That the adversaries may know how great is the efficacy of truth, which no one unwilling has been able to escape when it pursues him, let us grant to him that Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, was blamed by blessed Cyril in certain chapters of his writings: would they be able, even if he had been only blamed by them, and not condemned under anathema, by Cyril's example to elude the conviction of truth?
For since he himself defined that, when the person who is put under the fault is not ready at hand, the refutation of the chapters is uncertain, and that it is a grievous thing to insult the dead, even if they were laymen, much less those who in the episcopate laid down this life, in that it appears most just to prudent men to yield to him who foreknows the will of each one, and knows of what sort each one of us will be, how, if he afterward should say anything contrary, would we ourselves be thought to have followed his sentence, when it is possible for no one to follow things running into the contrary, and in vain does each one trust himself to be cleared by that judge or witness, by whom in one and the same deed, not on account of one thing and another, but on account of this very thing, he is both defended and blamed.
Not therefore, even if blessed Cyril had afterward written anything else against Theodore, would these men rightly be believed to have followed his judgment, but rather would they be seen to have sought the prejudice of the Council of Chalcedon. Unless perchance, without any consideration of humanity, they should answer that Cyril is to be turned away from, when he forbids insulting—I will not say admirable men deserving the greatest glory, which he himself said, but, what alone suffices, those who departed in the peace of the Church; but is to be followed, when he reckons that they should be incriminated.
But even if they assert this with shameless obstinacy, what will they say about the fact that they do not follow Cyril in the condemnation of Saint John of Constantinople, the fellow-disciple of that same Theodore, concerning whom Cyril spoke such and so great things that only the necessity of the case can excuse what we here record? For writing back to blessed Atticus, bishop of this royal city, he says: 'On reading the letter sent by your reverence, I learned that the name of John had been written in the sacred diptychs. And questioning those who came from there, I learned that it had been inserted not in the order of laymen, but in that of the bishops.'
'But foreseeing, and pondering within myself whether those who did these things accord with the canons of the holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea, and extending the eye of my mind a little toward that great congregation of those same holy Fathers, I behold that whole congregation as it were refusing with its very eyes, and forbidding with all its power that we should concur in such an agreement. For how can one be numbered among the priests of God, and clothed with their lot, who has been driven out of the priesthood? Or how shall he be in the order of pontiffs, who has been shut out from the walls of the Church?' And again, in what follows of the same epistle, he says: 'Command that the name of John be removed from the catalogue of the bishops.'
'For if we deem this to be nothing, let not the traitor, numbered among them, grieve even the choir of the apostles; but once the name of Judas has been introduced, where is Matthias set for us? If therefore no one, excluding Matthias, writes Judas in the choir of the apostles, let the second rank of blessed Arsacius after Nectarius of blessed memory remain and be preserved, lest the name of this man, introduced by violence, exclude the memory of the blessed one.' Likewise, further down he says: 'Let not the deposed Jechoniah be numbered with David, and Samuel, and the prophets; nor, because it foolishly pleased some to lay the corpse of Eudoxius in holy places, let us therefore introduce the profane as though it were holy.'
These most bitter words of blessed Cyril, to be abhorred by Christian minds, which Cyril, forgetful of himself, poured out against the most gentle father of the Church, sweeter than Attic honey, we repeat not without sorrow, being constrained because certain men have wished to resuscitate causes already buried with their authors, to the prejudice of the Council of Chalcedon, and to drag them back into strife. For who would not shudder to recall that Cyril does not tremble to call John—and, what is crueler, one already dead, oh wickedness!—a Judas, a Jechoniah, and profane; and, comparing him with Eudoxius, the Arian bishop of this city, as is reported, says that he was shut out from the walls of the Church? Yet John, to preserve the unity of the Church which he loved, chose rather to suffer the loss of his own cause.
For if he had been willing to press his cause—seeing he was of approved life and singular eloquence, having also the great favor of the Christian people, to whom for his greater merits he was acceptable, and the defense of the Apostolic See, without whose judgment he had been condemned—he could easily have obtained the victory, which pursued him in his flight even after death. But fearing lest, though absolved by the judgment of others, he should through the obstinacy of his adversaries not be received by yet others, and so, with some communicating with him and others shunning his communion, the Church should be torn apart—the Church for whose benefit he knew himself to have been made bishop—he chose most prudently, and with quite admirable piety, to relinquish the chair of his episcopate;
rather than that, through his defense, the one inheritance of Christ should be divided. But woe to the world because of scandals, through which John, for such merits, is called a Judas, a Jechoniah, and profane, and is compared with Eudoxius the Arian bishop. Moreover, what manner of thing is this, that blessed Atticus is blamed for having entered the name of his predecessor John not in the order of laymen but in that of the bishops, as if against the canons of the holy Fathers who had assembled at Nicaea? And hence it is asserted that he ought to have enrolled him among the laymen, because it is not lawful to keep in the order of pontiffs one shut out from the walls of the Church; nor to introduce the name of Judas the traitor into the choir of the apostles, nor to number Jechoniah with David and Samuel and the prophets.
As if indeed, were John shut out from the walls of the Church, and to be reckoned a Judas and a Jechoniah, it would accord with the canons of those very Fathers that he should be enrolled even in the order of laymen. But since it is not denied that John ought meanwhile to have been enrolled in the sacred diptychs in whatever order, it is sufficiently proved, even by the testimony of his own accuser, that he ought neither to have been shut out from the walls of the Church, nor to have been called a Judas or a Jechoniah, and profane. But since, as we have said, these excessive admirers and immoderate followers of Cyril do not follow his example in the case of John of Constantinople, how can they be thought to have followed Cyril in the case of his fellow-disciple Theodore?
You understand, then, O Augustus, that the disturbers of the Church strive in vain to overshadow, by the example of blessed Cyril, their most evident connivance, which they extend to the Eutychians against the holy Council. For while he calls John profane and shut out from the walls of the Church, they hold him—as he ought to be held—an admirable man and meriting the greatest glory; whereas while the same Cyril calls Theodore an admirable man and meriting the greatest glory, they wish to hold him profane and shut out from the walls of the Church.