And what of this: that, as we have already recorded, they say Theodore was so reproved by the same Cyril, that they also say holy Diodore, the very teacher of that Theodore, was likewise blamed by him and in the same cause? If, then, they followed the authority of Cyril in condemning Theodore—though they dare not say that he pronounced an anathema against Theodore, whose writings he even forbade to be anathematized—why nevertheless did they not condemn Diodore also? Was it because he himself was not praised in the Council of Chalcedon, that they judged he was not to be condemned;
—while they condemned Theodore because he is found praised both in the letter of Ibas, which the Council pronounced orthodox, and in the decrees of the Eastern synod, which the same Council of Chalcedon approved, so that by his condemnation they might trample upon the authority of that very Council? So it plainly is, and no wise man can deny this. For otherwise they would surely, and the more readily, condemn his teacher Diodore, as the author of the common error. Yet I shall not omit to put forward, whatever it may be worth, what here may seem to suit their defense. For perhaps, when they say, 'If anyone does not anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and his dogmas,' in the clause they added, 'and those who held opinions similar to his,' they will be said to have wished holy Diodore to be understood.
But why, I beseech you, if they followed the authority of blessed Cyril, was not his teacher Diodore rather and first named, so that it might at least be decreed thus: 'If anyone does not anathematize Diodore and his dogmas, let him be anathema'—as the one by whom Theodore is said to have been ill instructed; and then would follow, 'and those who held or hold opinions similar to his'? But as it now stands, the sentence is directed openly and manifestly against Theodore his disciple, while Diodore is not enumerated at all, nor is it even clear whether he too is implicitly to be repudiated. Then again, blessed Cyril is said to have written something in accusation of holy Diodore in such wise that he is said to have written nothing in his defense;
whereas he is said to have written something in accusation of Theodore in such wise that he is shown to have written even in his defense. It is therefore clear, if we are but willing to see, that for this reason, with Diodore left unnamed, they condemned Theodore together with his dogmas, and those who do not say anathema to him: namely, because he is praised both in the letter of the venerable Ibas, which the synod pronounced orthodox, and in the letters of the Eastern Fathers, on which it conferred preeminent authority. Otherwise, if the error be considered which is alleged to have belonged to both, the same is ascribed to Diodore as to Theodore; and if the persons of teacher and disciple be considered, the author of the error was to be condemned by name either alone, or at least first.
If it be the authority of blessed Cyril, Diodore is evidently and without ambiguity to be blamed, against whom Cyril is said to inveigh in such wise that no other opinion of Cyril is found in his favor. Why then so much against Theodore, but nothing against Diodore? Who, attending to these matters with even a little discernment, would not at once perceive the wiles of the heretical faction—namely, that in a common cause Theodore alone was named; whereas, if not both, but one of the two were to be named, it would rather have been fitting that Diodore be named? And therefore it is vainly denied—what is plain to all, and clearer than light, and, even if we be unwilling, manifest—that, in order for these things to be done against Theodore, the Church had no need to pass judgment upon a dead man, but rather the heretics had need to prejudge the Council of Chalcedon.
But if they say that for this reason they did not dare to condemn blessed Diodore—because, as we shall also show below, he has the best and greatest testimony of holy Athanasius, and of Peter and Timothy, bishops of Alexandria, and of Basil of Caesarea, and of John of Constantinople, and of Epiphanius of Cyprus, and of the Egyptian bishops who had been banished into exile by the emperor Valens, and of the council of one hundred and fifty priests who, together with Diodore himself, had assembled in this city against Macedonius—men of such number and such stature, to whom Cyril was not to be preferred—I now forbear to answer that not even in the case of Theodore ought Cyril alone to have been preferred to so great Fathers, by whose testimony he too is commended.
This one thing meanwhile I hold fast: that, as just reason dictates, they themselves teach that they have set aside the judgment of blessed Cyril. Let us therefore now begin to review the testimonies of the aforesaid venerable Fathers by which Diodore is commended—Diodore, whom they say was blamed by Cyril together with Theodore and in the same cause, as teaching the very things which Nestorius taught; so that, since without his teacher (with whom his cause is common) Theodore could not justly be condemned, then, when we shall have proved that Diodore is not to be condemned, it may become far more manifest to all that Theodore was unjustly condemned solely for the sake of prejudging the synod of Chalcedon. Blessed Athanasius, then, writes thus to the said holy Diodore:
'To my lord, son, and most beloved fellow-priest, Diodore bishop of Tarsus, Athanasius greeting in the Lord. Thanks be to my Lord, who everywhere establishes his teaching, and especially through his own sons, such as the very fact shows you yourself to be. For even before your reverence wrote, we had learned what grace was wrought in Tyre through your perseverance; and we rejoice with you, that through you Tyre also has come to know the right word of godliness. And I indeed, taking the occasion, wrote to you, most beloved and most loving one. But how it was that, when I wrote, you did not write back, I marveled. Therefore be not slothful to write continually, knowing that as a son you give me, your father, rest, and as a herald of truth you fill me with exceeding joy.'
'And contend not at all against the heretics, but overcome their verbosity with silence, their malice with gentleness. For thus your speech, seasoned with salt, will have grace; while they shall be condemned before the conscience of all.' What does your justice decree here, most serene emperor? Do you judge it fair that this herald of truth, Diodore—with whom the learned and good Athanasius, who knew no envy or ill-will, so greatly rejoices, because through his perseverance Tyre too came to know the right word of godliness, so that he even exhorts him to write to him continually, and declares that he rests in him as a father in a son—should be condemned as a heretic, who is said to have been himself also blamed by Cyril? It is far too harsh that we should believe this of your equity.
For even those presumptuous men themselves saw that it would be unjust. But if the teacher Diodore cannot justly be condemned as a heretic—against whom Cyril is said to inveigh in such wise that no other opinion of Cyril is found in his favor—how, in the same cause (as they report), could his disciple Theodore, likewise accused, be condemned as a heretic, except to the prejudice of the synod of Chalcedon—Theodore, against whom Cyril is said to inveigh in such wise that even in his favor another opinion of Cyril is found? Peter too, the successor of the same holy Athanasius, writing to the bishops, presbyters, and deacons established in exile for the true faith, says: 'The love wherewith I rejoice over you in Christ did not suffer me to bear it patiently;
nay rather, writing I am as one not writing, and again I am compelled to write.' And further on: 'Therefore I use you as counsellors in these matters which befall me; and what ought I to do, who am thus ever in turmoil over Timothy, who slanderously claims himself to be a bishop, that he may thereby the more boldly inflict injury and break the paternal laws? For he wished to anathematize me, and Basil of Caesarea, and Paulinus, and Epiphanius, and Diodore the bishops, and to hold communion only with Vitalis.'
Behold, even Peter, the successor of Athanasius, likewise deems it nefarious to anathematize Basil of Caesarea, Paulinus of Antioch, and Epiphanius and Diodore the bishops, as the strongest champions of truth, and to hold communion instead with the other Vitalis of Antioch, whom Apollinaris had ordained. Who, then, would suppose that this Diodore—whom, by Peter's judgment, we have learned to have been of the same doctrine with Basil, Paulinus, and Epiphanius; or even if, as they report, he is believed to have been blamed by Cyril together with Theodore—is to be condemned according to Cyril's opinion? Or who would suppose that Theodore, apart from Diodore himself (with whom, as a disciple, he is said to have been blamed by Cyril), was condemned according to Cyril's opinion, and not for the prejudging of the synod?
Timothy too, the successor of Peter, who together with Diodore himself was present at the council assembled in this royal city against Macedonius, writes thus to him: 'To my lord, in all things honorable, and most holy bishop and fellow-priest Diodore, Timothy greeting in Christ. Your virtue, and the perfection of your life, and the zeal of your right and apostolic faith, I shall in no way be able to proclaim according to their worth, even if I hasten exceedingly; for words are not equal to the reality. To you it has been granted of a certainty not only to believe in Christ Jesus, but also to suffer for his sake.'
'This your right and blessed will toward God, and your conscience unswerving concerning the mystery of godliness, our divine father Athanasius testified to your religiousness as having long dwelt within you, and he led us, his disciples, to love your perfection, and to pray that your life might be preserved by God through many cycles of years, for the benefit of the Churches of Christ.' You perceive, as I think (for the matter is altogether plain), most clement emperor, of what virtue, and perfection, and zeal toward the right and apostolic faith Diodore ever was—Diodore, whom they report to have been blamed by blessed Cyril together with Theodore—and how his glory grew together with his age.
He is praised as a young man by Athanasius, praised when already mature by Peter, praised as an old man by Timothy. His whole life was spent amid praises; and after death he is said to have been accused, together with Theodore, by the successor of Athanasius, Peter, and Timothy. Who could bear this with equanimity? Who could hear it patiently? But we are better off turning away from these things, that we may rather attend to better ones. For it delights me to repeat the words of this holy man Timothy—how he too, having attained the virtue and the see of Athanasius, said to Diodore: 'To you it has been granted of a certainty not only to believe in Christ Jesus, but also to suffer for his sake.' To this also he added, saying:
'This your right and blessed will toward God, and your conscience unswerving concerning the mystery of godliness, our divine man, our Pope Athanasius, testified to our religiousness as having long dwelt within you, and he led us, his disciples, to love your perfection'—proving himself worthy in this to be the successor of Athanasius, in that, not impugning his testimony, he was led by him to love the perfection of Diodore, whom Athanasius also loved, and to pray to God that he might preserve Diodore's life through cycles of many years, for the benefit of the Churches of Christ. But, passing on also to the bishops of other cities, we ought to notice what testimony holy Basil of Caesarea in Cappadocia likewise bears to Diodore:
writing to Patrophilus, bishop of the Church of Aegae, he says: 'Diodore we received from the beginning as it were a nursling of blessed Silvanus; but now we love and proclaim him on account of the grace of the Word which is in him, through which very many of those who come to him are made better.' And the same Basil, writing to Diodore himself, says: 'I have read the books transmitted by your honorableness, and by the second I was much taken—not only because of its brevity, as is fitting for one who is weak in all things, but also because it is varied in its arguments, and the objections and the responses to them, set on opposite sides, are easily distinguished in it; and it is plain in expression, and without any buskin of rhetoric:
which seemed to me to befit the style of a Christian writing not for ostentation, but for the benefit of men.' And further on: 'For I hold it certain that you, who have so great a zeal for writing, will write yet other things also. For occasions that engender writing are not lacking to you; and to us it is sweet and lovely to read your writings.' And after a little: 'I have now sent, by the hand of the lector, the larger volume, having first gone through it as far as was possible for me. The smaller one, however, I have retained, wishing to have it copied out, and not having at present anyone among the swift writers; for to such poverty have the envious affairs of the Cappadocians come.'
But since this same Diodore—though we be said to have been blamed together with Theodore, nay rather before Theodore, as being his teacher—is nonetheless so loved and proclaimed by the holy and learned man Basil, and is so honored on account of the grace of God, through which very many who came to him were made better; and since to read his writings was to Basil so sweet and lovely that he even had them copied out for himself to read; the patrons of the heretics by no means presume to condemn Diodore together with his dogmas: how much less, then, would they presume to condemn Theodore (for the reasons we have mentioned above) together with his dogmas, except to the prejudice of the synod of Chalcedon.
Let us come also to that golden mouth of John of Constantinople, whom Domnus, bishop of Antioch (as we shall show hereafter), testifies to have been a disciple of Diodore: in him above all the teaching of so great a master gave proof of his own probity and virtue, and his fertile breast answered with a more copious richness to the sower of his hope. Let us mark, then, with what great praises he too extolled Diodore. For thus he spoke of him in a certain sermon: 'This wise and most valiant teacher, lately ascending upon this seat—though his bodily infirmity was laid bare—made me the beginning of his discourse, calling me a John the Baptist, and the voice of the Church, and the rod of Moses, and said many other such things about me.'
'And he indeed praised, but you applauded; while I, sitting far off, sighed most bitterly.' And after a while: 'So too emperors sometimes do: taking the diadem fitted to themselves, they set it upon the heads of their sons; and so, when they see the infant head smaller than the crown, they desire only to set it upon them, however unsuitably, satisfying their own heart by this alone; then, taking it off, they set it upon themselves again. Since therefore this father too set upon us a crown fitting and suited to himself, and it appeared greater than our head, let us draw it from our head and set it, well-fitted, upon the head of this father. For the name of John is among us, but the understanding is with him;
and the appellation indeed we receive, but the philosophy he possesses. For this reason let him too be a more rightful heir of that very appellation than we. For synonymy is wont to be effected not by community of names, but by kinship of realities, even if the names differ.' And below: 'Since, then, this is undoubtedly the rule and the entire definition of synonyms in the divine Scripture, come, let us show how this wise father of ours emulated the manner of John, that you may know that he too ought rightly to possess his appellation. He had no table, nor bed, nor house upon the earth; but neither had this one ever any;
and of this we are witnesses—how he lived out all his time and displayed an apostolic life, having nothing of his own, but ever nourished by his companions, while he himself, abiding in prayer and in the teaching of the Word, preached. That John preached beyond the river in the deserts; and this one too, beyond the river, sometimes instructing the whole city, taught the saving doctrine. That John dwelt in prison, and was beheaded on account of the boldness which he had for the law; but this one too was often deprived of that fatherland of his, on account of the boldness which he bears for the faith; often too was he beheaded for the same cause—if not in deed, yet in resolve.
For the enemies of truth cannot endure the power of his tongue; they were ever contriving ten thousand snares, yet from them all the Lord delivered him. Come, then, let us now hear his tongue—this very tongue for which he was both endangered and saved. That tongue, of which, if anyone should say what Moses said of the land of promise, he in no way sins. What, then, did Moses say of it? 'A land flowing with milk and honey.' This too must be said of his tongue: a tongue flowing with milk and honey. That we may therefore be sated with milk and honey, here let our discourse now rest, and let us hear the lyre and the trumpet. For when I perceive the sweetness of his words, I call his voice a lyre;
but when I perceive the strength of his understandings, I call it a kind of war-trumpet, and such a one as the Jews had when they brought down the walls of Jericho. For just as then the sound of the trumpets, swifter than fire rushing over the stones, consumed all things, so too his voice, no less than that trumpet, rushes upon the contrivances of the heretics—that is, upon their disputations—and upon every height that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. But, lest we should say these things by our tongue rather than by his, here now let our discourse rest, giving glory to God, who bestows upon us such teachers.'
This signal praise which the most eloquent John bestowed upon Diodore—whereby he commended to us his doctrine and his life, though it has preserved less of its own grace, whether through the constraint of the translation itself or through the translator's limited skill—I think it superfluous to commend by my own far inferior words. Let this alone suffice for our consideration: that John, comparing him with John the Baptist in manner of life and in martyrdom, transferred to him both his own name and his crown. And again, in another sermon, he said of his own teacher Diodore: 'Not in vain, as it appears, have we expended these lengthy discourses. For indeed, in the celebration of the martyrs, we are reminded also of a living martyr, near in martyrdom to the spiritual river.'
'For this man is a living martyr, and a martyr indeed, since in resolve he has died many times over. Behold his mortified members; behold him who bears about the outward figure of what belongs to a man, yet has an angelic mind.' And after a while: 'But let us return again to this martyr, on whose account we have said these very things. How, then, did he die, mortifying his members, and trampling down the desires of nature in a human body, and demonstrating to us an angelic life?'
'But if you wish to see that he has indeed died in very deed, recall that time when a fierce war had risen up against the Church, and armies were set in motion, and arms made ready, when across the river all were being gathered together. Then he himself, going forth and standing like a tower set in the forefront, or like some high and mighty crag standing before the others, receiving and dissolving the waves of the adversaries, kept the rest of the body of the Church in tranquility, beating back the tempest, and affording us a quiet harbor.' This man, then—a living martyr, and often a martyr, and, by the mortification of his members, a perpetual martyr, bearing about only the outward figure of a man, yet demonstrating an angelic life;
whom John his disciple calls even a tower in battle, standing against the enemies of the faith, and a vast crag, upon which the waves of the adversaries were broken and dissolved as they dashed against it—do you, O pious prince, deem it just that he should earn from the Church of Christ such a recompense for his labors and his struggles, that he should be excluded from it as a heretic? I think not. And yet, to the prejudice of the synod of Chalcedon, Theodore is on this account alleged to have been excluded—because Cyril judged him to be a follower of Diodore. There are still many things said in praise of this same holy Diodore by the great John, which, as we hasten on to other matters, we pass over.
We know too that Epiphanius of Cyprus, a most learned man, wrote books on the heresies, in which he diligently set forth both their authors and their causes; and not only did he by no means brand Diodore as the author of any heresy, but in his letters he even deemed him worthy of such honor that he pronounced him his son and disciple, and a successor of Elijah and the other prophets, and declared that he had obtained from the Lord a grace akin to theirs. Whence it seems fitting that, as we have done in other cases, we should demonstrate this from the very tenor of his epistle. 'To my lord, honorable brother and fellow-priest Diodore, beloved bishop, Epiphanius greeting in the Lord.'
'Bestowing a greater grace than he received, the Lord asked of the Samaritan woman to give him water to drink: himself being the fountain, he sat beside the well, and was found wearied from the journey, that so, in the present discourse, he might not exceed the truth of the incarnation.' And after a little: 'But even his disciples and servants, of whom men asked something, gave to them more than they received from them; for Elijah indeed conversed—Elijah, who was a figure of his own Lord—and exacted only the measure of necessaries, as much as was needed; yet superabundantly he filled again the one who offered him a blessing, asking bread of a widow, and through the occasion of his request bestowing the abundance of his blessing:
so too your honorableness, in asking of our littleness, gives more than you take. For your petition to God, ministering to us, bestows upon our little vessel an unfailing supply out of a little, and grants to the jar an inexhaustible heap out of the very smallest measure. You ask, then, at the beginning of your letter, honorable one, concerning the stones arranged and set in the rational of the breastplate of the priest, upon the breast of Aaron, and their names, and colors, and kinds, and places, and the contemplations of those very stones that lead unto godliness, and for which tribe each stone was appointed, and whence it was found, and from what land. And, as I have said, the finding of these matters was for us altogether difficult—like for that widow, by reason of her poverty.'
But just as for him a miracle was wrought through a blessing, and to the Samaritan woman, in exchange for perceptible water, the mystery of the Lord was revealed, so also to us, who though slight in stature yet possess a new understanding, a new knowledge, and a new reasoning, abundance has been produced on every side, as it were from a great outpouring of grace through the prayer of Elijah and of the other prophets, of whom you are at once the son, the disciple, and the successor, O honoured one, receiving for them this grace from the Lord and bestowing it upon us through your prayer.
It would be no small token, most clement Emperor—even had the testimonies of the other Fathers been wanting—that Diodorus stood forth as the author of no heresy, in that Epiphanius, a most sagacious man and laudably renowned in the teaching of the catholic faith, did not mention him among the heresiarchs, seeing that he did not omit even those who before the coming of the Lord set up new doctrines. Since, then, his diligence and learning were so great that he did not pass over in silence even the ancients who in the times of the Jews taught new things as heretics, how would he have passed over the present Diodorus, the master of Theodore, if he had been the inventor of the new doctrine which Nestorius followed?
To these things, moreover, we add also the great testimony in favour of holy Diodorus given by the Egyptian bishops who were in exile at Diocaesarea under the Emperor Valens. For when the monks settled in Nitria wrote against Apollinaris, after some matters they said this: «But the wondrous Apollinaris, receiving such letters in our name, and likewise receiving his own letter in the name of Adelphius and Isidore according to his own wish, so despised us that he afterwards dared in his own letters to accuse the irreproachable and most religious archbishop of Antioch, Paulinus, who always held communion with our blessed pope Athanasius and with all the orthodox bishops in the West.»
«But we, being stirred by the receipt of such letters, and harbouring suspicion against the accused of either heresy or schism, had often wished to write back to him. Yet while these matters were being transacted, by God's dispensation there were shown to us his own written dispositions and definitions concerning the faith, agreeing with what many who had earlier come to us had told us about this same Apollinaris—namely that they held wrong views about the incarnation of the Saviour. To these were added still other letters, in which he accused the venerable archbishop of Cyprus, Epiphanius, who was orthodox and always in communion with our most blessed pope Athanasius.»
«Furthermore he also unjustly condemned, by his own letters, the most holy bishop of Tarsus, likewise in communion with our blessed pope Athanasius, and our very own bishop Diodorus, unless he would withhold himself from communion with the aforesaid orthodox bishops Paulinus and Epiphanius.» Considering also these things which these confessors say, we ought to acknowledge that Diodorus is not to be condemned, whom we see judged by such men and on behalf of such men. For it is not fitting that we be found the associates of the heresiarch Apollinaris, or the opponents of the irreproachable and most religious Paulinus of Antioch and of the venerable bishop Epiphanius of Cyprus;
so that we should not hold communion with his memory, as though he were a heretic, who was condemned for this reason, that he had not withheld himself from communion with the aforesaid orthodox men. There is added also to our consideration the authority of the council of one hundred and fifty bishops, gathered into this royal city against Macedonius, among whom was this holy Diodorus. Let it be added that he died in the peace of the Church, full of days, with great glory. And it will surely seem exceedingly presumptuous that, against the authority of all these, so great and so eminent a teacher of the Church should be anathematized as a heretic for Cyril's complaints—a thing which we must believe these judges of the dead have themselves taken into account.
But since, on account of these same complaints—even if it were true—the disciple could be excluded only after his master Diodorus had first been excluded, how is it to be believed that by these men Theodore alone has been excluded, and not to the overthrow of the synod of Chalcedon? Our Jerome too, a man exceedingly learned, who was moreover of such wide reading that he had read all, or nearly all, the expositors of the divine Scriptures, whether in Greek or in Latin speech, wrote a book whose title is On Illustrious Men, in which he recorded not only catholics but also heretics, who composed anything concerning the Scriptures of Manes in either language;
he did not pass over in silence who were the founders of heresies, or their advocates, or even those who were accused by some as heretics while others defended them on the contrary. Yet of holy Diodorus he related that he had not even come under suspicion of heresy, of whom he speaks thus: «Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, while he was a presbyter at Antioch, had the greater repute. There are extant his commentaries on the Apostle, and many other works pertaining rather to the manner of Eusebius; whose meaning, though he followed it, he could not imitate his eloquence, on account of his ignorance of secular letters.» And this saying of blessed Jerome, in which he reports that Diodorus was inferior in eloquence, accords with the words we have mentioned of blessed Basil, which, writing to this same Diodorus concerning a book he had sent him, he spoke:
«Because it varies in its opinions, and in it the contrary objections are easily distinguished, and the replies to them, and it is simple in its diction and without any rhetorical buskin—which seemed to me to befit the style of a Christian who writes not for display but for the profit of men.» And indeed these things which have been said would have been abundant for us to demonstrate what we set forth. But since we ought in no way to diminish either the glory of blessed Diodorus himself or the knowledge of the case, we believe it must not be omitted in what manner your religious predecessors—Gratian, Valentinian, and the elder Theodosius—bore witness to him.
When they wrote to Auxonius, proconsul of Asia, concerning the restoration of the churches, after some matters they said thus: «Let those alone possess the churches who are in communion with Nectarius of Constantinople, and Timothy of Alexandria, and Pelagius of Laodicea of the East, and Diodorus of Tarsus, and the whole council established under the vicar of Asia, and Amphilochius bishop of Iconium and Optimus of Antioch. In the Pontic diocese, however, with Helladius bishop of Caesarea, and Otreius bishop of Melitene, and Gregory of Nyssa, and Terentius of Scythia, and Martyrius of Marcianopolis. But those who do not honour the same faith, let them be excluded from the churches as heretics, and never thereafter return to them.»
«For after this law the religion of the Christians must everywhere be purged among all.» Since, then, these religious princes determined this to be a sure token—that if anyone did not hold communion with blessed Diodorus, who held the same views as Theodore, he should be reckoned a heretic—by what reasoning is it now decreed that if anyone does not anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and his dogmas, and those who either thought or now think things like his, he should be reckoned a heretic? But because Diodorus, the greatest herald of truth, had learned, in the power of God, through the arms of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, as the Apostle teaches, to wage war:
consider, I pray, most clement Emperor, in what manner he ran his course through glory and ignominy, through ill repute and good repute, ever with a strong and spirited intent. For just as he was ever approved by the doctors of the Church and accused by the heretics, so too is he found ever praised by religious princes and reviled by the impious. For Julian, the emperor faithless to Christ, thus writes to the heresiarch Photinus against Diodorus: «You indeed, O Photinus, seem likely and nearest to being saved, doing well in that you by no means brought into the womb him whom you believed to be God. But Diodorus, a sorcerer of the Nazarene, sharpening with his pigment-like conjuring tricks the irrationality of it, has appeared a shrewd sophist of a boorish religion.»
And after a little: «But if the gods and goddesses, and all the Muses, and Fortune shall have aided us, we shall show that he is a weakling and a corrupter of laws, and of reasonings, and of the mysteries of the pagans, and of the gods of the underworld; and that new God of his, the Galilean, whom he fabulously proclaims to be eternal, stripped by an unworthy death and burial of the godhead feigned by Diodorus.» But as those who err, when convicted, are wont to pretend that they are vanquished by art rather than by virtue, he goes on to say:
«For this fellow, sailing to Athens for the common detriment, and philosophizing imprudently, took part in the doctrine of the musicians, and with the rhetoricians' confections armed his hateful tongue against the heavenly gods, being so ignorant of the mysteries of the pagans, and pitiably imbibing the whole, as they say, of the error of those degenerate and unskilled theologians-fishermen of his, that on this account it is now a long time that he is being punished by the gods themselves. For now through many years, turned into danger and falling into a wasting of the chest, he has come to the utmost torment. His whole body is consumed: for his cheeks have fallen in, and the wrinkles have sunk deep into the body:»
«which is not a token of a philosophic manner of life, as he would have it appear to those deceived by you, but assuredly of justice, and of the gods' penalty, by which he is struck with fitting requital, living a harsh and bitter life right up to the very last end of his days, with a face wasted by pallor.» By the testimonies of the holy Fathers among the bishops we have learned above whose judgement we ought to follow in the case common to Diodorus and Theodore: whether that of Athanasius, Peter, Timothy, Basil, John, Epiphanius, and of the Egyptian bishops in exile at Diocaesarea for the true faith, and of the council of Constantinople, and likewise of that most learned man Jerome; or that of Apollinaris and his disciples, who, even had they been catholics, ought not to have been preferred to such men.
Now from among princes we have learned whose judgement in this same case of Diodorus and Theodore ought rather to be followed: whether that of Gratian, and Valentinian, and the elder Theodosius, or that of the sacrilegious apostate Julian, who for this reason calls Photinus likely and nearest to salvation, because he did not, like Diodorus, bring into the womb him whom he had believed to be God. But who would bear that Diodorus, accused by Julian because he confesses God to have been born of the Virgin, should be accused also by Christians, as though he had denied this?
or who, hearing Julian threatening Diodorus because he proclaimed the Galilean God to be the eternal God—whom he could not deny to have died and been buried—and saying that on this account he was punished by his gods with the utmost torment, because, pitiably imbibing the error of the theologians-fishermen, he proclaimed such things, would judge that he should also be condemned by the Christians, as though he had believed Jesus the Galilean to be merely a man and not also God? This, then, is the choice we propose to the supporters of the heretics: that they either choose to imitate the venerable Fathers and the religious princes, and with them approve Diodorus and Theodore; or, if they prefer to follow Apollinaris and his disciples, and Julian, let them at least not blame Diodorus for anything other than these things,
except for that on account of which Apollinaris and his disciples, and Julian, believed that he ought to be blamed. But if they cannot blame Diodorus because he brought into the womb Jesus the Nazarene, whom he believed to be God in two natures, calling Him eternal whom he held to have been buried and to have died, how could they justly condemn Theodore, his disciple? For they testify that the case of both was the same, and that there was one accusation of both. Therefore let those at last cease to call them Theodorians who followed the testimony of such great Fathers, so that they might by no means presume to condemn Diodorus. But it is the mark of an exceedingly hard and obstinate heart,
to believe that those who do not approve Diodorus should consequently also not reprove Theodore, so as neither to praise them as they were praised by the holy Fathers, nor to condemn them for that on account of which they were condemned by the sacrilegious. But behold, as you discern, most serene Emperor, even if we grant them, as they wish, that Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, was blamed by blessed Cyril, it will appear to no one, even of slight intelligence, that, in order to condemn him under anathema, they have followed the judgement of blessed Cyril himself, which they scorn in the case of holy John of Constantinople, his fellow-disciple, and of his master Diodorus:
but rather because they sought a prejudgement against the Church, so that by his condemnation the holy synod of Chalcedon—which condemned neither him nor the letter praising him—might appear to have been Nestorian.