And what too of this—equally tending to aggravate the odium and injury against the holy Synod, in which, while the praises of Theodore himself were being recited, he was not anathematized—that they say he also denied the Trinity, and, according to Sabellius, believed there to be one person of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Do they not say this too against the opinion of blessed Cyril, if Cyril himself, in that work, censures certain writings of holy Diodorus and of his disciple Theodore? For whoever it be, he meanwhile testifies that Theodore wrote, irreproachably, twenty and more books against the heresies of the Arians and Eunomians; which he could not have done otherwise than by confessing the Trinity:
since he also rightly interpreted the evangelical and apostolic writings, in which Matthew too relates that the Lord commanded: Going, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. XXVIII, 19). And Paul said to the Corinthians: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Spirit, be with you all (II Cor. XIII, 13), and the like, through which the Trinity is insinuated to us in the evangelical and apostolic writings.
Since therefore blessed Cyril, as they say, declares that Theodore expounded these things irreproachably, how is it not affirmed against his testimony that this same Theodore denied the Trinity, and taught one person of the three to exist? «For they said: Nevertheless, that all Christians, recognizing the madness of Theodore, may not be carried about by his impious doctrines, we have inserted into our present book a few of his blasphemies set down in writing, in a creed fabricated by him, which stand thus, in these very discourses: We confess the Father perfect in person, and the Son likewise, and the Holy Spirit in the same place. And these things indeed Theodore the impious.»
«But the hearer must observe that, by saying in the person of the holy Trinity 'likewise' and 'in the same place,' he is shown to speak of one person of the three names of the holy Trinity, according to the madness of Sabellius.» Since therefore they said: But the hearer must observe—they do not seem to me to be despised, but, as they admonished, both those words which they say are Theodore's and those of their own by which they wished to refute them must be observed and laid open by us, so that it may most easily be discerned who seem rather to speak according to Sabellius: whether he, whoever he is, who said: «We confess the Father perfect in person, and the Son likewise, and the Holy Spirit in the same place;» or these men, who say:
But the hearer must observe that, by saying in the person of the holy Trinity 'likewise' and 'in the same place.' For these men seem rather to speak according to the error of Sabellius, which they as it were refute, who say 'in the person of the holy Trinity,' and not, as the truth has it, 'in the persons of the holy Trinity.' But having first spoken these things inconsiderately, afterward they labor to show, and try to prove to us—as though we doubted on this point—that there are three persons, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To whom I answer this briefly: that this creed, in which they allege the Trinity to be denied, is affirmed by the testimony of earlier men not to be Theodore's:
because he could not deny the Trinity, who—as they report—blessed Cyril indicates to have interpreted twenty, perhaps and even more, books against the heresies of the Arians and Eunomians, and other writings besides these, evangelical and apostolic; and that no one dared to censure these labors of his, but rather, by a favorable decree, to honor the zeal for right doctrines which is in them. Finally, the same Theodore, in his second letter to Artemius the Alexandrian presbyter, speaks thus: «Whom it behooved to know that we adore the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, declaring in these to be completed the divine and eternal and uncreated Trinity.»
«Since each one of these is of the same essence—that is, of the eternal cause of all created things, and truly divine. And the Father is to be adored not on account of anything else, but on account of His own essence. So also the Son, receiving this not for another's sake, but because He is of that and of such an essence, around which it was fitting that these things should be fulfilled. Likewise also, recognizing the Holy Spirit to be of the same essence, we adore Him on account of His own essence. Thus also we speak of three persons, each one perfect, and of the same essence, eternal and divine, and judging them to be the cause of the things that are made; and we adore three persons, believing them to be of one essence, truly divine.»
«How then is it possible to add a fourth person over these—that form of a servant which was assumed? which we judge to be neither of the same substance, to which worship is not due for its own sake, nor do we acknowledge that it ought to receive adoration on account of its own essence, nor do we adore it alone by itself, separated in its own person, as they think it to be separated.» Should they, then, after the recollection of these things, boast that a creed was fabricated by Theodore in which they assert the Trinity to be denied? Or ought we even to doubt to believe the holy Fathers, that he was a stranger to the mind of Nestorius? For in this testimony we confess not only three persons and the Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit;
But he also denies that it is possible, as though to add over these a fourth person, namely that form of a servant which was assumed; which form, against Apollinaris and Eutyches, he had so asserted to be of another substance, and not of the same as is the Godhead, that nevertheless against Nestorius he denies that it alone, as in a proper person, is divided, knowing as it were that it pertains to one subsistence out of the Trinity. And if even these testimonies from the things he wrote had been wanting to us, together with many others which we shall bring forward later, his accusers ought to have been ashamed to fabricate things so absurd and self-contradictory against anyone whatsoever.
For while they themselves say that he denied the Trinity, as though he held God to be solitary, having neither a Son nor a Holy Spirit, they on the contrary again say that he preached two sons. But how he can be said both to have denied one and to have preached two, I do not understand. It is ridiculous, pious emperor, ridiculous, yet lamentable. Behold what trifles these are, to which bishops are compelled to subscribe, and unless they do so, they are judged worthy of exile. Behold to confirm what the Roman bishop too is brought in, lest the ambitious subterfuge of the heretics should seem to have left anything unattempted.