But it seems good to us that we ought rather to bring forward those of his sayings in which he confesses Christ to be not only man, but also, according to nature, God, and essentially existing as the true Son of God and the Maker of all things: which they most of all accuse him of having denied. For disputing about what is written in the Gospel according to Matthew: 'And Jesus, coming into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?' (Matthew 16:13), he spoke thus: 'For the Lord Christ was indeed both God and man, each of them alike according to nature: from the one appearing, but from the other—namely, according to the divine nature—existing invisible.'
'But one thing indeed was manifest to all, namely that which appeared: for at that time all reckoned Him to be a man, and nothing more. For that which lay hidden in Him was, in the earlier time, incredible to all; but from the magnitude of the things that were done concerning Him, and the novelty of the miracles which He wrought for the instruction of those who beheld, and from the grace of the Holy Spirit who came upon the apostles, He was afterward understood, and we believe Him to be true God, essentially existing as the true Son of the eternal God. But since in the earlier time it was not known that this One existed according to essence, and because from what appeared to the beholders He was thought to be a mere man, He spoke most things according to man, and according to the nature which appeared.'
'And anyone, by considering more attentively, will find these things from what is written in the Gospel.' Do you now think, most clement Emperor, that those who believed the deceitful assailants of the Council of Chalcedon recognize that they have been deceived, when, for its overthrow, they supposed that Theodore, as the author of the Nestorian error, ought to be condemned? For what more carefully examined, or what more subtle thing against the Nestorians, can be found by Catholics, than that Christ should be said to be both God and man, and each of them alike according to nature? Not as if He were man only according to nature, but God merely as one like to God—that is, according to a relation of dignity, or authority of person, or appellation of grace, which alone the Nestorians are wont to say;
but each according to nature and alike, He is one Christ in both: from the one appearing, from the other—namely, according to the divine nature—existing invisible. The same One, therefore, who is both, both visible and invisible, Theodore confesses, adding also this: 'But one thing indeed was manifest to all, namely that which appeared: for at that time all reckoned Him to be a man, and nothing more. For that which lay hidden in Him was, in the earlier time, incredible to all.'
How, then, is this man said to have supposed Christ to be only a man, and nothing more, when he himself reckons it to ignorance that the men of that time so judged, and that what lay hidden in Him was incredible to them—he who also confesses that from the magnitude of the miracles, and from the grace of the Holy Spirit descending upon the apostles, He was afterward understood and believed to be true God, essentially existing as the true Son of the eternal God? What, then, do we say? Does it seem credible to thinking men that what he taught was afterward understood and believed, he himself neither understood nor believed? And furthermore, repeating and inculcating this very thing, as it were against the slanderers whom he suffers:
'But since,' he says, 'in the earlier time it was not known that this One existed according to essence; and because from what appeared to the beholders He was thought to be a mere man, He spoke most things according to man, and according to the nature which appeared.' Saying again that it was a matter of ignorance that Christ was not understood to be God according to essence, but only a mere man who was not also God—and is he himself feigned to have been ignorant of this? He who, after a little, again speaks thus: 'And the Lord, near to His passion, said to His disciples: If you had known me, you would assuredly have known my Father also' (John 8:19); and to Philip: 'Have I been so long a time with you, and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth my Father also' (John 14:9).
Showing that they neither knew the divine nature of the Only-begotten, nor knew the true God the Father. Hence they did not in any way perceive Him speaking of His own Father as of God, but with divided understanding supposed those very things to be otherwise. From this also Philip was led to say: 'Show us the Father, and it is enough for us' (ibid., 8). For if he had fully known that He called Him His Father who was indeed His Father—from whom He truly was, as God from God—he would never have said: 'Show us thy Father,' well knowing that the divine nature is invisible to men. Consequently, then, the Lord also said to him: 'Have I been so long a time with you, Philip, and have you not known me, Philip?'
For to wish to see the Father was a sign that he neither knew who He Himself was according to nature, nor whom He called Father, He existing as the Son from Him. And, disclosing this very thing, He added: 'He that seeth me seeth the Father also.' 'For if you have come to know,' He says, 'who I am, you will know Him also—so far as is possible—contemplating through me the nature of the Father, whose Son I am, existing from Him according to essence, and existing of the same essence with Him. But since you do not know me, neither do you know my Father of whom I speak; but knowing me, you will know also the Father of whom I have spoken: seeing me by the contemplation of understanding, through me you will altogether see Him also.' He added also: 'Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name' (John 16:24).
And disclosing that, not yet understanding His divine nature, they neither offered prayers to Him as to God, nor made any petitions in His name, as it behooved to do in the name of God existing and of the Son of the God of all: He who, on account of this their weakness, spoke in similitudes concerning the Father—because neither could they fully know the things that were said, nor of what Father He spoke, nor in what manner He existed—this is still more openly indicated. For He said: 'These things I have spoken to you in parables: the hour cometh when I will no longer speak to you in parables, but will announce to you plainly concerning the Father' (ibid., 25).
But what was it that He had not plainly said concerning the Father, except that they truly did not know the divine nature of the Only-begotten, from which they could have learned the Father who was certainly His Father, as God of God born of Him according to essence? For this reason He spoke to them of the Father through similitudes: at present indeed using only the name with them, but reserving to declare to them its true understanding for later, when, instructing them by the grace of the Holy Spirit which came upon them, He should make them capable of receiving so great a doctrine. For this reason also the Lord Himself, in that very same discourse, near to His passion, in order to show their weakness, whence they might receive a more perfect doctrine, said: 'I have many things to say to you' (John 16:12).
'For what reason, then, do you not now tell them? Because you cannot now bear them: not grudging, but because you are not yet equal to the greater perception of these matters, being still too weakly disposed to be fully taught the integrity of these doctrines. When, then, will they be able, or whence? When that Spirit of truth shall come, He will lead you into all truth' (ibid., 13). For there shall come upon you the grace of the Holy Spirit, by which you shall know the whole subtlety of the doctrines.' Accordingly, if they were taught the divinity of the Only-begotten, they would also assuredly be taught the Father to be God, namely as the Father of the Son of God; and what more perfect thing for the knowledge of the doctrines would remain for them?
'But having recounted these things, you ought to consider not only, by the merit of the cause we have undertaken, how far we are removed from the accusers of Theodore—or rather of the Council of Chalcedon—but also with what simplicity and fidelity we conduct the matter. For the heretics, like thieves and dogs, do not bring forth the opinions of Theodore himself whole, as they are held, sincerely and simply; but, as they are wont to do also with the canonical Scriptures themselves, they filch a few obscure words from his sayings, and these very words they mangle with their slanderous tooth. We, however, as you see, choose rather to incur weariness from length, than suspicion of fraud from brevity and obscurity.
There is no reason why, in the things we bring forward, the reader should seek either what was said by Theodore above, or what follows below, or for what reason he so spoke: we have set the whole case to be inspected before the eyes of those who judge; we do not, as those men do, gnaw off a few and obscure morsels from many and clear sayings, nor do we take particles out of whole and complete passages. But, as anyone can recognize from the things that have been recounted, he asserts that not a mere man—that is, one who is not also God—but the only-begotten Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, suffered for us: whom he says, near to His passion, to have said to His disciples: 'If you had known me, you would assuredly have known my Father also' (John 8:19). And to Philip:
'Have I been so long a time with you, and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also' (John 14:9): showing that they did not know the divine nature of the Only-begotten; which Theodore would not say, unless he believed that the Only-begotten of the divine nature suffered for us. Nor indeed would he there place what he says: 'From this also Philip was led to say: Show us the Father, and it is enough for us. For if he had fully known that He called Him His Father who was indeed His Father, from whom He truly was, as God from God, he would never have said: Show us thy Father, well knowing that the divine nature is invisible to men.'