What too of that which they have fabricated — that this same Theodore was branded by blessed Leo as the master of Nestorius? For what other reason is so manifest a lie of theirs, without any regard for human modesty, perhaps to be believed, except that the authority of so great a witness — not of Nestorius, that is, the catholic one — might weigh down the cause of that synod, because there neither he himself was condemned, nor the letter which commended him? For thus he said: 'It must therefore be plainly understood that holy Leo, confirming the things done at Ephesus against Nestorius by holy Cyril, and commanding these to be observed, calls indeed the twelve chapters of holy Cyril definitions, by which the error of Nestorius was condemned:
but he anathematizes the teachers — of Nestorius, namely, Paul of Samosata and Theodore of Mopsuestia; but of Eutyches, the impious Manichaeus and Apollinaris' — though it cannot be proved that blessed Leo said Theodore of Mopsuestia to be the master of Nestorius. But let them produce either a letter, or any other writing whatsoever, in which they affirm that he said this. For they ought to bring forward where blessed Leo said this, if they were confident they spoke the truth. But lest this be left doubtful, let us teach from the words of Theodore himself how far he was estranged from the error of Paul of Samosata, who, in the thirteenth book of the codex which he called 'mystical,' says:
'Paul of Samosata,' he says, 'is an angel of the devil, who presumed to call the Lord Jesus Christ a mere man, and denied the existence of the divinity of the Only-begotten, which is before the ages.' Likewise in the work which he published against Apollinaris, in the third book, he spoke thus: 'For it is manifest that Paul of Samosata was indeed bishop of the Antiochene Church of the Lord God, but ailing with the error of Theodotus and Artemon, who said that the Lord Jesus Christ was a mere man, not acknowledging Him to be God the Word, and the Son of God in His own proper substance, existing before the ages from God the eternal Father.
Would Leo the Roman have said that this man — speaking such things of Paul of Samosata, and teaching such things concerning Christ — was, together with Paul himself, the master of Nestorius? But these men so confidently affirm whatever they wish, as though to prove the truth were the same as to fling words about. For the rest, far be it that we should believe this concerning that most holy man; for even if Theodore is shown to have erred in certain things, he is not therefore to be accused with a lie in those things in which he is not blameworthy. For he who reproves and accuses an involuntary error ought not to entangle himself in a voluntary lie, since it is written: 'Destroy all that speak a lie' (Ps. 5:7).
But we do not so much marvel that the Eutychians lie thus through their satellites, as that they are so rashly and so easily believed. But how is this same Theodore said to have said that Christ was a mere man — that is, only a man, and not also God — who for that very reason calls Paul of Samosata a devil, and acknowledges that Theodotus and Artemon, in saying this, do not hold sound doctrine, but rather ail in their own error? What then did he himself believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be? This, assuredly, which he reproves those men for not having acknowledged — namely, God the Word, and the Son of God in His own proper substance, inasmuch as he says that He exists eternally before the ages from God the Father.
Not therefore, as is feigned in the reprehension of the holy synod, did this man believe two, or teach two sons, as though calling the man Christ of one substance and God the Word of another: he who, as his words declare, acknowledged the Lord Jesus Christ Himself to be not a mere man, but also God the Word; and that not by authority or dignity of person alone, but in His own proper substance God and the Son of God, just as also in His own proper substance man and the son of man. What occasion in these words, what suspicion, is left for the Nestorian error? Behold, the faith of Theodore is open and free from all ambiguity, for which he is praised in the letter of the venerable Ibas, as also by the most learned Fathers.
There is therefore no ground for the Eutychians to charge the synod with the Nestorian dogma, because it pronounced orthodox the aforesaid letter containing the praises of Theodore; for just as he is not to be called a Manichaean because in this testimony — confessing the Lord Jesus to be God the Word, and the Son of God in His own proper substance, existing eternally before the ages from God the Father — he kept silent about His humanity; so neither ought he to be accused as a teacher of Nestorius where, disputing of His humanity, he does not speak of His divinity; or where, compelled by the contradiction of the Apollinarian heretics, he divides the natures more than would suffice to escape the calumny of their heirs, that is, the Eutychians.
Receive moreover yet another of their lies, which they likewise fabricated in that same book of theirs, saying: 'For one must consider in the mind that the Apostle, when he said that He who signified the person of the Word to be in the form of God — which is in the essence of the Father (Phil. 2:6) — did not say that He who was in the form of a servant received it, so as not to demonstrate the Word united to a man not pre-existing, according to the madness of Theodore and Nestorius'; yet they do not show where Theodore said that the Word was united to a pre-existing man.
Let us therefore plainly show, from the words of Theodore himself, that they have lied in this too, to the branding and odium of the great synod — Theodore who did not, as these men feign, say that the Word was united to a man already subsisting beforehand, but that from the very fashioning of the man in the mother's womb, the nature of humanity together with the nature of God the Word subsisted into one person. For in the thirteenth book on the Incarnation, he speaks thus: 'It is good in this place especially to conclude what force the things that have been said possess — whether to converse, or to be baptized, or to be crucified, or to die, or to be buried and rise again. We do not say these things as fitting them to some mere man:
for this we do not delay to add in the demonstration of each of the things said, that we may afford to calumniators no occasion of speaking evil: but indeed as inhabited by God the Word from the very fashioning in the mother's womb; and inhabited not according to the common indwelling, nor according to that grace which is understood to be in many, but according to a certain excellent one, according to which we also say that both natures were united, and that one person was effected according to the union.' Behold, while we wish to bring forth another of their lies, we here see almost all, or nearly all, of their calumnies against Theodore concerning the Incarnation of Christ excluded. For they accuse him of having called Christ a mere man. But he himself says:
'Whether to converse, or to be baptized, or to be crucified, or to die, or to be buried and rise again — we do not say these things as fitting them to some mere man.' But if he does not fit these to some mere man, then he confesses that God also conversed, and was baptized, and was crucified, and died, and was buried, and rose again in the flesh He assumed, and showing his own carefulness he says: 'For this we do not delay to add in the demonstration of each of the things said, that we may afford to calumniators no occasion of speaking evil.' And not even thus could he cut off occasion from those seeking occasion. Likewise those men accuse him because he denied that blessed Mary bore God, the true God…
But he himself says that from the very fashioning in the womb, God the Word dwelt in the man whom He had united to Himself — according to what the evangelist says: 'The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us' (John 1:14). Again those men accuse him of having said that God the Word so dwelt in the assumed nature of the man as He dwelt in many saints and prophets, not so that, the natures being united in a wondrous manner, one person might be made from their union. But he himself says that He dwelt not according to the common indwelling, but according to a certain excellent one, according to which we also say that both natures were united, and that one person was effected according to the union.
Where at the same time let your piety also attend to this: that it was a fabrication concerning blessed Leo, that he said Theodore had been the master of Nestorius. For since that same blessed Leo, writing to Maximus of Antioch (Letter…
66), teaches that the rock of the catholic faith — whose surname the blessed Apostle Peter received from the Lord — for this reason anathematizes Nestorius, because, separating the nature of the Word and of the flesh in the conception of the blessed Virgin, and dividing the one Christ into two, he would have one person of the deity and another of the humanity — he could not condemn Theodore as his master, who, long since forestalling that very error of Nestorius, teaches on the contrary that from the very fashioning in the mother's womb the nature of God the Word subsisted, together with that which was assumed, into one person.
And these things indeed we have brought forth from the writings of Theodore, on occasion of refuting the falsehood of those who were not ashamed openly to lie, while on his behalf they attempt to exclude the letter of the venerable Ibas, and on behalf of the letter of the venerable Ibas, the Council of Chalcedon. But in a fitting place we shall bring forth things so great and of such a kind that, if not those calumnious and deceitful men themselves, at least others may repent who easily believed them. But who could recount either all their falsehoods, or all the things that are scattered through that book to augment the charge against Theodore himself, and against the letter of Ibas in which he was praised, so that from this odium might be stirred up against the great synod for having pronounced it orthodox?
For whether they make mention of Nestorius, or of some Cyrus or other, or of John the Greek, they are unwilling to revile them without these; or when they bring forward the testimonies of the Fathers, they are unwilling to praise them without the vituperation of one of them. Yet let us still make public another great and twofold lie of theirs: that they wished the Council of Chalcedon to seem condemnable not only by the judgment of Ephesus, but also by that of Chalcedon itself, saying: 'The symbol of Theodore both the synod at Ephesus under holy Cyril, and that at Chalcedon, condemned, and subjected to anathema together with its composer;'
whereas in the synod of Ephesus it is related that a certain man named Charisius, presbyter and steward of Philadelphia, accused some Antonius and Jacobus, presbyters, of fellowship with Nestorius, and of having handed down — not the symbol of the Church, but another — when certain Tessarescaedecatite heretics were converted, who celebrated the Pasch not with the Church, but on the fourteenth moon; nor is it there said, either by Charisius himself or by anyone, that that symbol was Theodore's. Blessed Cyril, writing to the Easterns, says: 'A definition was brought forth in the holy synod of Ephesus, as though deposited by Theodore, according as those offering it said;' nor does he affirm that it was Theodore's;
nor indeed does he relate it to have been condemned together with its composer, as these men feign, because that would not even be done justly. For our law, as it is written in the Gospel, does not judge a man unless it has first heard from him, and known what he does (John 7:51). It is therefore false what he said: that at the synod of Ephesus the symbol of Theodore was condemned together with its author. At Chalcedon too, no mention of Theodore was made elsewhere, except where his name was recited out of the letter of the venerable Ibas. Let them therefore know that they have gained nothing by their stealthy devices, by which they tried to make the Council of Chalcedon seem contrary to itself, approving a letter praising Theodore, whom it had condemned together with his symbol.
From these things indeed it is sufficiently and more than sufficiently shown that the favorers of the heretics have subjected to anathema — just as the letter of the venerable Ibas, so also Theodore of Mopsuestia, the bishop — to the destruction of the Council of Chalcedon and of the decrees of Pope Leo, by whom the acts of that same synod were approved.