rather the opinion of him who would disagree from all ought to be annulled, and not the common opinion of all on behalf of Theodore.
Therefore, if there are any who, reviling blessed Cyril, say that he afterward spoke otherwise concerning Theodore of Mopsuestia than in this judgment which he held in common with John of Antioch and the Oriental synod and Proclus of Constantinople—in which he is shown to agree also with his fellow-disciple John of Constantinople, with Gregory Nazianzen, and with Domnus of Antioch—they are not to be admitted against this same Theodore, or rather against blessed Cyril himself, whom, by saying such things, they make to appear, as far as in them lies, inconstant and changeable.
For, for the defence of the synod of Chalcedon, which did not judge that Theodore ought to be condemned, even if we held no opinion of Cyril the bishop on his behalf, the testimonies of so many other Fathers would without doubt suffice; and finally, even if these too had been lacking, the communion of the catholic Church would suffice—in whose peace he died not only without any reproach, but even with great glory.