Si enim Gham filius Noe (Genes. IX) cum vidisset nudum suum patrem, quoniam non cooperuit patris corporalem nuditalem, sed egressus nuntiavit eam fratribus, et illi vestimento eam cooperuerunt, ipse quidem Cham, et illi qui ex ipso nati sunt, sub maledictione facti sunt; qui autem cooperuerunt, magnam benedictionem meruerunt: multo magis isti majore et ampliore condemnatione digni sunt, qui ad synodum minime pertinentem infamiam, festinant per impietatem epistolae, et Theodori, eidem sanctae synodo applicare. Sed non ideo impia epistola, vel defendentes eam, condemnationem suæ impietatis effugient: sed neque Theodorus, qui paganos et Judæos, et omnes hæreticos impietate superat. Impio enim Theodoro non suffecit super alias ejus blasphemias ad suum errorem male interpretari symbolum trecentorum decem et octo sanctorum Patrum, sed etiam contempto eo, aliud symbolum exposuit omni impietate plenum, in quo anathematizare ausus est eos qui aliter sapiunt vel tradunt, ut, quantum ad illius insaniam pertinet, omnes sancti apostoli et Patres condemnarentur. Hoc autem Theodori impium symbolum et in Ephesina prima synodo prolatum, et in Chalcedonensi recitatum, ab utraque synodo cum ejus expositore, et eis qui illud suscipiunt, condemnatum est.
For if Cham, the son of Noah (Gen. 9), when he had seen his father naked, because he did not cover his father's bodily nakedness but went out and reported it to his brothers, and they covered it with a garment—Cham himself indeed, and those who were born from him, were made subject to a curse; but those who covered him merited a great blessing—how much more do those deserve a greater and fuller condemnation who hasten, through the impiety of the letter, to attach to that most holy synod an infamy that does not pertain to it at all, and [the infamy] of Theodore as well. But the impious letter, or those who defend it, will not for that reason escape the condemnation of their own impiety; nor will Theodore, who surpasses the pagans and Jews and all heretics in impiety. For it did not suffice for the impious Theodore, beyond his other blasphemies, to misinterpret the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers to his own error, but even, having despised it, he set forth another symbol full of all impiety, in which he dared to anathematize those who think or hand down otherwise, so that, as far as his madness is concerned, all the holy apostles and Fathers would be condemned. But this impious symbol of Theodore, both produced at the first synod of Ephesus and recited at Chalcedon, was condemned by both synods together with its expositor and those who accept it.
Quoniam autem quidam, verba pro Tbeodoro facientes, cum proferuntur impia ejus conscripta, propter insertam eis blasphemiam confingunt quidem dicere quod impia sunt, ipsum autem qui talem in,pietatem evomuit, recusant anathematizare: miramur eorum dementiam, quod divinæ Scripturæ contraria agunt, evidenter dicenti, quia æqualiter horribilia sunt apud Deum impius et impietas ejus (Sap. xiv). Actio enim cum auctore [actore] 'punietur: si autem similiter impietati horribilis est Deo et ille qui impie agit, certe separatus est talis a Deo, et anathemati juste subjicitur. Anathema enim nihil aliud significat, nisi a Deo separationem, sicut in Veteri et Novo Testamento judicium de anathemate significat. Quod autem et Dominus eos qui non permanent in Verbo veritatis ipsius, separatos esse ab Ecclesia dicit, in Evangelio secundum Joannem Judæos alloquens, sic ait: Omnis qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. Servus autem non manet in domo in æternum; filius autem permanet in æternum (Joan. VIII). Quod autem, quam Dominus nominat domum, divina Scriptura Ecclesiam Dei vivi vocat, Apostolus testatur in Epistola prima ad Timotheum (Cap. III).
But since certain persons, speaking on Theodore's behalf, when his impious writings are brought forward, on account of the blasphemy inserted in them, while they pretend to say that they are impious, yet refuse to anathematize the man himself who vomited forth such impiety—we marvel at their madness, that they act contrary to the divine Scripture, which plainly says that the impious man and his impiety are alike horrible before God (Wis. 14). For the deed is punished together with its author; but if the impiety is alike horrible to God, and also the man who acts impiously, then certainly such a man is separated from God, and is justly subjected to anathema. For anathema signifies nothing other than separation from God, as in the Old and New Testament the judgment concerning anathema signifies. And that the Lord also says that those who do not remain in the Word of his truth are separated from the Church, when in the Gospel according to John he addresses the Jews, he speaks thus: Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. But the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever (John 8). And that what the Lord calls the house, the divine Scripture calls the Church of the living God, the Apostle testifies in the first Epistle to Timothy (chap. 3).
Si vero quidam dicunt, non oportere Theodorum post mortem anathematizari, sciant qui talem hæreticum defendunt, quod omnis hæreticus usque ad finem vitae in suo errore permanens, juste perpetuo anathemati et post mortem subjicitur. Et hoc in multis hæreticis et antiquioribus et propioribus factum est, id est Yalentino, Basilide, Marcione, Cerintho, Manichæo, Eunomio, et Bonoso. Hoc autem idem et in Tbeodoro factum est, et in vita accusato, et post mortem anathematizato a sanctis Patribus, quibus si tradere noluerint at haeretici ejus defensorea, vel impiæ epistolæ, quam ipsi defendunt, ttedant. Quae licet Theodorum collaudet, manifeste tamen dicit, quod in Ecelesia a sanctis Patribus anathematizatus esi, et es iUo plurima inquisitio facta est de ejus conscriptis, ut pote plenis impietate. Hoc autem tunc faciebant catholicæ Ecclesiæ doctores, ne simplicieres legentesillius impia conscripta, a recta fide declinarent. Quod autem impii, licet non in vita in suam personam anathema susceperint, tumen et post mortem anathematizentur I catholica Ecclesia, ostenditur a sanctis synodis. Nicæna enim synodus eos qui impii [Impiam] Arii sectam colunt, sine nomine anathematizavit. Que autem Constantinopoli congregata est, impiam Macedonii hæresim similiter condemnavit; sed tamen sancta Dei Ecclesia et post mortem Arium et Macedonium neminatum anathematizat.
But if certain persons say that Theodore ought not to be anathematized after death, let those who defend such a heretic know that every heretic who persists in his error even to the end of life is justly subjected to perpetual anathema even after death. And this has been done in the case of many heretics, both more ancient and more recent, that is, Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, Cerinthus, Manichaeus, Eunomius, and Bonosus. This same thing has also been done in the case of Theodore, accused during his life and anathematized after death by the holy Fathers; and if they are unwilling to hand these things down, let them at least be ashamed, as defenders of his heresy, or of the impious letter which they themselves defend. For although that letter praises Theodore, it nevertheless clearly says that he was anathematized in the Church by the holy Fathers, and that a very great inquiry was made concerning his writings, as being full of impiety. And this the teachers of the catholic Church did at that time, lest the simpler sort, reading his impious writings, should decline from the right faith. But that the impious, even if during life they did not receive anathema in their own person, are nevertheless anathematized even after death by the catholic Church, is shown by the holy synods. For the synod of Nicaea anathematized those who follow the impious sect of Arius, without naming them. And the synod assembled at Constantinople similarly condemned the impious heresy of Macedonius; yet nevertheless the holy Church of God anathematizes Arius and Macedonius by name even after death.
Cum autem ex multis probationibus convincuntur, quod supervacue et impie agunt qui Theodorum et impietatem ejus defendunt ad aliam vanam occasionem confugiunt,dicentes non oportere eum anathematizari eo quod in communicatione Ecclesiarum mortuus est. Oportebat autem scire ees quod illi moriuntur in communicatione Ecclesiarum, qui commune pietatis dogma, quod in universali Ecclesia praedicatur, usque ad flnem servaverunt. Iste autem usque ad mortem in sua permanens impietate, ab omni Ecclesia ejectus est. Itaque et omnis plenitudo Mopsuestenæ Ecclesiæ, in qua episcopus dicitur fuisse propter blasphemias, ob quas paganis cum invenisset quod paganis et Judæis et Sodomitanis a sanctis Patribus connumeratus est, deleverunt ipsi ex illo a sacris Ecclesiæ diptychis ejus nomen, sicut gesta de hoc in eadem civitate apud concilium episcoporum illius provinciae confecta ostendunt. Miramur igitur Tbeodori sequaces, qui eum et impietatem ejus tanquam suam defendunt, cum Ecclesia, in qua fuit episcopus, ut pote haereticum ex multis temporibus eum ejecerit. Quod autem ad condemnationem suam talem occasionem [prætextum] proponunt defenseres Theodori, scire licet et ex ipso adversus Judam facto tremendo judicio. Ille enim cum putasset latere eum qui occulta bomiuum cognoscit, sacramentis communicavit caRn apostolis: sed tamen nihil ei profuit quod cum dolo communicavit.
But when they are convicted by many proofs that those who defend Theodore and his impiety act vainly and impiously, they flee to another empty pretext, saying that he ought not to be anathematized because he died in communion with the Churches. But they ought to know that those die in communion with the Churches who have preserved the common dogma of piety, which is preached in the universal Church, to the end. But this man, persisting in his impiety even to death, was cast out from every Church. Therefore also the whole fullness of the Church of Mopsuestia, in which he is said to have been bishop, on account of the blasphemies for which, when he had been found out, he was numbered by the holy Fathers with the pagans and Jews and Sodomites, erased his name from the sacred diptychs of the Church, as the acts concerning this matter drawn up in the same city at the council of the bishops of that province show. We wonder, therefore, at the followers of Theodore, who defend him and his impiety as their own, since the Church in which he was bishop cast him out as a heretic long ago. But that the defenders of Theodore put forward such a pretext for their own condemnation, it is fitting to know also from the very fearful judgment enacted against Judas. For he, when he thought that he who knows the hidden things of men was hidden from him, partook of the sacraments with the apostles; but nevertheless it profited him nothing that he partook with deceit.
Sed licet post mortem ejus da.. decim nominati sint discipuli, sicut Joannes evange lista dicit: Thomas autem, qui Didymus dicebatur, unus ex duodecim, non erat cum ipsis quando venit Jesus (loan. XX): tamen hoc non liberat Judam a condemnatione, aut connumerari facit apostolis. Unde post ascensionem Domini, apostoli per suam sententiam eumdem Judam etiam post mortem condemnaverunt, et alium pro illo introduxerunt (cot. I). Quod autem vaoam occasionem proponunt, dicentes non oportere haereticos mortuos anathematizari, et cx ipsis Domini verbis ostendemus. Impios enim et adhuc vivos, mortuos nominat, dicens: Dimitte mortuos sepelire mortuos suos (Matth. VIII): sicut justos et jam defunctos, vivos nominat. Dicit enim de Abraham et Isaac et Jacob, quod Deus non est Deus mortuorum. sed viventium (Matth. XXII). Si ergo secundum verba illorum non oportet haereticos mortuos anathematizari, nec viri hæretici anathematizabuntur, quos Dominus mortuos vocat, quia separati sunt ab ipso qui dixit: Ego sum vita (Joan. XI et XIV), et secundum eos jam nec vivi, nec mortui hxretici anathematizabuntur; et sine causa,secundum illos, apostolica doctrina (Galat. I) tradit anathematizari eos qui tradunt præter quod accepimus: sine causa sanctæ synodi haereticos condemnaverunt, sine causa et alii saucti Patres et doctores Ecclesiæ haereticos anathematizaverunt.
But although after his death twelve named disciples may have been appointed, as John the Evangelist says: "But Thomas, who was called Didymus, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came" (John 20), nevertheless this does not free Judas from condemnation, nor does it make him counted among the apostles. Hence after the Lord's ascension, the apostles by their own judgment condemned this same Judas even after death, and introduced another in his place (Acts 1). But the empty pretext they put forward, saying that dead heretics ought not to be anathematized, we shall also demonstrate from the Lord's own words. For he calls the impious, even while still alive, dead, saying: "Let the dead bury their dead" (Matthew 8); just as he calls the righteous, even when already deceased, living. For he says of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob that God is not the God of the dead but of the living (Matthew 22). If, then, according to their words, dead heretics ought not to be anathematized, then neither will heretical men be anathematized, whom the Lord calls dead because they are separated from him who said: "I am the life" (John 11 and 14); and according to them, heretics will no longer be anathematized either as living or as dead; and according to them, the apostolic teaching (Galatians 1) gives the command to anathematize those who hand on anything beyond what we have received to no purpose; to no purpose have the holy synods condemned heretics, to no purpose have other holy Fathers and doctors of the Church anathematized heretics.
Inculpent autem et Jeremiam prophetam dicentem: Exsecrandus qui opera Domini facit negligenter (Jer. XLVIII); et David prophetam dicentem: Exsecrandi qui declinant a mandalia tuis (Psal. CXVIII); et nt compendiose dicamus, omnem divinam Scripturam in diversis locis tales condemnationes impiis inferentem. Sin autem illi qui negligenter opera Dei faciunt, et peccant in mandatis ejus, talibus condemnationibus subjiciuntur: quanto magis impius Theodorus, qui talia adversus ipsum magnum Deum et Salvatorem nostrum Jesum Christum blasphemavit, juste condemnatusestet anathematizatus?
Et haec quidem sufGciebant, super [superius] memoratas et aliis nostris libris insertas probationes, quas protulimus, ostendentes, quod oportet etiam post mortem hæreticos condemnari, confundere eos qui Theodorum defendunt, et compescere a tali impietate. Quoniam autem contensiose in iisdem permanent, etiam quod est amplius, dicimus quia quidam ex ipsis qui in Nicæna sancta synodo convenerunt, et expositae ab ea fidei definitioni vel symbolo subscripserunt, quoniam postea contraria sapientes apparucrunt, alii quidem vivi, ani autem post mortem anathematizati sunt a Damaso sanctæ memoriæ papa antiquioris Romæ, et ab universali Sardicensi synodo, prout testatur sanctus Atbanasius.
But they will also cite the prophet Jeremiah, who says: "Cursed is he who does the works of the Lord negligently" (Jer. 48); and the prophet David, who says: "Cursed are those who turn aside from your commandments" (Ps. 118); and, to speak briefly, all divine Scripture, which in various places brings such condemnations upon the impious. But if those who do the works of God negligently, and sin against his commandments, are subjected to such condemnations, how much more is the impious Theodore, who blasphemed such things against the great God himself and our Savior Jesus Christ, justly condemned and anathematized?
And these things were indeed sufficient, in addition to the proofs mentioned above and inserted in our other books, which we have brought forward, showing that heretics ought to be condemned even after death, to confound those who defend Theodore, and to restrain them from such impiety. But since they persist contentiously in the same views, we say even more: that certain of those who gathered at the holy synod of Nicaea, and who subscribed to the definition of faith or the symbol set forth by it, since afterward they appeared to hold contrary opinions, some indeed while alive, but others after death, were anathematized by Damasus, pope of holy memory of elder Rome, and by the universal synod of Sardica, as Saint Athanasius testifies.
Sed et Cbalcedonensis sancta synodus Domnum Antiochiæ factum episcopum post mortem condemnavit, quod solum ausus est scribere, oportere taceri duodecim capitula sancti Cyrilli.
Quoniam autem Tbeodori defensores hæretici, omni propositione et conatu excidentes, præsumunt dicere ad deceptionem ignorantium, quod sanctae memoriæ Cyrillus in aliqua parte epistolae Illum collaudavit; ex multis ostenditur, quod non convenit eorum conamen dictis a S. Cyrillo in diversis eas libris contra impium Theodorum, in quibus magis impium omnibus aliis haereticis eum ostendens, deinde non sustinens plurimas et maximas ejus blasphemias contra magnum Deum et Salvatorem nostrum Jesus Christum dictas, exclamavit, ita dicens: Expavit cœlum super hoc, et horruit amplius vehementer, dicit Dominus. intolerabilem malignitatem, linguam loquentem iniquitatem contra Deum, et in altitudinem cornu extollentem! » (Et iterum: Impone, homo, tuae linguae ostium et seram, cessa cornu In altitudinem extollens, et loquens iniquitatem adversus Deum. Quousque insultas patienti Christo? In mente habe scriptum a divino Paulo: Sic autem peccantes in fratres, et percutientes eorum infirmam conscientiam, in Christum peccati (I Cor. VIII). Et ut aliquid etiam ex propheticis loquar codicibus: Justificata est Sodoma ex te (Ezech.
But the holy synod of Chalcedon also condemned Domnus of Antioch, who had been made bishop after his death, for this alone: that he dared to write that the twelve chapters of Saint Cyril ought to be passed over in silence.
But since the heretical defenders of Theodore, failing in every argument and attempt, presume to say, to the deception of the ignorant, that Cyril of holy memory praised him in some part of a letter, it is shown from many considerations that their attempt does not agree with what Saint Cyril said in various books against the impious Theodore, in which, showing him to be more impious than all other heretics, and then not enduring his very many and very great blasphemies spoken against the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, he cried out, saying thus: "The heaven was astonished at this, and shuddered exceedingly more, says the Lord—at the intolerable malice, at the tongue speaking iniquity against God, and lifting up its horn on high!" And again: "Set, O man, a door and a bolt upon your tongue; cease lifting up your horn on high, and speaking iniquity against God. How long will you insult the patient Christ? Keep in mind what was written by the divine Paul: 'But so sinning against the brethren, and striking their weak conscience, you sin against Christ' (1 Cor. 8). And that I may speak something also from the prophetic books: 'Sodom has been justified by you' (Ezek.
XVI), superasti paganorum verbositales, quas contra Christum fecerunt, stultitiam existimantes crucem (1 Cor. vII, nihil esse ostendisti Judaicae superbiæ crimina. His igitur ad condemnationem Theodori sic a sancto Cyrillo dictis, licet aliquis concedat, secundum illorum verba sanctum Cyrillum aliquid pro Theodoro dixisse, neque hoc liberat illum a condemnatione. Invenimus enim, quod multi sanctorum Patrum quosdam haereticos collaudaverunt, sicut et sancti Damasus et Athanasius et Basilius Apollinarium, et sanctus [sanctæ memoriæ] Leo Eo... tychen: et tamen cognita eorum impietale, non propter hoc evaserunt hæretici condemnationem et anathema, quod postea contra eorum personam et impietatem factum est. Tantus autem est furor defendentium Theodorum, quia præsumunt adversus Gregorium theologum, et Joannem Constantinopolitanum mentiri, dicentes epistolas ad eumdem Theodorum plenas laudis eos direxisse: quod falsam est. Gregorius enim, cum in Constantinopoli pro veritate laborans, conversis per eum ab Ariana insania ad catholicam fidem populis, ad suam patriam reversus est, epistolas quas haeretici dolose proferunt, non ad Theodorum Mopsuestenum scripsit, sed ad Tbeodorum episcopum Tyanensem, quae est secundae Cappadociæ metropolis. Ejusdem autem provinciæ sunt et Nazianzus civitas, cujus fuerat episcopus idem sanctæ memoriae Gregorius, et Arianzus praedium, unde ortus fuerat.
You have surpassed the wordy babblings of the pagans, which they uttered against Christ, thinking the cross to be foolishness; you have shown the crimes of Jewish pride to be nothing. Since, then, these things were said by Saint Cyril for the condemnation of Theodore, even if someone grants that, according to their words, Saint Cyril said something in favor of Theodore, not even this frees him from condemnation. For we find that many of the holy Fathers praised certain heretics, as also the holy Damasus and Athanasius and Basil praised Apollinarius, and the holy Leo of blessed memory praised Eutyches; and yet, once their impiety was known, the heretics did not for this reason escape the condemnation and anathema which was afterwards pronounced against their person and impiety. So great, however, is the fury of those defending Theodore that they presume to lie against Gregory the Theologian and John of Constantinople, saying that they sent letters full of praise to this same Theodore; which is false. For Gregory, when he had labored for the truth at Constantinople and, after the peoples had been converted by him from the Arian madness to the catholic faith, returned to his own homeland, wrote the letters which the heretics deceitfully produce, not to Theodore of Mopsuestia, but to Theodore, bishop of Tyana, which is the metropolis of Second Cappadocia. Of the same province, moreover, are both the city of Nazianzus, of which the same Gregory of blessed memory had been bishop, and the estate of Arianzus, from which he had been born.
Hoc enim et ipsae epistolæ aperte significant, memoriam facientes consuetudinum et collectionum, et ejusdem prædii Arianzi, et aliorum prædiorum ejusdem provinciae, et mensis vernacula lingua Cappadocum nominati, et Bosphorii [Bospori] episcopi sub eodem Theodoro constituti, qui tunc temporis Coloniae civitatis ejusdem provinciæ episcopus erat, et aliorum episcoporum, et chorepiscoporum, et monasteriorum, quae sub Theodori jurisdictione erant, quorum usque nunc eadem nomina servantur. Qualis porro communio Cappadocibus ad secundam Ciliciam, vel tunc, vel modo divisa earum provinciarum gubernatione? Et quos episcopos sub se habere potcrat Mopsuestenus episcopus, cum ipse sub lnetropolitano secundae Ciliciæ constitutus esset? Joannes autem Constantinopolitanus scripsit quidem epistolam ad Theodorum Mopsuestenum, non tamen laudibus, sed querimoniis et increpationibus plenam, ut pote illo a bona conversatione [pietate] lapso. Quoniam enim cum eo monachicam vitam in uno eodemque monasterio exercuit, conversationis ibi factae eum admonuit: et pro his testimonium pr.cbent Sozomenus, et Hesychius, et Socrates, et Theodoretus, qui multas proTheodoro orationes et laudes fecit.
For the letters themselves clearly indicate this, making mention of the customs and collections, and of the same estate of Arianzus, and of other estates of the same province, and of the month called in the native tongue of the Cappadocians, and of Bosphorius the bishop appointed under the same Theodore, who at that time was bishop of the city of Colonia in the same province, and of other bishops, and chorepiscopi, and monasteries which were under the jurisdiction of Theodore, whose same names are preserved even to now. What sort of communion, moreover, was there for the Cappadocians with Second Cilicia, either then or now, when the governance of those provinces is divided? And what bishops could the bishop of Mopsuestia have had under him, when he himself was constituted under the metropolitan of Second Cilicia? But John of Constantinople wrote a letter to Theodore of Mopsuestia, yet not full of praises, but of complaints and rebukes, as being one who had fallen from good conduct. For since he had practiced the monastic life with him in one and the same monastery, he reminded him of the conduct carried on there; and for these things Sozomen, Hesychius, Socrates, and Theodoret bear witness, who made many speeches and praises on behalf of Theodore.
Si autem testimonia proferunt Joannis Antiocheni, et Orientalis concilii sub eo constituti, facta pro Theodoro, et ejus impiclate, necesse est eos, et illa suscipere, quæ (quantum ad illos pertinct) ad condemnationem sancti Cyrilli, et reprobationem recte fidei fecerunt Joannes et qui cum illo erunt, nec non etiam quæ scripserunt. Nestorium et ejus perfidiam diutius defendentes. Et hoc ostenditur ex diversis eorum libris et epistolis, quas ad Theodosium piae recordationis, et ad alios diversos scripserunt.
Et hæc quidem sic se habent. Ut autem nihil subtilitatis prætermittamus, necessarium putavimus memorare etiam illa quae ab Augusto sanctæ memoriam Africano episcopo scripta sunt. Quaestione enim aliqua post mortem Cæciliani de eo mota, quod ab ecclesiastica traditione declinasse dicebatur, et propter hoc quibusdam a catholica Ecclesia separatis, scribit ad Bonifacium idem sanctus Augustinus, quod non oportebat, aliquos ideo separare sese a catholica Ec clesia. Si enim vera essent ea quæ Cæciliano inferebantur, et manifestatus esset contrarium aliquid ecclesiastico statui sapuisse, etiam post mortem eum anathemati subjicerem. Sed et regula sanctæ synodi Africanae statuit, episcopos qui suas facultates in testamento, vel ex intestato hæretico relinquunt, oportere et post mortem anathematizari.
But if they bring forward the testimonies of John of Antioch and of the Eastern council constituted under him, made in favor of Theodore and his impiety, it is necessary that they also accept those things which (as far as pertains to them) John and those who were with him did for the condemnation of Saint Cyril and the reprobation of the right faith, and also the things which they wrote, defending Nestorius and his perfidy at greater length. And this is shown from their various books and letters, which they wrote to Theodosius of pious memory and to various others.
And these things indeed stand thus. But so that we may omit nothing of subtlety, we have thought it necessary to mention also those things which were written by Augustine of holy memory, the African bishop. For when some question had been raised after the death of Caecilian concerning him, that he was said to have departed from ecclesiastical tradition, and on account of this certain persons had separated from the catholic Church, the same Saint Augustine writes to Boniface that it was not fitting for anyone to separate himself from the catholic Church for this reason. For if those things which were brought against Caecilian were true, and it had been made manifest that he had held something contrary to the ecclesiastical order, I would subject him to anathema even after death. But also the rule of the holy African synod established that bishops who leave their property in a will, or intestate, to a heretic, ought to be anathematized even after death.
Super hæc autem omnia, quis ignorat ea quæ nostris temporibus in Ecclesia antiquioris Romæ contra Dioscorum acta sunt? Qui cum nihil in fidem peccasset, tamen propter solum ecclesiasticum ordinem post mortem ab eadem sancta Ecclesia Romana anathematizatus est. Si igitur nihil in fidem peccantes episcopi, propter solum ecclesiasticum ordinem, et propter causam pecuniariam anathemati et post mortem subjiciuntur, quanto magis Theodorus, qui in ipsum Deum peccavit? Quantum autem ad insipientiam dicentium non oportere anathematizari post mortem eos qui in sua impietate mortui sunt: oportebat nec eos qui injuste condemnati sunt Patres post mortem revocari, quale contigit in Joanne sanctæ recordationis episcopo Constantinopolitanæ civitatis, ab universali Ecclesia post mortem revocato, et in Flaviano sanctæ memoriæ et ipso episcopo Constantinopolitanae civitatis, injuste quidem in vita condemnato, juste autcm post mortem revocato, tam a sanctæ memoriae papa Leone quam a sancta Chalcedonensi synodo. Ex hoc autem contingit secundum illorum verba, hæreticos quidem sanctis Patribus connumerari, ut pote liberatos debita eis condemnatione, sanctos autem Patres injuste condemnatos, haereticis conjungi, ut pote non soluta contra eos facta iniqua damnatione.
Beyond all these things, who does not know what was done in our times in the Church of elder Rome against Dioscorus? Although he had committed no offense against the faith, nevertheless for the sake of ecclesiastical order alone, after his death, he was anathematized by that same holy Roman Church. If, therefore, bishops who committed no offense against the faith are subjected to anathema even after death for the sake of ecclesiastical order alone and for a pecuniary cause, how much more Theodore, who sinned against God himself? But as for the foolishness of those who say that those who died in their impiety ought not to be anathematized after death: then neither ought those Fathers who were unjustly condemned to be recalled after death, as happened in the case of John, of holy memory, bishop of the city of Constantinople, who was recalled after death by the universal Church, and in the case of Flavian, of holy memory, himself also bishop of the city of Constantinople, who was indeed unjustly condemned in life but justly recalled after death, both by Pope Leo of holy memory and by the holy Synod of Chalcedon. From this, however, it follows according to their words that heretics are numbered among the holy Fathers, inasmuch as they have been freed from the condemnation due them, while the holy Fathers who were unjustly condemned are joined with heretics, inasmuch as the unjust condemnation passed against them has not been annulled.
Omnibus autem magis credendus [fide dignus] est Doctor Dominus et Deus noster Jesus Christus, de se dicens: Sic enim dilexit Deus mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret, ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habaet vitam æternam. Non enim misit Deus Filium suum in mundum ut judicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum. Qui credit in eum, non judicatur: qui autem non credit, jam judicutus est, quia non credit in nomine unigeniti Fili Dei (Joan. III). Et Spiritus autem sanctus per prophetam David dicit (Psal. I), impios non resurrecturos in judicio. Tali igitur Domini sententia prolata adversus omnem impium, et nihil discerncute inter vivos et mortuos hæreticos, quomodo audent resistere tali sententiæ, et eos qui semel impie egerunt, et propter hoc jam i Domino condemnati sunt, dicere, non oportere post mortem condemnari? Et divinus autem [etiam] Ape. stolus, qui Christum in semetipso habet loquentem, non solum adversus homines, sed etiam adversus angelos talem protulit sententiam, dicens in epistola ad Galatas (Cap. I): Sed licet nos aut angelus de cælo evangelizaverit præterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit. Sicut prædiximus, et nunc iterum dico: Si quis vobis evangelizaverit præter id quod accepistis, anathema sit.
But our Lord and God Jesus Christ is to be believed above all things, being worthy of faith, when He says of Himself: For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not judged; but whoever does not believe is already judged, because he does not believe in the name of the only-begotten Son of God (John 3). And the Holy Spirit also says through the prophet David (Psalm 1) that the impious will not rise again in the judgment. Therefore, since such a sentence has been pronounced by the Lord against every impious person, and He makes no distinction between the living and the dead among heretics, how do they dare to resist such a sentence, and to say of those who have once acted impiously and for this reason have already been condemned by the Lord, that they ought not to be condemned after death? And the divine Apostle also, who has Christ speaking in him, pronounced such a sentence not only against men but even against angels, saying in the epistle to the Galatians (chapter 1): But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than what we preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than what you have received, let him be anathema.
Et quis ita impius est, ut praesumat dicere, quod Theodori impia scripta, vel pars eorum, tradita est aliquando sanctæ Dei Ecclesiæ, et non statim, qui ausus est aliquid tale loqui anathemali subjectus est a sanctis Patribus?
Si quis igitur post ejusmodi rectam confessionem, et haereticorum condemnationem, salvo manente pio intellectu, de nominibus vel syllabis vel dictionibus contendens, separat se a sancta Dei Ecclesia, tanquam non in rebus, sed in nominibus solis et dictionibus posita nobis pietate: talis ut pote dissensionibus gaudens, rationem pro semetipso, et pro deceptis et decipiendis ab eo, reddet magno Deo et Salvatori nostro Jesu Christo in die judicii. Amen.
Justiniani imperatoris ad sanctam synodum epistola de Theodosio Mopsuesteno et reliquis.
Semper quidem studium fuit orthodoxis et piis imperatoribus patribus nostris, pro tempore exortas hxreses per congregationem religiosissimorum sacerdotum amputare, et recta fide sincere praedicata, in pace sanctam Dei Ecclesiam custodire.
And who is so impious as to presume to say that the impious writings of Theodore, or any part of them, were ever handed down to the holy Church of God, and that he who dared to say anything of the sort was not at once subjected to anathema by the holy Fathers?
If anyone, therefore, after such a right confession and the condemnation of heretics, while a pious understanding remains intact, contending over names or syllables or phrases, separates himself from the holy Church of God, as though piety were placed for us not in realities but in names and phrases alone: such a one, as one who rejoices in dissensions, will render an account for himself and for those deceived and to be deceived by him to our great God and Savior Jesus Christ on the day of judgment. Amen.
The letter of the Emperor Justinian to the holy synod concerning Theodosius of Mopsuestia and the rest.
It has always been the zeal of orthodox and pious emperors, our fathers, to cut off the heresies that arose from time to time through the assembly of the most religious priests, and, with right faith sincerely preached, to keep the holy Church of God in peace.
Quapropter et Constantinus Magnus, Ario blasphemante et disente Filium non esse consubstantialem Deo et Patri, sed creaturam, et ex non exstantibus factum esse, congregavit Nicææ trecentos decem et octo Patres, et cum ipse concilio interfuisset, damnato et anathematizato Ario rectam fideui confirmare studuit: per quam divini illi Patres confitentes Filium consubstantialem esse Deo et Patri, non vero creaturam et ex non exslantibus factum, usque ad hodiernum diem canitur. Theodosius autem senior, Macedonio lieganle deitatem sancti Spiritus, et Apollinario ejus discipulo blasphemante incarnati Dei Verbi dispensationem, ct dicente Dei Verbum non assumpsisse mentem humanam, sed carni animam rationalem babenti fuisse unitum, congregatis in Constantinopolitana urbe centum quinquaginta Patribus, ac ipse particeps concilii effectus, damnatis et anathemate perculsis prædictis hæreticis una cum impiis eorum dogmatibus ac sectatoribus, curam adhibuit ut recta fides prædicaretur.
Therefore Constantine the Great also, when Arius was blaspheming and saying that the Son was not consubstantial with God the Father, but a creature, and was made out of things that did not exist, gathered three hundred and eighteen Fathers at Nicaea, and when he himself had taken part in the council, after Arius had been condemned and anathematized, he strove to confirm the right faith; through which those divine Fathers, confessing that the Son is consubstantial with God the Father, and not a creature and made out of things that did not exist, it is proclaimed even to this day. But Theodosius the elder, when Macedonius was fighting against the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and Apollinarius his disciple was blaspheming the dispensation of the incarnate Word of God, and saying that the Word of God did not assume a human mind, but was united to flesh having a rational soul, gathered one hundred and fifty Fathers in the city of Constantinople, and when he himself had become a participant in the council, after the aforesaid heretics had been condemned and struck with anathema together with their impious doctrines and followers, he took care that the right faith be preached.
Tbeodosius vero Junior, impio Nestorio dicente alium esse Deum Verbum, et alium Christum, ac Verbum quidem natura esse Filium Dei et Patris, Christum vero tantum ex gratia Filium impie introducente, et sanctam Mariam Dei genitricem esse negante; congregavit priorem Ephesinam synodum ducentorum sanctorum Patrum, et directis principibus qui deberent concilio interesse, jussit et ipsum Nestorium adesse, et judicium de eo fieri: diligentique exarainatione facta, damnarunt et anathematizarunt Nestorium una cum sectatoribus ejus. His autem ita subsecutis, cum insurrexissent centra sanctissimum Cyrillum sectatores impii Nestorii, conati sunt (quantum in ipsis fnit) rescindere sententiam contra Nestorium latam. Sed Theodosius irnperator, defendens ea quae ita recte contra Nestorium et impia ejus dogmata fuerant judicata, damnationis sententiam in eum faciam ratam haberi curavit.
But Theodosius the Younger, when the impious Nestorius was saying that one was God the Word and another was Christ, and was impiously introducing the doctrine that the Word was by nature the Son of God and of the Father, but that Christ was only a son by grace, and was denying that holy Mary was the Mother of God, convened the first council of Ephesus of two hundred holy Fathers, and, having sent instructions to the rulers who were to take part in the council, he ordered that Nestorius himself also be present and that judgment be made concerning him; and after a diligent examination had been carried out, they condemned and anathematized Nestorius together with his followers. When these things had thus followed, since the followers of the impious Nestorius had risen up against the most holy Cyril, they attempted, as far as was in their power, to rescind the sentence passed against Nestorius. But the emperor Theodosius, defending those things which had been so rightly judged against Nestorius and his impious doctrines, took care that the sentence of condemnation passed upon him be held as ratified.
Insuper autem cum et quaedam alia crimina divino Cyrillo apud imperatorem nugaciter impingerent, ad imperatorem Cyrillus in hanc sententiam scripsit: « Postquam mihi, piissime imperator, renuntiatum est, quosdam garrulos instar vesparum ferarum susurris suis aures tuas personare, et maledicta in me eructare, nuganles me asserereChristi divinum corpus coelo delatum, et non de sancta Virgine assumptum; itemque duos filios de sententia Nestorii confiteri: existimavi debere me adversus ipsos pauca in hanc sententiam dicere: fatui, et nullius rei nisi calumniandi gnari, quomodo in hanc devenistis sententiam, tantumque insaniae concepistis? Omnino eniin oportebat hoc vos perspicue sentire, totam fere nostram de fide disputationem inde ortam, quod nos sanctam Mariam Deiparam esse contendimus. Atqui si, ut illi dicunt, nos corpus Christi divinum cælitus venisse, non, ex ipsa natum dicimus, quomodo Deipara dici poterit? Quem enim peperit, si hoc vcrum non est, quod secundum carnem pepererit Emmanuelem? Rideantur ergo qui haec et talia de me blaterant. Non enim mentitur sanctus Isaias cum ita vaticinatur: Eccevirgo in utero habebit, et pariet filium, et vocabunt eum Emmanuel, quod est, nobiscum. Deus (Isa. XVII). Et haud dubie verum dixit Gabriel ac. changelus ita Mariam alloqueus: Ne timeas, Maria, invenisti enim gratiam apud Deum.
Moreover, when certain other charges were also being frivolously hurled against the divine Cyril before the emperor, Cyril wrote to the emperor to this effect: "After it was reported to me, most pious emperor, that certain babblers, like wild wasps, were buzzing in your ears with their whisperings and belching out curses against me, babbling that I assert that the divine body of Christ was brought down from heaven and was not taken from the holy Virgin, and likewise that I confess two sons according to the opinion of Nestorius, I thought I ought to say a few words against them to this effect: Fools, and acquainted with nothing but slander, how have you come to this opinion, and conceived so much madness? For surely you ought to have perceived this clearly, that almost our entire disputation concerning the faith arose from the fact that we maintain that holy Mary is the God-bearer. But if, as they say, we claim that the body of Christ came down from heaven and was not born from her, how can she be called God-bearer? For whom did she bear, if it is not true that she bore Emmanuel according to the flesh? Let those, then, who babble these and similar things about me be laughed at. For holy Isaiah does not lie when he prophesies thus: Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bear a son, and they shall call him Emmanuel, which is, God with us (Isa. 7). And without doubt the angel Gabriel spoke the truth when he addressed Mary thus: Fear not, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
Ecce concipies in utero, et paries filium, et vocabis nomen ejus Jesum: ipse enim sulvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum (Luc. I; Matth. i). Cum autem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum dicimus desuper de coelo venisse, non eo sensu dicimus, quasi putemus eum sanctam suam carnem de coelo detulisse; sed sequimur sanctum Paulum, qui ita ait: Primus homo de terra terrenus; secundus, Dominus e cælo (1 Cor. xv). Imitamur etiam et ipsum Dominum dicentem: Nemo ascendit in cælum, nisi qui descendit de cælo, Filius hominis (Joan. I). At vero quod ad carnem attinet, natus est, sicut diximus, ex beata Virgine. Sed quoniam Verbum Dei dc coelo descendens, seipsum exinanivit, formum servi assumendo, filiusque hominis exstitit, cum tamen idem permaneret qui antea fuerat, scilicet Deus (est enim immutabilis, et nulli alterationi obnoxiae natura), cum jam unus intelligatur esse cum propria carne, dicitur de coelo venisse. Et nominatur etiam homo de coelo, cum sit perfectus in deltate, idemque perfectus in humanitate: intelligiturque una esse persona. Unus enim est Dominus Jcsus Christus, tametsi naturarum discrimen non Ignoretur, ex quibus ineffabilem illam dicimus factam unitionem.
Behold, you shall conceive in the womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus; for he will save his people from their sins (Luke 1; Matthew 1). But when we say that our Lord Jesus Christ came down from above, from heaven, we do not say this in the sense that we think he brought his holy flesh down from heaven; rather, we follow the holy Paul, who says thus: The first man is from the earth, earthly; the second, the Lord from heaven (1 Corinthians 15). We also imitate the Lord himself, who says: No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man (John 1). But as for the flesh, he was born, as we have said, from the blessed Virgin. Yet because the Word of God, descending from heaven, emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, and became the Son of Man, while nevertheless remaining the same as he was before, namely God (for he is unchangeable, and his nature is subject to no alteration), since he is now understood to be one with his own flesh, he is said to have come from heaven. And he is also called a man from heaven, since he is perfect in divinity and the same is perfect in humanity; and he is understood to be one person. For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, even though the distinction of the natures is not unknown, from which we say that ineffable union was made.
Fatemur itaque Vorbum, Unigenitum Dei Filium, Deum esse perfectum, et perfectum hominem corpore et anima ratione praedita constantem; quod ad deitatem attinet, ex Patre natum ante..cula, eumdem autem ultimis temporibus propter nos et propter nostram salutem ex Maria Virgine secumdum humanitatem: consubstantialem Patri secnndum divinitatem, et consubstantialem nobis secundud humanitatem. Duarum enim naturarum iacta est unio. Inde est, quod unum Christum, unum Filium, unum Dominum confitemur, atque etiam sanctam Virginem vere fuisse Deiparam, ideo quod Deus Verbum carnem induit et homo factus est, atque in ipsa conceptione sibi univit templum, quod ex ipsa assumebat. Si placet, exempli loco accipiamus nostrum ipsorum compositionem, quatenus homines sumas. Constamus nimirum anima et corpore. Ac videmus duas naturas, aliam corporis, aliam animæ; hominem vero, ex utriusque unitione facta, unum: neque compositio ex duabus naturis efficit, ut pro uno ho. mines duos cogitemus; sed unum (ot dixi) intelligimus hominem ex anima et corpore compositum. Si enim hoc tollamus, ex duabus et differentibus naturis unum et indivulsum Christum ab unitione existere, dicent adversarii: Si uua natura totius Christi est, quomodo potuit humanam naturam indaere, aut quam carnem sibi propriam asciscere?
We confess therefore that the Word, the Only-begotten Son of God, is perfect God and perfect man, consisting of a body and a soul endowed with reason; as regards the Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, and the same in the last times for us and for our salvation of Mary the Virgin according to the humanity: consubstantial with the Father according to the divinity, and consubstantial with us according to the humanity. For the union of two natures has been established. Hence it is that we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord, and also that the holy Virgin was truly Theotokos, because God the Word put on flesh and became man, and in the very conception united to himself the temple which he assumed from her. If it pleases, let us take as an example our own composition, insofar as we are men. We consist, surely, of soul and body. And we see two natures, one of the body, another of the soul; but the man, made from the union of both, is one; nor does the composition from two natures bring it about that we should think of two men instead of one; but we understand one man (as I said) composed of soul and body. For if we remove this—that from two and different natures one and undivided Christ exists by union—the adversaries will say: If there is one nature of the whole Christ, how could he put on human nature, or assume as his own the flesh?
Eos autem qui dicunt contemperationem, confusionem aut mixtionem naturarum Verbi Dei cumcarnefactam, palamiis ora obturare tua pietas dignetur. » Post hæc autem Cyrillo mortuo, emersit monachus quidam et archimandrila nomine Eutyches. Hic non exiguam populi partem sibi adjunxit, Nestorii sectam et impium eas dogma approbans, ac dicens carnem Domini non esse consubstantialem nobis. Et rursum quidem non multo post diabolica manu praevalente, aliud Ephesi concilium latronum, et nequaquam sanctum cogitur: misso ad id etiam Flaviano Constantinopolitano, cum penes Dioscorum AlexAndrinæ episcopum summa rcrum ibi esset. Divinus autem Flavianus defcndens orthodoxam fidem, occiditur: priori vero Ephe. sinæ synodo auctoritas abrogatur, subscribentibus quibusdam episcopis lethali vi compulsis, inter quos fuit etiam Basilius Seleuciae episcopus. Hinc cum publice docerentur Nestorii, Dioscori et Eutychis perniciosa dogmata, magnique præsertim in Oriento existerent tumultus, occisi sunt Proterius sacerdos magnus, et alii plurimi.
But your Piety may deign plainly to stop the mouths of those who say that a tempering, confusion, or mixture of the natures of the Word of God with the flesh was made. After this, moreover, when Cyril had died, there emerged a certain monk and archimandrite by the name of Eutyches. He joined no small part of the people to himself, approving the sect of Nestorius and his impious dogma, and saying that the flesh of the Lord is not consubstantial with us. And again, indeed, not long after, with the diabolical hand prevailing, another council of robbers at Ephesus, and by no means a holy one, is convened: Flavian of Constantinople having also been sent to it, when the chief authority there rested with Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria. But the divine Flavian, defending the orthodox faith, is killed; and the authority of the first synod of Ephesus is abrogated, with certain bishops compelled by deadly force to subscribe, among whom was also Basil, bishop of Seleucia. Hence, when the pernicious dogmas of Nestorius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches were being publicly taught, and great tumults especially were arising in the East, Proterius the high priest was killed, and very many others.
Eo rerum statu Marcianus divinitus creatur imperator: qui coacto Chalcedone sexcentorum triginta Patrum concilio, præsentibus Dioscoro et Eutyche, ici eo una cum ipsis interfuit: ibique damnantur quidem Dioscorus et Eutyches, et iterum Nestorius anathematizatur: Theodoretus Intem, Ibas et Basilius Seleuciæ episcopus recepti sunt, cum tamen priori [lege prius, ut infra ] concilio subscripsissent. Et ita abolitis prædatoriæ synodi actis et damnatis, concordia a sanctis Patribus inter omnes conciliata est. His quatuor conciliis sic lactis et confirmatis, et auctoritatem in Ecclesia Dei obtinentibus, Nestorii sequaces denuo suam hæresim confirmaverunt opera Theodori Mopsuesteni, qui multo pejora quam Nestorius ejus discipulus blasphemavit. nos igitur sequentes sanctos patres nostros, et volentes rectam fidem sine ulla macula conservare, hortamur vos, ut hujus quoque blasphemias examinantes, de eo sectatoribus ejus sententiam feratis. Nam præter innumera alia quae impie in Cliristum Deum nostrum maledicta evomuit, id quoque protulit, alium esse Deum Verbum, alium Christum, qui animi perturbationibus et carnis cupiditatibus molestiam ipsi exhibentibus, paulatim a deterioribus desistens, factorum profectu in melius evaserit, inculpataque optimæ vitas ratione usus sit.
In this state of affairs, Marcian was created emperor by divine providence. He assembled at Chalcedon a council of six hundred and thirty Fathers, and when Dioscorus and Eutyches were present, he himself was present there together with them. And there Dioscorus and Eutyches were indeed condemned, and Nestorius was anathematized again. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ibas, and Basil bishop of Seleucia were received, although they had subscribed to the earlier council. And so, with the acts of the robber synod abolished and condemned, concord was reconciled among all by the holy Fathers. With these four councils thus established and confirmed, and obtaining authority in the Church of God, the followers of Nestorius once again confirmed their heresy by the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who blasphemed far worse things than Nestorius his disciple. We therefore, following our holy fathers and wishing to preserve the right faith without any stain, exhort you to examine his blasphemies also and to pass sentence concerning him upon his followers. For besides countless other blasphemies which he impiously vomited forth against Christ our God, he also brought forth this: that one is God the Word, and another is Christ, who, with disturbances of the mind and desires of the flesh causing him trouble, gradually desisted from worse things, advanced to better by progress in deeds, and used a blameless manner of the best life.
Qui, ut purus homo, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti baptizatus, per baptismum gratiam Spiritus sancti consecutus, adoptione sit dignatus; et ad similitudinem regiae imaginis Christus in persona Verbi Dei adoratus, post resurrectionein animo constanti et peccatorum vacuo fuerit. Præterea pronuntiavit eam fuisse Verbi cum Christo unitionem, quas est ab Apostolo dicta viri cum muliere: Et erunt duo in una carne (1 Cor. ix). Ad haec vos hortor, ut ea etiam examinetis quæ a Theodoreto et Iba inale scripta sant contra prius Ephesinum sanctum concilium, contraque eos eodem modo sententiam feratis.
patres, his rursum accurate consideralis, responderunt: Chalcedonense sacrum concilium Tbcodoretum et Ibam graviter verbis insectatum, non alia conditione in gratiam recepit, quam ut prius sua damnarent mala scripta, et Theodorum ac Nestorium. Nos autem praeter reliquos omnes hæreticos a dictiS quatuor sanctis conciliis damnatos, atque Ecclesia exclusos, damnamus etiam atque proscribimus Theo dorum, qui fuit Mopsuestiæ episcopus. ejusque. impios libros: nec non ea quæ Theodoretus male scripsit contra veram fidem, et duodecim sancti Cyrilli capita, ac primam sanctam Ephesinam synodum, et pro defensione Theodori ac Nestorii.
He, as a pure man, was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, obtained through baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, and was deemed worthy of adoption; and, in the likeness of the royal image, Christ in the person of the Word of God was adored, and after the resurrection he was of steadfast mind and free from sins. Furthermore, he declared that the union of the Word with Christ was that which was spoken by the Apostle of a man with a woman: And they shall be two in one flesh (1 Cor. ix). In addition to these things I urge you to examine also those things which were written by Theodoret and Ibas against the first holy council of Ephesus, and to pass judgment against them in the same manner.
The fathers, having again carefully considered these things, responded: The holy council of Chalcedon, when Theodoret and Ibas had severely attacked it in words, received them into favor on no other condition than that they first condemn their own evil writings, and Theodore and Nestorius. But we, besides all the other heretics condemned by the said four holy councils and excluded from the Church, also condemn and proscribe Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious books; and likewise those things which Theodoret wickedly wrote against the true faith, and against the twelve chapters of holy Cyril, and against the first holy synod of Ephesus, and in defense of Theodore and Nestorius.
Praeterea damnamus etiam epistolam quam Ibas fertur scripsisse ad Marim Persam, quae negat Verbum Dei ex sancta Virgine Deipara Maria incarnatum hominem esse factum, et divum Cyrillurn pro hæretico traducit; ac primam quidem Ephesinam sacram synodum reprehendit, ut quae incognita causa Nestorium damnaverit; duodecim autem capilula sancti Cyrilli conspuit, Nestorio vero et Theodoro eorumque impiis scriptis et opinionibus patrocinatur. Quapropter effrenes hærelicorum istorum linguas, impiissimaqne scripta, ipsosque ad extremum in falsis suis opinionibus ac malitia perseverantes, optimo jure patri mendaciorum diabolo annumerantes, dicemus: Vadite in lumine ignis vestri, et in flamma quam concepisti, (Isai. L).
Furthermore, we also condemn the letter that Ibas is said to have written to Maris the Persian, which denies that the Word of God was incarnate and became man from the holy Virgin, the God-bearer Mary, and denounces the blessed Cyril as a heretic; and it indeed censures the first holy council of Ephesus, as though it had condemned Nestorius without a known cause; but it spits upon the twelve chapters of Saint Cyril, and it defends Nestorius and Theodore and their impious writings and opinions. Wherefore, reckoning with the best right to the father of lies, the devil, the unbridled tongues of these heretics and their most impious writings, and those who to the very end persist in their false opinions and malice, we shall say: Walk in the light of your fire, and in the flame which you have kindled (Isa. 50).