But I see that, of all the things they have reprehended as written in that letter, there has remained for us one last item—the praise which it contains of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Concerning this, because they have said much, and glory in having especially exercised their calumnies upon it, whence we too are compelled to answer much concerning this item, deferring it a little, I choose now rather to defend—although in order it would seem to come later—that which they impudently fault, not as written, but in words only, namely what is said at the very end of the letter itself: «For no one dares to say that there is one nature of the divinity and the humanity, but they confess a temple, and one indwelling in it, who is the one Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.»
This is indeed of the same kind as that which we defended above, where he says it is as though there were no difference between the temple and the one dwelling in it. But lest we suppose that we have omitted anything, let us in this place too refute the same slander. For they say that it pertains to a division of the one Son Jesus Christ that he says, 'But they confess the temple and the one dwelling in it,' as though he had wished one subsistence or person of the temple to be understood, and another of the one dwelling in it. Yet in this way they could also speak of the Lord's own words, where he said to the Jews concerning the temple of his body, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up' (John 2:19):
as though he had wished one person of the body of his temple to be raised, and another to be the raiser of it. But what doubt has the venerable Ibas left for us in his letter, when, first opening the intention of his mind and teaching that he had written such things not for a division of the person but for a distinction of the natures, he premised and said, 'For no one dares to say that the nature of the divinity and of the humanity is one'; and then added, 'But they confess the temple and the one dwelling in it'; and thus closed his statement, saying, 'who is the one Son Jesus Christ.' What could be said more clearly or more fully?
But as I see, whoever shall so call him one Son as not also to affirm his two natures is judged to believe in two sons, since by denying them he empties out the mystery of his incarnation along with the Eutychians. They also say this: he ought not first to have named the temple and then the one dwelling in it. As if the very order of speaking would have permitted him first to say the one dwelling in it and afterward the temple. Although it is even fitting to sound doctrine that, because it is through the humanity of Christ that we arrive at the knowledge of his divinity, his humanity should first be mentioned in his temple, and afterward the divinity dwelling in the temple.
For this reason also the venerable Paul, bishop of Emesa, in his sermon which he delivered in the presence of the blessed one himself in the church of Alexandria, and which the blessed Cyril himself praised with such great commendation, as we taught in the first book, spoke thus: 'See John proclaiming two natures and one Son; one thing the tabernacle, and another that which is in the tabernacle; one thing the temple, and another he who dwells within, God.' Wherefore, if the venerable Ibas is blamed because in his letter he set the temple first and then the one dwelling in it, then of necessity the blessed Cyril too must be blamed, because he praised the sermon of the aforesaid bishop Paul, in which he named first the tabernacle and the temple, and afterward that which is in the tabernacle, and God who dwells in the temple.
You recognize therefore, emperor, that the great synod of Chalcedon approved, according to the judgment of the blessed Cyril, the letter of the venerable Ibas which says, 'But they confess the temple and the one dwelling in it, who is the one Son Jesus Christ'; and that if it had condemned this letter as heretical on this account, it would rather thereby have been seen to have confirmed the blessed Cyril a heretic, who approved the very same thing in the sermon of his fellow bishop Paul. Now let us return to that chapter which had been left aside, which they have recalled thus, saying, 'And a little later, disparaging the bishop of Edessa, he says:
This tyrant of our city presumed publicly to anathematize in the church the most blessed Theodore, the herald of truth and teacher of the Church—he who presumes all things.' This they cited from that letter because, as has often been said, they accuse the aforesaid Theodore as one who preached the doctrines of Nestorius; so that thereby they might show this letter to be Nestorian, since it praised the same Theodore; and thus they might also prove the synod of Chalcedon to be Nestorian, because it pronounced orthodox that very letter which praised one who is called the author of the Nestorian error.
But that this same Theodore was praised not only in the letter of Ibas, but also by many holy Fathers, we taught long ago in the second book from the letters of the blessed John of Antioch and of the whole Eastern council assembled at Antioch, and we shall teach further below, as we promised, from the writings of other Fathers. Nevertheless I think it necessary to show from this letter too that this opinion concerning Theodore of Mopsuestia was not Ibas's alone. For he declares that Maris the Persian himself, to whom he writes, agrees with what he said about that same Theodore, and he confidently says that public knowledge also bears witness to him. But these men, by their accustomed deceit, fled from the mention of those things by which this is shown.
For who would not see in those words the confidence of the venerable Ibas concerning the truth? For unless they were certain and manifest, he would by no means have said to the one to whom he wrote, concerning him who anathematized Theodore: 'Whom you yourself are not ignorant of—he who, on occasion of the faith, persecutes not only those now living but also all who long ago went before to the Lord; among whom is the blessed Theodore, herald of truth and teacher of the Church, who not only in his lifetime buffeted heretics by the truth of his faith, but also after death left spiritual weapons in his own books for the sons of the Church.' Then he teaches that the knowledge of the one to whom he writes also bears witness to him, when he says:
'As your reverence too, having conversed with the same man, came to know, and was instructed from the things which he wrote.' And further indeed concerning the same Theodore: 'Who, on account of his zeal for God, not only turned his own city from error to truth, but also instructed by his teaching churches set far away.' Lastly, because the same Theodore in his synod openly refuted him whom he had called the tyrant of his city. And unless these things were true, how could the most reverend Ibas have said them, with the testimony of all the bishops of the East contradicting? Nay rather, he would even have endured danger to his own standing, if Theodore had been held a heretic—Theodore, by whom he said there had been refuted in the council some 'tyrant of his city' or other.
For indeed he would have incriminated all the Eastern bishops, if in their synod he said that a heretic had had the confidence to refute, so as to excommunicate the supporters of heretics. In this chapter, lest these things be brought to light, they deliberately chose not to touch upon it. The venerable Photius and Eustathius and Uranius, recognizing these things to be true, when the aforementioned letter was read out in their tribunal, did not demand of him that he anathematize Theodore. And so that they may convict them by some testimony at least, yet their own, these men themselves indeed said in that book of lies, as we mentioned before:
'Finally Photius and Eustathius too, seeing the denial which Ibas made concerning the letter, gave their verdict for the destruction and exclusion of the impiety of the letter to Maris, which verdict they affirm to be: that Ibas should in his own church openly anathematize Nestorius, the prince of malignant impiety, and those who make use of his books or codices.' Here—not to mention that, forgetful of themselves, those who called Theodore the author of the Nestorian error and the master of Nestorius now in turn call Nestorius himself the prince of malignant impiety, and thereby deny that Theodore was the common author of the error—it is as though they cannot speak the truth except through forgetfulness.
But let your piety rather consider this together with us: that those who wished to show from this that the letter of the venerable Ibas was Nestorian—namely, that the bishops Photius and Eustathius, seeing the denial he made concerning his own letter, gave such a verdict for the destruction and exclusion of that letter, that Ibas should anathematize Nestorius and his dogmas (which we have proved that they falsely boasted)—these very men beyond all doubt confirm by the verdict of Photius and Eustathius themselves that Theodore was not a heretic; since, when they heard the chief praises of his teaching, they did not demand of the aforesaid most reverend Ibas that he renounce Theodore together with Nestorius, whom he had not praised.
But seeing that they in no way compelled him, as we have already taught, to pronounce anathema not only against Theodore but even against Nestorius—if the Eutychians or their satellites place any credit in their testimony, let them neither lie that Nestorius was excused in this letter, nor call Theodore the author of Nestorian impiety, whom in their own judgment, and even before the council of Chalcedon, they find praised and do not find marked out for censure. But mindful of our promise, let us now come to those illustrious lights of the Church, by whose testimony rather the synod of Chalcedon believed, so that it did not judge the letter of the venerable Ibas heretical for its praise of Theodore.
And let us first cite as witness that most illustrious teacher of the Church and most steadfast confessor of the truth, John of Constantinople, who, writing from exile to the aforesaid bishop of Mopsuestia, says (Letter 112): 'If indeed it were possible to come and to embrace your reverence and charity, and to rejoice in it, we would do so with much speed and zeal; but since this is not in our power, we now fulfill it even by letters. For even if we are led to the very ends of the earth, we cannot forget the integrity and favor of your guidance, and your sincerity without guile, which is ancient and from the beginning, and which you have now shown.
For it has not escaped us how greatly you hastened, both to speak and to act, on our behalf, my most honored and most holy lord. But even if nothing more came of it, you nevertheless have God as your debtor for your zeal and alacrity, and a full reward. And we for our part do not rest, knowing the grace of your holiness and proclaiming your reverence to all, and asking that the same be preserved, flourishing in love, for all things. For not in vain do we who sit in the desert have the fruit of your intercession, since we possess such a treasure in Cilicia and hidden riches. For this is the love of your strong and watchful soul.
Your serenity perceives with me from the tenor of the present letter that, as John of Antioch and the synod of the East testified, Theodore—who was condemned as if the author of the Nestorian error—was a fellow disciple of this blessed John. For his words sufficiently indicate this, when he says that the integrity of the love of this same Theodore toward him was ancient and from the beginning; which will also be proved by the letters of the Lord bishop of Antioch. Let the great synod of Chalcedon be censured for taking care—the synod which, knowing that holy John had written to Theodore, said:
'For it has not escaped us how greatly you hastened both to speak and to act on our behalf, my most honored and most holy lord'—it believed that he was not a heretic who so hastened to speak and to act on behalf of John when he was carried off into exile, with such zeal and alacrity that he would have God as the debtor of a full reward; judging it incredible that the master of Nestorian perfidy would seek to have a master of the true religion—one utterly opposed to himself—recalled from exile, and freely, by the authority of his see, to dispute in the church against his own perverse dogmas.
Unless perhaps that synod is to be marked as impious for this reason: that, thinking piously of John of Constantinople, it judged him to be such a man as a heretic would either so love that he would wish him recalled to his own church as a helper, or such a man as would himself so love and proclaim with great praise a heretic. But when among other things he also said this: 'Such a treasure in Cilicia and hidden riches do we possess'—why should the synod be blamed here, if it shrank from anathematizing the treasure of John and his hidden riches? Or ought it to have decreed and said, 'If anyone does not anathematize Theodore, let him be anathema'? But is it not better—to say nothing of the other Fathers—to hear anathema together with John, than to pronounce anathema upon John?
For if he is anathema who does not say anathema to Theodore of Mopsuestia, then John, the most illustrious prelate of the Church of Constantinople and most steadfast confessor of the truth, is also anathema, who does not say anathema to such a treasure and hidden riches as he possessed at Mopsuestia in Cilicia. But neither shall that man of great weight and ever-awaited authority be lacking to us in defense of the great synod, which did not demand of bishop Ibas that he condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia, when it heard his praises recited in his letter. Let, then, the blessed Gregory of Nazianzus also be present, himself too about to make the rashness of these men a crime, who writes thus to Theodore while still young and a novice, congratulating him on his perfection:
'We delight in the tokens of your love, especially at such a time, and from one so young and at the same time so perfect; and, that I may embrace you with those things which belong to the holy Scriptures, set over youth. For thus does Scripture call those who in understanding surpass their age. And the ancient fathers indeed pray that the dew of heaven and the fatness of the earth, with all other things, be granted to their sons—unless to one it is pleasing to understand these very things more loftily; but we render all things to you spiritually. May the Lord fulfill all your petitions, and may you become the father of such sons (since indeed one ought to pray for you briefly and familiarly) as you have shown yourself to your fathers, that in other things too we may glory concerning you.
How then is the holy synod blamed because it did not condemn Theodore, knowing how great a man, and by how great a man, he was praised for his perfection—that is, the novice praised by Gregory of Nazianzus—so that he was said to have surpassed his age in understanding, set by sublimity of wisdom above his own youth? And what is more pleasing and delightful, when he was lofty in knowledge, he showed such great humility and reverence to the fathers, that this blessing was rendered to him by Gregory for such merits, whereby he might have such sons as he showed himself to be to his fathers. If that synod religiously and piously did not believe this blessing to be made void, is it for this reason made void as if impious and profane? But let us pass on to another letter.
For when the same blessed Gregory, worn down by age, was also laboring under a long illness, and on this account pleaded that he could not bear the burden of his church, nor resist, by reason of his twofold infirmity, the Apollinarians who were ravaging the flock of God—being about to lay down the care of the episcopate, and, leaving his city, to live in the country with the monks, where indeed he died—he chose Theodore, in all the East, for the defense and visitation of that same church of his, testifying that that province had no other head whose aid he sought. For thus he writes to him again: 'It is time for me to say that word of Scripture: To whom shall I cry out, suffering violence? Who will stretch out a hand to me, oppressed?
To whom shall the burden of a church so badly fallen and dissolved pass? I testify before God and the elect angels that the flock of God suffers what is not just, living without a shepherd, and without a visitor, because of my torpor. For sickness detains me, and has more quickly drawn me away from the church, as I now expect the very end, and am afflicted still more by these very circumstances. If indeed the province had another head, it would be necessary to cry out and protest to him. But your reverence being set above it, it is necessary to attend to you. Take care of your church in whatever way, and do not despise it as it acts unworthily.
For—that I may pass over other things—what sort of deeds the Apollinarians now rising up have done, and what other things they threaten, you will learn from my lords and fellow presbyters, the fellow bishop Eulalius and Eleusius, whom we have sent at great expense to your reverence. And to suppress these things is not for our age, but for your prudence and your virtue; since God has given to you, with others, the power for the common defense of the Church. But if, in saying and writing these things, I am not heard, this alone which remains shall be done: to proclaim publicly to all and make known that the Church is in need of a bishop, lest on account of my infirmity it be beaten down. For the rest, see to it yourselves.' O how strong and unconquered are the merits of the just, most merciful emperor, which
are shown the more surely and the more evidently to be unable to be overthrown from on high, the more zealously and vehemently they have been assailed! For how few could know or seek out so many unassailable testimonies on behalf of the opinion of the Fathers who had assembled at Chalcedon, were it not that adversity provoked them? And therefore it seems to me that adversity is to be received not only patiently but even gratefully. For it always makes the justice of the saints more illustrious, while it strives to obscure it.
Is not the justice of those Fathers all the more declared, when they are shown rather to have believed the testimony of John of Constantinople and Gregory of Nazianzus, than that of those who wished certain chapters of Theodore to be condemned, making it an occasion (as the blessed Cyril says) for the dogma contrary to that by which they were held? Let it not then be judged condemnable not to have condemned Theodore, whom Gregory judged the singular head of the whole region, and to whom he left the flock of God entrusted to his own governance. Gregory begged that his hand be stretched out to himself against the Apollinarian heretics, testifying before God and the elect angels that, while he was held by the torpor of sickness, the flock of Christ needed the aid of his visitation—and what fault is there in such a thing?
The synod does not condemn him, and on this account is thought heretical. That man attributed prudence and virtue to Theodore, and not even a slight complaint is stirred up against him on that account; yet against the council of Chalcedon—nay, against the pope—because it did not impute imprudence to it, such great envy is roused. But surely Gregory of Nazianzus, and John of Constantinople, and the others whom we have mentioned and shall mention, the Fathers, will not be said to be possessed by the Nestorian disease, because they not only do not renounce Theodore, but even forbid his being renounced? Or will anyone presume to call them too by a new and hitherto unheard-of name, 'Theodorians'?
But if no one dares this, why do they call 'Theodorians' others who, holding the catholic faith of those men and keeping their opinion, do not dare, to the prejudice of the synod of Chalcedon, to condemn Theodore—so that by this insult they may at the same time injure the said synod, in which, when his praises were recited, he was not condemned? If there is doubt about the religion and faith of these men, let it be inquired into; if about the cause for condemning Theodore, manifest is the opinion of the Fathers which they follow. For surely, must he who has been unwilling to consent to new presumptions receive a new name? And it is no disgrace, what we uphold together with such great Fathers; for as to be praised against their opinion is criminal, so to be accused together with them is praiseworthy.
But recognizing that the great synod is not accused in the case of Theodore of Mopsuestia apart from these lights of the Church, we ought not to be disturbed by any slanders of the Eutychians, but rather to confound them by the authority of these men themselves. And therefore, having recalled the testimonies of these venerable Fathers, who bore witness to the same Theodore while he was living, let us pass also to the testimonies of both, who likewise honored his memory, after he departed from life, with great and many praises. Therefore we set a limit to the present book, that the reader's attention may be renewed by another opening.