From these certain and evident statements of Theodore, therefore, those other things must be understood by us which in his sayings seem to certain people doubtful or obscure, if we do not wish to be marked together with them, concerning whom the blessed Cyril says that they were hostilely disposed toward that same admirable man Theodore, deserving the greatest glory, making occasion of the contrary dogma by which they were held, so as to seek that certain of his chapters, not understood in the better sense, should be condemned. This utterance is worthy of Cyril: thus it became a perfect doctor of the Church to speak.
For just as it is characteristic of calumniating heretics to interpret wrongly, from things doubtful and obscure, those which are certain and manifest, so it is the custom of catholic prudence and piety to confirm ambiguous things from things undoubted and evident, and to make plain things that are hidden. And therefore we do better if we interpret in the better sense the writings of most learned men who meet death in the peace of the Church, even if they were less able to avoid in them the calumnies of heresies yet to come. But if any orthodox men think that something else ought to be done, they are not in this to be imitated by the prudent.
And if they weigh the considerations of either side, they will easily discern whose purpose they ought rather to approve—that of those who accuse, or of those who excuse, men who died in the peace of the Church and amid the praise of the Fathers. First, then, they ought to consider what is common to both of us, by which we resemble them as orthodox accusers, and what is proper to each, in which we differ from one another. Faith in God, then, is common to us; but proper to each party, in that wherein we differ from one another, is this: that they cruelly and audaciously condemn those who died in the unity and glory of the Church, whom it belongs to God alone to judge:
but we, since it befits neither piety nor modesty, considering that we are men, presume to usurp nothing that is divine. They, being high-minded, spurn and set at naught the opinions of the holy Fathers, by whom they have been approved and praised: we, consenting to humble things, receive them obediently and with due veneration. They inconsiderately grant authority to the errors of heretics, asserting that they taught things similar to the preaching of honored men: but we, granting no occasion to heretics, providently answer that the Church of Christ never received such blasphemies, but refuted every novelty as soon as it arose.
They, finally, accuse and defame the very Church that bore us, as though she had at some time been corrupted by adulterous dogmas: but we deny that the virginity of our mother ever fell away from the charity which is in Christ, asserting that those whom she held in honor were not heretics. For which reasons, if we wish both to be subject to God and obedient to the holy Fathers; if we wish also—what pertains to the present cause—to sew up the mouths of the Nestorians, and to clear the Church that bore us of the calumnies of the impious, let us not only not condemn those who died in the communion and praise of the Church, but let us not even say that they taught such things before Nestorius;
but let us rather, from others of their statements that are evidently contrary to the Nestorian error, interpret those things which in their writings seem obscure: lest we be rightly and deservedly reproached, that both in caution and in zeal we are unequal to the Nestorians themselves, and that they seem to strive more against the truth than we for the truth. For if those men, wishing to apply the most illustrious doctors of the Church to their own party, strive to obscure their statements, manifestly contrary to the Nestorian dogma, from others that are less open, and to wrest them to their own opinion; how much more should we interpret in the better sense, from things that are certain, those that seem doubtful in their sayings, whereby Nestorius may be shown, as the inventor of a new dogma, to have been not undeservedly condemned.
It is established, therefore, that some of the ancient doctors of the Church said that God the Word delivered the assumed man to death. If the Nestorians, misunderstanding this, should say that they wished to signify two persons—as though one were that of God the Word who delivers, and another that of him whom he is said to have delivered—must we too confirm their calumnies against the Church, and testify that she once had such doctors, who did not proclaim one person of God and man, when we have many similar examples? Whence comes that saying of the Apostle: I make my body livid (bruise my body), and reduce it to servitude (1 Cor. 9:27),
not wishing one person to be understood as the one who bruises his body and reduces it to his servitude, and another as that very person himself. And that saying of Tobit seems to be still more striking, where he says: I and my soul say gladness to the King of heaven (Tob. 13:9 [Vulg.]); and many similar things, not only in the divine letters but also in others, and in our very own daily speech, anyone will find if he attends. But if this is said of a man, of whom rightly one—that is, human—nature can be predicated, by the Apostle and by Tobit, no question compelling it: how much more rightly could it be said of Christ, whom we believe to be in two natures, against the Apollinarists, that God the Word delivered to death the assumed man for our sake;
Since we say that the Father handed Him over, and yet believe that the works of the Trinity are inseparable? So too, when the prophet says, 'My heart hath forsaken me' (Ps. XXXIX, 13), he does not on that account divide himself into two persons or subsistences; why then, if anyone among the Fathers be found to have said that God the Word dwelt in, or was present to, Christ, should he be thought to have introduced two persons in Christ? For if a man's heart is said to forsake him, and yet no division of his single person is understood thereby—although to forsake signifies a certain separation—why must it be supposed, when one is said to dwell in or to be present to another, that two persons are signified, when the soul is said both to dwell in and to be present to its own flesh, since it nourishes and cherishes it, and protects it from diseases and sufferings?
But let us also lay down this, which the ancient doctors of the Church declared: that God the Word is principally and according to His essence the only-begotten Son of God; while the man who was assumed received, from the unity of His person, that he should ever be, and be called, the only-begotten Son, and be understood together under the one appellation of Son. Can we not take this also as said rather for the distinction of natures than for a division of the person?—just as we say that the inner man is principally called man, whose essence was made to the image of God;
whereas the outer man, formed from the slime, received from the unity of His person that he too should be called man, and be understood together under the one appellation of man, although he himself was not made to the image and likeness of God, but appears to be more like the beasts? We also say, without any division of the one person, that the inner man, justified by the merit of his faith, passes over into the adoption of the sons of God; but the outer man, through his adherence to the inner, takes up a common dignity with him—as the Apostle also says: 'And though our outer man is corrupted, yet the inner is renewed day by day' (II Cor. IV, 16). If we say that not the inner man but the outer man is corrupted,
or that not the outer man but the inner is renewed day by day, do we thereby separate the man into two subsistences from himself? Therefore, if certain such utterances of the Fathers concerning Christ be found, we ought to refer them rather to a distinction of the two natures than to a division of the one person. Furthermore, since the heretical Synusiasts supposed that Christ was born of one essence, and that He had not taken flesh from the womb of the Virgin, but rather that in her womb God the Word had turned a part of His own substance—that is, of His deity—into flesh for Himself; and believing that He was made incarnate in her indeed, but not from her, they called Him consubstantial with the Father not only in divinity but also in the flesh;
but on the contrary the catholic doctors asserted that Christ was born from the substance of the Virgin. The Apollinarists in turn, defaming this doctrine of truth, boasted that the Church taught Christ to be born of the Virgin in such a way that, as if even according to His deity He had taken His beginning from her, it preached that God the Word was born not from the Father before the ages without beginning, but from her womb—that is, as though it said that He came to exist who had not existed before. By the necessity of removing this slander, if any from among the ancient doctors of the Church, against these men, and not yet when the question of Nestorius was troubling them from the other side, said, 'God the Word was not born of a woman':
as though they were saying, 'Not, as you slander, does the Church teach this—that the divine nature of God the Word came to exist from the womb of the Virgin—but the human nature, which took its beginning from the seed of David': ought we not therefore to investigate and demonstrate the reasons why they so spoke, rather than, by condemning them as authors of the Nestorian error, accuse the Church of Christ in whose honour they died? Or if, against the design of these same Apollinarists who must badly interpret the words of John the Evangelist when he says, 'The Word was made flesh' (John I, 14), and who say that the Word was changed convertibly into flesh, certain men answered, saying:
'God the Word was not made flesh,' that is, convertibly, but assumed flesh while remaining what He was—ought they to be judged contrary to the Gospel? But if so, the Apollinarists will seem to agree with the evangelical preaching. If, however, the Apollinarists, by the design of their mind, although they said 'the Word was made flesh,' are nevertheless judged enemies of the evangelical preaching; then they too, who remaining in the Church contradicted such men, should be judged, by the design of their mind, to be in agreement with the evangelical preaching. For this reason Theodore too, in the ninth book On the Incarnation, says against these same Apollinarists:
'If indeed what was said, "The Word was made flesh," was said according to some conversion, how is the indwelling to be understood? For it is plain to all that what indwells is other than that which is indwelt.' But the interpreter is himself the explainer of his own word, and forestalling all calumny he will shut your mouth: 'For He dwelt in us, taking up our nature and inhabiting it, and in it dispensing all the things of our salvation. How then, dwelling within, was God the Word made flesh? It is plain that He was not converted nor transformed; for otherwise He would not be said to indwell.' It is therefore manifest from these words of Theodore that the ancient doctors of the Church did not, against the Gospel, deny that God the Word was made flesh:
for how could they openly resist the Gospel and remain honoured in it? But, as he here teaches, they denied that He was made flesh by conversion, against the madness of the Apollinarists—just as in the Gospel, where the Lord says, 'The Father is greater than I' (John XIV, 28), since the Arians abuse this testimony, we too, resisting their design and not the Gospel, deny that the Father is greater than the Son. And if anyone here too attends to the mere sound of the words and not to the purpose of the mind, he will think that the Arians rather than we agree with the meaning of the Gospel.
But how the Apollinarists said 'the Word was made flesh,' and how the catholics answered—if indeed they are shown to have so answered, 'the Word was not made flesh'—the Church will declare, which both expelled the former and held the latter in honour. Whence it follows that, if anyone should refuse to expel these men from the Church, he would bring in their most foolish offspring the Eutychians with their error. As for Christ having received the adoption of sons, if the ancient doctors of the Church were shown to have said it, neither they nor the whole Church which had such doctors ought to be judged heretical. For Christ deigned to receive the sacrament of adoption both when He was circumcised and when He was baptized;
and the sacrament of adoption can be called adoption: just as the sacrament of His body and blood, which is in the consecrated bread and cup, we call His body and blood—not that the bread is properly His body and the cup His blood, but because they contain in themselves the mystery of His body and blood. Hence the Lord Himself called the blessed bread and chalice which He gave to the disciples His body and blood. Wherefore, just as the faithful of Christ, receiving the sacrament of His body and blood, are rightly said to receive the body and blood of Christ, so also Christ Himself, having received the sacrament of the adoption of sons, could rightly be said to have received the adoption of sons:
otherwise neither ought it to be said of us that we received the adoption of sons, or that we have been redeemed and saved, since the Apostle says: 'We ourselves, having the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, awaiting the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body; for by hope we were saved; but hope which is seen is not hope' (Rom. VIII, 23, 24). Just as therefore, although according to the Apostle we still await the adoption, and the redemption, and the salvation; yet, because we already receive the sacrament of adoption, and of redemption, and of salvation, we are rightly called both sons of God, and redeemed, and saved:
so Christ too, receiving the sacrament of adoption not for His own benefit, but for the confirmation of the sacrament itself, in His circumcision and baptism—as the Apostle says: 'For I say that Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers' (Rom. XV, 8)—could rightly be said by the ancient doctors of the Church to have received the adoption of sons. But if this too be found to have been put forth by them, that after His passion, whether in rising again, or even in ascending into heaven, the Lord was glorified, or received power; it ought to be understood as said by them just as it was said by the apostle Peter:
'The prophets sought out and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace of God that should come unto you, searching in what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, who foretold the sufferings in Christ, and the glories that should follow' (I Pet. I, 10, 11). And as it was said by the Lord Himself after the resurrection: 'Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?' (Luke XXIV, 26); and again: 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth' (Matt. XXVIII, 18): likewise concerning the glorification to be effected after His ascension He says thus: 'But when that Spirit of truth is come, He shall teach you all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself;
but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak, and the things that are to come He shall declare unto you' (John XVI, 13). And again it is said of Him: 'For the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified' (John VII, 39). Accordingly we do better if, just as we believe the divine Scripture, so we believe that the expounders of the same Scripture spoke against the heretics. Whether because something accrued in the nature of the flesh to the risen Christ, which, sown in dishonour, had now risen in glory; or because the same glory and power became more known to the faithful after the resurrection: He is then said to have been glorified and to have received power, when these things were brought about in the knowledge of believers—just as we also say in prayer:
'Hallowed be Thy name' (Luke XI, 2), namely that it may become holy in the knowledge of the faithful. Or because, if any power and glory was bestowed upon the Church after His resurrection, He Himself is said to have received it, as the Head in the members, that is, in the faithful men. Whence it was said by the prophet: 'Ascending on high, He led captivity captive; Thou hast received gifts in men' (Ps. XLVII, 19). In these and very many other ways the devout and exercised understanding of a reader can both grasp the sayings of the preceding Fathers, and defend them against the calumnies of heretics; but the unlearned and arrogant, who hastens not to learn but to condemn everything he has not understood, must needs be confounded in such matters;
and, if he can, confound others also, while the reason which he could not find on account of his ignorance, he also disdains, on account of his arrogance, to accept. But who could endure this—that some, saying that they believe with us that there are two natures in Christ, and not denying Him to be both God and man, if they hear that the Son of God is so by grace, abhor this word as though it were said of one who is only God and not also man? But just as He is by nature the son of man on account of His true humanity, and by condescension the son of man on account of His true deity, so also He is by nature the Son of God on account of His true deity, and by grace the Son of God on account of His true humanity.
But if, even according to His humanity, He be said to be the Son of God by nature, one falls into that error of Apollinaris, who believed that God the Word made flesh for Himself out of a part of His own substance, which is wholly everywhere and cannot be divided. But if they say truly that there are two of His natures, and both cannot be divine—since the nature of His humanity is one—then beyond doubt it is not the case that, just as according to His divinity He is by nature the Son of God, so also according to His humanity He is by nature the Son of God. But if according to His humanity He is not by nature the Son of God, it necessarily follows that He is the Son of God either by merits or by grace—He who, from the moment He began to be, was nothing other than the Son of God. It remains therefore that according to His humanity He is the Son of God by grace.
For this reason also blessed Augustine, that pre-eminent preacher of the catholic faith, writing to Prosper and Hilary On the Predestination of the Saints, and teaching that the grace of God is not given according to our merits, says among other things (Book I, chapter 15): 'There is also a most illustrious light of predestination and grace, the Saviour Himself, the very Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: by what preceding merits of His own, whether of works or of faith, did the human nature which is in Him obtain that He should be this? Let answer be made, I pray. That man, by whom assumed into the unity of the person by the Word co-eternal with the Father He was the only-begotten Son of God—whence did he merit this? What good of his, of whatever kind, went before? What did he do, what did he believe beforehand,
what did he ask, that he might attain to this ineffable excellence? Was it not by the Word making and assuming, that the man himself, from the moment he began to be, began to be the only Son of God? Did not that woman full of grace conceive the only Son of God? Was not the only Son of God born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, not by the desire of the flesh, but by the sole gift of God? Was it to be feared that, as age came on, that man would sin by free will? Or was there for that reason no free will in him, and was it not so much the greater, the more he could not be a slave to sin?
Surely all these things, singularly to be admired, and whatever else can most truly be said to be proper to Him, the human—that is, our—nature received in Him in a singular way, with no preceding merits of its own. Let this man answer to God, if he dare, and say, 'Why not I too?' And if he hears, 'O man, who art thou that repliest against God?' (Rom. IX, 20), let him not so restrain himself, but increase his imprudence and say, 'How is it that I hear, "Who art thou, O man?" when I am what I hear, that is, a man, which He also is of whom I speak? Why am I not what He too is? But He is such and so great by grace. Why is the grace diverse, where the nature is common? Surely there is no respect of persons with God.' Who—I say not a Christian, but a madman—would say these things?
Let there appear to us, therefore, in our Head, the very fountain of grace, whence according to the measure of each it diffuses itself through all His members. By that grace every man whosoever becomes a Christian from the beginning of his faith, by which grace that man from His own beginning became Christ God. From the same Spirit was this man here reborn, of whom that man was born; by the same Spirit it comes about in us that there is remission of sins, by which Spirit it was brought about that that man had no sin. These things God assuredly foreknew that He would do. This therefore is the predestination of the saints, which shone forth most of all in the Holy of holies: which of those who rightly understand the eloquence of truth can deny?
Therefore this apostolic man, teaching that Christ according to His humanity, with no preceding merits, from the moment He began to be the Son of God by grace, began to be the only One; through which grace also the human—that is, our—nature received in Him in a singular way all things singularly to be admired; and by the diversity of whose grace it came to pass that He should be such and so great, and not like us, although the nature is common to us; and asserting that by that grace every man whosoever becomes a Christian from the beginning of his faith, by which grace that man from His own beginning was made Christ: let these men dare, if they can, to call him a heretic; let them dare, with their wonted presumption, to condemn him.
And then they will truly learn what is the piety and constancy of the Church of the Latins, which God established and confirmed by his teaching—when they shall straightway be anathematized by all, and cut off like rotten and diseased members. If therefore it pleases them to dig up again the tombs of those resting in peace and to gnaw the bones of the dead, let them try their teeth on this adamantine man, and they will find that their teeth will so be broken in their mouth that they shall no longer bite anyone under this guise of piety.