Mindful of our promise, let us now, in a fitting place, set forth not a few things from Theodore's writings, just as in the third book we did on occasion of refuting the falsehood of our adversaries; but much more, by which it may be abundantly shown how foreign he was from those things which have been fabricated about him to the prejudice of the great Council of Chalcedon: so that now, not by the testimony of the Fathers, but by the facts themselves, it may be shown that the disturbers of the Church, who blame the letter of the venerable Ibas concerning the praises of Theodore, did not, as it were, fail to find the truth as hidden, but dissembled that they saw it manifest. There are, then, three things in which they calumniate his sayings, as we have already said.
One is that they accuse him of having believed, according to the madness of Sabellius, that the divine Trinity is a single person. Another is that, contradicting themselves, they on the contrary again affirm that he introduced a quaternity by preaching two sons—that is, by asserting one person of God the Word and another of Christ, who (they say) was only a man and not also God, as the Jews supposed. The third is that they say he emptied out all the prophecies made about Christ; which belongs to the error of the Manichees, whom we know to be wickedly opposed to Jewish unbelief. For the latter, detesting the new, say they receive the old; the former, detesting the old, say they receive the new Testament.
These things indeed, as has been shown, are so absurd and contrary to one another that no one would deign to refute them or even to attend to them. For these things ought rather to have been despised and passed over in silence with contempt, had not the coerced subscription of so many bishops compelled us to answer such trifles. For what should we fear from this quarter? Or is it perhaps to be believed that anyone, even slightly sensible, would give assent to these ridiculous things, which destroy one another, with no one refuting them?
But how could it more evidently appear to all what manner of men are these reprovers of the Council of Chalcedon, who prefer themselves in religion and knowledge to John of Constantinople, to Gregory of Nazianzus, to John and Domnus of Antioch and the Eastern council, and likewise to Proclus, also of Constantinople, and to Cyril of Alexandria—than if they were proved both too irreligiously to love falsehood, and not even to know, at least, how to lie? Now receive, most serene emperor, what the same Theodore says, discoursing on the forty-fourth psalm:
"What, then, will be found greater than these things which were done by Christ in so great a transformation of the world, all men acknowledging the God of all things, and hastening to have care of piety and virtue, and glorifying indeed the Only-begotten of God, but rendering to the Holy Spirit a worthy adoration: for whom the blessed David says: My heart hath uttered a good word (Psalm 44:1)?" Here your piety perceives that all the calumnies of the heretics together are destroyed. For who, believing that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one person, would say that those who hasten to have care of piety and virtue so glorify the Only-begotten of God as at the same time to render also a worthy adoration to the Holy Spirit?
For if he believed Him whom he called the Holy Spirit to be the very Only-begotten of God, it would have sufficed to say, 'glorifying indeed the Only-begotten of God,' and there was no need to add, 'but rendering to the Holy Spirit a worthy adoration.' Wherefore Theodore believed and taught that there are three persons, calling one the Father, whose Son is He whom he called the Only-begotten, and another the Holy Spirit, to whom those who hasten to have care of piety and virtue render a worthy adoration—that is, such as they render also to the Son. But neither did he preach Christ to be merely a man, when he declares that nothing is greater than His works, confessing Him to be the God of all things, by whom so great a transformation of the world was wrought.
That he does not empty out all the prophecies made about Christ is plain, because again in the exposition of the same psalm he said: "Since indeed he first speaks of the kingdom, but afterward makes mention of the destruction of enemies and the subjection of the rest, lest anyone suppose that the kingdom had lately come to him, or indeed that he could again be deprived of the same power. After these things he infers: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever (ibid., 7); that is, consequently the enemies shall indeed be destroyed, but all the rest shall be subjected. Since indeed thou hast not a kingdom brought in from without, but from all eternity thou reignest over all, and reignest unto eternity, and thy kingdom remaineth for ever. These things the Jews understand as empty fables, supposing them to be said of a human king.
For to which of men belongs this distinction of virtues, or the greatness of such sayings? And to whom will it be fitting: and thy right hand shall wonderfully conduct thee (ibid., 5)?—since divine Scripture always speaks thus of all the just, that from divine help they possess virtue. And here it is also manifest that he does not speak of any impious man trusting in his own virtue. To which of men, then, speaking, does he infer, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever? But if he speaks of God as king, it is manifest that he speaks also of a queen who is not a woman, but the Church, whom Christ has betrothed to Himself through faith, to be joined to Himself, namely, through the affection of the soul.
For it is the custom of divine Scripture to call those who are joined to God through knowledge His spouse, in order to show their fullest union and oneness with God." And a little after: "As also John the Baptist says: He that hath the bride is the bridegroom (John 3:29). Since, therefore, the congregation of men who are united to Him through knowledge is always called the spouse of God, and he has fittingly called Christ king, of necessity, therefore, there is a queen, who is the royal consort, no other promotion coming to her than that which she shares from the dignity of her husband. Consequently, therefore, he calls the Church queen, showing how great a dignity she has obtained from her union with Christ, which came to her from faith.
Since these things cannot be said of God the Father, what follows makes it plainly evident.' But in the present chapter how is it that the heretics seem to find any ground at all for censuring the Council of Chalcedon on account of the person of Theodore? For we see all their slanders equally excluded in his case. For he did not believe the Father to be the same as the Son, since he says that what is spoken concerning the Son cannot be said of God the Father. Nor did he believe that God the Word belonged to one person, and Christ to another, when he confesses that it was said by the prophet: 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever' (Psalm 44:7); and he denies that Christ holds a kingdom brought in afterward, but teaches that He reigns from everlasting.
Theodore, therefore, is not to be accused of Jewish impiety, as though he had supposed Christ to be merely a man, since rather he mocks the Jews, saying: the Jews understand these things as empty fables, supposing them to be spoken of a man who is king; and intimating what he himself believes, he says that to no man could there fittingly belong so great a distinction of virtues, and a magnitude of such words as those in which it is said to Christ: 'Thy right hand hath wondrously instructed thee' (Psalm 44:5): seeing that divine Scripture says that all righteous men possess virtue by divine assistance, but it affirms that Christ, as God, has no need of divine assistance. And likewise, further on, he says:
'But if he speaks of a king who is God, it is plain that he also speaks of a queen who is not a woman, but the Church, whom Christ has betrothed to himself through faith, to be joined to himself, namely, through the affection of the soul.' And that he might again show that he believed Christ to be God: 'For,' he says, 'it is the custom of divine Scripture to call those who are joined to God through knowledge His spouse, to display their most complete union with God': pronouncing Him to be God whom he had above called Christ. Therefore he also says, further on, that the congregation of men who are joined to Him in knowledge is forever called the spouse of God.
But because he does not empty out all the prophecies fulfilled in Christ, it is evident from this that he confesses this very prophecy to be spoken concerning Christ and concerning His spouse. Again also, interpreting what follows in the same psalm, he says: 'Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee' (ibid., 8). And that these things are again said concerning God is evident; but because they cannot be applied to God the Father, therefore 'God, thy God, hath anointed thee'—it is clear from the rest that these things are said concerning Christ. In whom he both wonderfully divided the natures and demonstrated the unity of the person: and the natures indeed he divided in this, that he uttered words declarative of diverse conceptions;
for these differ greatly from one another, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,' and 'Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee.' But he showed the unity of the person, in that the things which are diverse are gathered into the unity of the person.' Now here it is no longer necessary to linger and to show that in like manner he removed from himself the odium of all slanders. There is one thing which, perhaps, might seem to require some interpretation on account of these men's slanders, namely that he said both that he divided the natures and demonstrated the unity of the person, were it not that he himself, interpreting himself, taught in what sense he said they were divided, when he went on to add: 'And the natures indeed he divided in this, that he uttered words declarative of diverse conceptions.'
For these differ greatly from one another, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,' and 'Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee.' He therefore asserted that they were divided only in so far as the conceptions concerning the living God are divided. And it is clear that they differ from one another: not that they constitute two persons, just as, a little further on, we shall show that he said that even in one man the soul is by nature divided from its body. Hence he also at the same time subjoined these words and said: 'But he showed the unity of the person, in that the things which are diverse are gathered into the unity of the person.' You recognize, therefore, O Emperor, that the most wise John, together with the Oriental council, truly said, when writing to blessed Cyril concerning blessed Theodore:
'For the whole East set him forth in common, as one who possessed great power of doctrine against the heresies, in fighting and contending against which he employed a certain considerable division—not as coming from a perverse understanding, but judging that against the heretics he was acting more effectively in that manner. Nor was he ignorant of, nor did he deny, the supreme unity—far be it!—for all his books are full of this kind of teaching; but he divided more amply the property of the natures, just as the conflict which he waged against the heretics dictated to him should be done.'
'For who, from the things we have recounted, would not recognize that all the books of Theodore are full of such sentiments, since from a single passage of his writings—that is, from the first part of his interpretation of the forty-fourth psalm—we have for the third time proved false all three charges at once which were wickedly hurled against him? Thus, therefore, let the wise reader understand how many similar things, placed two by two and one by one, can be found throughout all his books.