In Defence of the Three Chapters 47

But if, in defense of that great synod itself, we lacked the written testimonies of those Fathers by which the faith and teaching of Diodore are commended—without whom we have shown that Theodore cannot justly be condemned—must it be judged blameworthy that the synod did not despise the testimony of the Church, in whose perpetual peace and exalted honor Diodore and Theodore remained? Or will the Eutychians dare to accuse of Nestorian doctrine the Church of that time, when as yet neither Eutyches nor Nestorius had arisen? I do not think they would openly and publicly presume this. Therefore, just as the natural law, one and whole, is fixed in the mind of man, of which the Lord makes mention in the Gospel, saying:

Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets (Matt. 7:12)—this law is found far stronger than that which is held outwardly in writings; for from that interior rule they have descended, and the several precepts given to us outwardly in writing as law are parts of it; nor can all of them gathered together, or even multiplied, exceed the measure of that interior law. So too that one general testimony of the Church is stronger—the Church which never cast out or judged anyone a heretic except one who stubbornly resisted correction—than the many testimonies which we have brought forward separately and privately, of particular persons, on behalf of Diodore and Theodore.

for these too are parts of the one general testimony of the Church, and however much they may be multiplied, they will not exceed its authority and bound. But just as, when man forsook that nature and interior law (which is wholly present all at once) and slipped into outward things, it was necessary to convince the despiser of inward things, piece by piece, by the private testimony of writings—not because we prefer the parts to the whole, or the members to the entire body, but because we judged it more fitting in this way to refute the calumniators of the great synod—so too nothing is stronger than the general creed of the Christian faith, by which we are initiated, although it is not handed down in writing;

nevertheless, against those who corrupt its meaning and its power, we make use also of the private testimonies of the Fathers which are contained in writing, since all those testimonies serve the one general creed and do not exceed its fixed bounds. And therefore, as has been said, even if we lacked these written testimonies of the Fathers which we have brought forward in defense of the Council of Chalcedon on behalf of Diodore and Theodore, no wise man would say that the synod ought to have believed itself more religious or more wise than those same holy Fathers and many others, who in the times of Diodore and Theodore shone as luminaries of the Church of God;

so that those whom they did not exclude while living—when they would have been the more able to corrupt others if they had been heretics—the pious and religious synod should believe ought to be excluded when dead. For if anything in their words seemed to give offense to some, the synod ought rather to have believed them to have spoken with another intention, or to have corrected it at the time, when admonished by a friend, than to set itself above so many venerable Fathers in religion or wisdom. For never, as we have learned, has the Church had at one time leaders so great and so excellent as in the times of Diodore and Theodore.

For, to pass over the most learned men of the Western Church on account of the difference of language—although many of them were also versed in the Greek tongue, so that, reading the writings of Diodore and Theodore, they could have understood their intention; and to omit also those most learned men of Greece who were not bishops—at that time there flourished, in the preaching of the word, Athanasius, Peter, Timothy, and Theophilus of Alexandria; then Meletius and Flavian of Antioch; Nectarius also, and John, and Atticus of Constantinople;

Amphilochius also of Iconium, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Basil of Caesarea in Cappadocia and his brother Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gelasius of Caesarea in Palestine, Theotimus of Tomi in Scythia: of whom not one is shown ever to have judged Diodore a heretic; nay rather, together with these, they endured the hatred of the Apollinarist heretics, as though they preached two sons, in asserting two perfect natures of Christ. Wherefore, even if they could read the writings of Diodore and Theodore less attentively, being at least warned by the calumnies of the heretics, they would without doubt have been made the more attentive.

What need was there, then, to the reproach of so great Fathers, to pronounce Theodore sacrilegious and impious and worse than the demons, when, even if he be proved to have erred in some things, he ought not to have been judged worse than the demons, having died in the peace and honor of the Church? Concerning his praise, not even the most reverend judges Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius reproved Ibas the bishop, before whom his letter was first laid before them and discussed.

But not even his own accusers, whether when they approached the emperor against him, or when, having lodged their accusation, they brought him before the aforesaid judges, and pressing him with many and great and unheard-of charges in their examination, often and at length contended with him, ever attempted to bring against him anything concerning the praise of Theodore: which they would without doubt have done, if Theodore had ever been judged a heretic by the Church of Christ.

Hence we say to the Eutychians that, since they dissent from the synod which pronounced orthodox the aforesaid letter—which confesses two natures of Christ and one person—let them at least agree with the venerable Ibas's accusers, who were refuted by the synod, and let them charge nothing more in the matter than did those most calumnious, most shameless, and most obstinate men. But how could the aforesaid synod, in condemning Theodore—or, as has been said, if it did not at all contradict the testimonies of so many Fathers remaining in writing, and did not call the aforementioned men heretics, because, understanding rightly, they agreed with depraved teachings…

…they say, with the common doctrines of Diodore and Theodore, or as too unlearned, if it should think this, that they were unable to understand their teachings? For we are not disputing about obscure persons, of whom it might be said that their doctrine lay hidden; since it is written of Theodore that for forty years he shone brilliantly in teaching, and conquered every heresy, and composed ten thousand books against errors, against the authors of which the whole East in common set him forward, as one having great power of doctrine; and that in the expositions which he gave in all the churches of the East and in this royal city, he was approved in the sight of priests, of emperors, and of peoples.

How, if the holy synod were to repudiate such men, would it not, as we have said, call all the venerable Fathers of that time either heretics or ignorant? Which of these it would prefer to say, I know not; but that it is necessary to say one of the two, I am not ignorant. Much more now, therefore, when the testimonies of those Fathers on behalf of Diodore and Theodore are not lacking, being even committed to writing, if the synod presumed to condemn Theodore for holding what Diodore held, it would be compelled to say either that all these Fathers were heretics, or that they were ignorant and unaware.

But is Christ so angry with the world that the ears of Christians could endure it, if it were said that that synod ought to have judged Athanasius, Basil, both Gregories, and John to be heretics, in order that the rash condemners of Theodore might be judged orthodox? Or—what is no better—will it be said that it ought to have judged them unlearned, in order that the marvelous skill of these men, which they most of all crave, might be extolled? But, to say this again or even something further: is Christ so angry with the world that the ears, I will not say of Christians, but of any men whatsoever, could endure it, that these our contemporaries be called more learned than such teachers?

Or perhaps it will be supposed that those Fathers ought not to have been called heretics by the synod, since they did not agree with the doctrines of Diodore and Theodore; nor unlearned, since they knew those things were not correct; but only negligent, in that they took too little care to correct them or to drive them from the Church? But this very thing, that they kept silent at the time, when they lacked neither great knowledge for understanding nor fitting speech for replying, can rightly be taken for consent. Therefore, even thus, nothing else would be effected except that those holy Fathers be affirmed by the synod to be heretics. And so, although in such a cause the negligent man might perhaps be judged more tolerable than the heretic, yet he is without doubt worse than the unlearned.

But the venerable Fathers, whom that synod did not dare to call unlearned, far less would it presume to judge negligent, which is worse. Therefore it judged diligent those whom it knew to have driven out the heretics that arose in their times. For, to pass over those whose names have been abolished together with their heresies—that is, the Basiani, whom we also call Anthropomorphites; the Semiarians, the Aetians, the Antidicomarites, the Massalians, whom we also call Euchites; the Euphemites, the Martyrians, the Sacians—in their times there both arose and were driven out also the Marciani Photiani, the Macedonians, who are also the Pneumatomachi; the Aetians, who are also the Eunomians; and likewise the Apollinarists.

And how could they, who in these so great matters were proved zealous for the faith, be believed by the holy synod to have been negligent in the case of Diodore and Theodore alone? Therefore, that they might not expel Diodore and Theodore, either they understood their words better, just as they wished their own to be understood by others (which we either will not, or cannot, do); or they required from them in their presence a reason why they had so spoken; or they found that they had already changed their opinion; or—which is the last possibility—being admonished, they made them change it. For who that is a wise Catholic would believe that they could otherwise have remained in the Catholic Church?

But since I, unlearned and of the Latin tongue, have been able, after a hundred years, according to my capacity and ability, either to understand or to explain so great things concerning a cause conducted among the Greeks, how much more must it be believed that that assembly of holy Fathers could discern, in a cause before their very eyes and within recent memory, with the revelation also of Him who said: Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them (Matt. 18:20)? For, faithfully invoked not only by the priests but also by all His people, whose faith and expectation depend upon their authority, He first gives to all assembled one heart and one soul, so that none of them may wish his own opinion to prevail, except that which is of the truth.

How often do the more learned there yield to the less learned, and the many to the few, with Him in their midst? How often also does He work knowingly through those who do not know—He who can do all things above what we ask or understand? Or who promised that He would be with us all days, even unto the consummation of the age? Would that the secular power had never usurped to itself, in these affairs, what was not entrusted to it—affairs which it has never usurped with happy result. For the rest, Christ cannot be absent from His priests gathered in His name: for since He is omnipotent Truth, He can in no way lie, just as He was not absent from that synod, which in the matter of faith followed the doctrine of all the Fathers in common;

but in the case of Theodore it followed not Cyril alone—or, even if we believe what is said, that he could not, since his opinion seemed to be contrary to itself or uncertain—but it followed the other Fathers, whom it ought to have preferred both in authority and in number and in reason. For who would not prefer John of Constantinople to Cyril, who many most approved men to one, who the most certain and most consistent excuse to an uncertain and inconsistent accusation? Therefore let not the heretics calumniate, nor let the Catholics be offended, on this account.

The faith which had been that of John and Proclus of Constantinople, of Gregory of Nazianzus, of John and Domnus of Antioch and of the Eastern council, and likewise of the Church from which Theodore was not expelled, had been also the faith of Cyril. Concerning Theodore alone, as also concerning Diodore—to whom both Athanasius and the Constantinopolitan synod bear witness—a differing opinion is said to be found in Cyril alone; and (what is a most certain proof of the truth) in this very dissension the consent of one and the same faith is proved. For that for which Cyril is said to have blamed Theodore, the defenders of Theodore did not deny to be most manifestly wrong; but they said that Theodore had not held this.

Hence, then, Cyril too thought that Theodore was to be pursued, on the ground that he held the same opinions which Nestorius wrongly held; and through this both parties, holding differing views about Theodore, confirmed without any difference the condemnation of Nestorius. What, then, would it help the Nestorians, who are said to make use of the sayings of Theodore, as also of others who were illustrious in the Church, if there was any differing opinion of the Fathers concerning him—since he was for this reason accused, namely because he was thought to have held views like those of Nestorius, and could not otherwise be excused, unless he were proved a stranger to the error of Nestorius?

This too the same Nestorians ought to remember: that in those letters of the Eastern Fathers writing back to the blessed Proclus, Theodore is excused—in which letters it is confirmed, as we have shown, that one of the Trinity was crucified for us; in which it is said: "That the whole Eastern council, moreover, repudiated the novelties of Nestorius, your Holiness also knows, who upon this matter has now received our letters a second and a third time." But let not the Eutychians or Semi-Eutychians dissemble that meanwhile they could bring forward nothing against Theodore from the name of the blessed Cyril, whom they say they follow, wherein he might be blamed for having preached Christ in two natures.

For whether Theodore be truly or falsely alleged to have been blamed by him because he believed in two sons, thus far it has not been feigned that he blamed this in the sayings of Theodore, namely because he preached that Christ has two natures; which the Eutychians do not deny that he preached—he whom they also falsely allege to have thought there were two persons. Why, then, did the blessed Cyril not at the same time blame him also for the preaching of two natures, if it is to be reckoned to the Nestorian heresy to believe and teach two natures of Christ? Nay rather, from this very point the most wise John and the Eastern council, writing to the same blessed Cyril, clear Theodore, in that, dividing the properties of the natures more fully against the heretics, he was thought to have asserted even two persons of Christ.

How, then, would either the Eastern Fathers judge that Theodore was the more to be excused from the Nestorian charge because he divided the properties of the natures more fully, if it is part of the Nestorian crime to assert two natures of Christ? Or how would the blessed Cyril himself not judge these same Easterners heretics and exceedingly foolish, who strove to defend Theodore (bearing an uncertain charge) by a certain crime? Especially since they affirmed that the blessed Cyril himself had taught no otherwise, saying to him, as we have recorded above: "For there are also things which your Holiness likewise confesses, and concerning which you have the same understanding."

Wherefore, if to preach two natures of Christ ought to be ascribed to the Nestorian heresy, the blessed Cyril, who brought forward nothing against it, confirmed a great crime in himself by his silence; from which he cannot be cleared, unless it be judged Catholic to assert two natures of Christ. You understand, therefore, O emperor, that if any dispute of the Fathers be said to have existed concerning Theodore, it confounds Nestorians and Eutychians alike.

But the holy synod, holding the one and common faith of the accuser (if indeed it be truly so called) and of the defenders of Diodore, judged that in the person of Theodore those were to be followed whose authority was greater, and who, living with him in long familiarity, had well known with what intention he wrote in those passages wherein he was thought by the ignorant to deserve reproach. This accorded with justice, this too with piety, which, as far as reason allows, ought to favor the excuse of a person rather than the accusation.

This too was fitting for the assertion of the true faith, which that synod had undertaken against Nestorius and Eutyches, lest either Nestorius should be said to have held views like Theodore's, who was praised by so great Fathers, or through this authority should be given to his error; or lest the synod should seem to have followed the judgment of the Apollinarists, the progenitors of the Eutychian madness, or of Eutyches himself, concerning Theodore—so that it too might deservedly be said of it, according to the opinion of the blessed Cyril, that it bore itself with hostility toward Theodore, an admirable man deserving the greatest glory, in order to make occasion for the contrary doctrine by which it was held, seeking that certain chapters of his, understood not in the better sense, should be condemned.

These things being thus established and confirmed, the fact that he was recently condemned by certain men ought to be ascribed to their fawning indulgence toward the Eutychians, and to detestable presumption; and therefore, just as no wise man can in any way approve these rash men against the testimony of the holy Fathers and of the Church, so he cannot disapprove the great Council of Chalcedon together with those same Fathers and the Church in which Theodore remained.