Adversus Nonnullos. Impium Theodorum Atque Iniqua Ejus Dogmata

AN EPISTLE OF THE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN AGAINST CERTAIN PERSONS, DEFENDING THE WRITINGS AGAINST THE IMPIOUS THEODORE AND HIS INIQUITOUS DOGMAS, AND AGAINST THE EPISTLE CALLED THAT OF IBA, AND ALSO AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THEODORET AGAINST THE CATHOLIC FAITH

A copy of the epistle written by the most pious and most Christian emperor Justinian against certain persons, defending the writings against the impious Theodore and his iniquitous dogmas, and against the epistle called that of Iba, and also against the books of Theodoret against the Catholic faith.

We have received your letters, and when we read them we were greatly astonished that you, paying no heed at all in your mind to that dominical instruction in which it is said, "Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart" (Matthew 11:29), have been raised to such a height that you judge all the bishops of the Church of God to be worthy of no account, while you alone, before all others, suppose that you have attained righteousness; and that you are for this reason like the Pharisee, who was not justified, because he condemned the publican as unrighteous (Luke 18:14).

And when we hoped that you would wisely think things not unlike the other priests, we unexpectedly found that dogmas contrary to God and to His right faith were being upheld by you, and that you were defending impiety of this kind with every effort, taking this as your defense, that you boast that you are equal to the apostles, and that it is not right for you to be reproved by anyone for ignorance and rudeness, because God Himself entrusted the preaching of His Gospel even to rude and rustic men. And indeed, when we called you rustic, we used that manner of speaking because, neglecting the ecclesiastical rules and traditions, and ignorant of the orthodox faith itself, you were championing that impiety. For God chose for Himself the apostles, whom it pleased you to call rustic, and filled them with His Spirit and wisdom, and in that manner sent them prepared to be leaders to the way of truth for the nations that do not know God. Therefore it was said to the apostles themselves: You are the light of the world (Matt. 5:14). Be therefore light, just as it is again set down by the Lord for them: Do not think about what you are to say, nor about what matter you are to bear witness to (Matt. 10:29).

You dared to compare yourselves to the apostles, and you were not ashamed to assail all the priests with injury, and indeed the ecclesiastical sanctions were so neglected by you that you undertook with the utmost audacity to set about that which no one in any age of the Christian religion ever attempted to do. For while the most blessed patriarchs kept the mutual tradition inviolate in turn at all times, no one ever divided the Church by schism, except one who was plainly seized by heretical madness—which you have now brought about. And to heal that very evil which you have begun to perpetrate, we burn with a vehement desire, we who by deed and by writings strive for this one thing: that you repent. Now indeed, since you have written to this effect—that we have diligently taken care that these three chapters, namely Theodore with his writings, the letter which is called the Iba, and likewise the writings of Theodoret, be condemned—with this intent, that our will be satisfied, because we were inflamed with an incredible desire that they be separated from the catholic Church: know that this was by no means done by us on their account; but first indeed because we were gravely disturbed by the impiety of those chapters, and afterward because there were not lacking those who, with the name of Nestorius suppressed, yet favoring the party of Nestorius, strove to introduce his erroneous faith, and did not fear to attribute to the Church the impiety of those chapters.

Although therefore the iniquity of the chapters was manifestly apparent, nevertheless we interrogated the bishops of the Church of God gathered together as to what they judged should be thought concerning these matters; and since they wished to show by clear testimony that errors of this kind are neither approved by the Church nor have ever at any time been approved, they all by their vote again condemned that impiety, which had been condemned beforehand from the beginning by the holy Fathers. Moreover, those who have been separated from the Church on account of the defense of the Three Chapters are altogether silent; for they plainly understand that these things can by no means be defended by one who is called a Christian; otherwise they openly oppose the holy Synod of Chalcedon, which defined the doctrine of the Faith for the condemnation of Nestorius, Eutyches, and the errors introduced by them. But those who oppose the right dogmas of the Church strive with every effort that the aforesaid three iniquitous chapters be judged to be upheld as though accepted by the Church of God, so that by this means, evidently, they may deceive the simpler sort and divide the Christian people by schism. Therefore, since you have written chiefly two things (if all that is contained in those impious letters be reduced to a few points): namely, that in them there was a correct disputation against Apollinarius; and secondly, that the writer of the letter also appears to assail St. Cyril with injury at the outset, this

You should know this first for certain: you have perceived neither the context of the words nor the force of the meanings of that impious letter; for it does not conclude against Apollinaris, but numbers Saint Cyril himself among the Apollinarists, and is so far from being corrected by any retraction near its end regarding those things which were pronounced against Saint Cyril, that rather near its end its writer appears to have raged more viciously against Cyril. Wherefore we shall show by arguments both this very point at the outset and, at the same time, the whole impiety of this letter which is now called that of Ibas, and the madness of the chapters which you sent to us. For when we had read all the things you wrote, we were struck with the most grievous sorrow that you, citizens of that city in which right faith has always been uniquely preserved even to these times, have fallen into such great error. Wherefore we have judged it necessary to write to you against the aforesaid chapters and to warn you yourselves concerning their impiety, so that you may withdraw from your iniquitous teacher, who committed them to written records.

For indeed, since he had set it before himself in his mind to lead you into deception, he drew out certain sentences from the divine writings, and having twisted them into a depraved meaning, he undertook to confirm certain patches of that impious letter, just as it has always been the custom of heretics to pervert certain testimonies of the divine writings and to distort them into a contrary understanding. And so we think that either your teacher has read through that letter not at all anonymously, or with very bad faith he has read some parts indeed himself, but has passed over the rest in silence, which were much worse. For when in that letter it is related concerning the blessed Cyril and the impious Nestorius that they had torn at each other with insults, and that Nestorius had affirmed that the blessed Virgin is not the Mother of God, as it pleased many from the heresy of Paul of Samosata that she be named; while Cyril, on the other hand, who strove to refute the error of Nestorius, fell equally and descended into the dogmas of Apollinaris: it is clearer than light that the writer of that same letter is recognized as preoccupied with Nestorian madness, who does not shrink from confessing that Nestorius, in refusing to acknowledge the holy Mary the Virgin as Mother of God, only gave some occasion for suspicion against himself; but he by no means contends that he is thereby shown to be a heretic; yet he plainly hands down that Cyril, the holy doctor of the Church, fell into the heresy of Apollinaris, for the reason that he said that God the Word himself was incarnate and assumed humanity.

But these words, as we noted above, your teacher passed over, clearly perceiving that one who hands down that Cyril fell into heresy, and contends that he defended heretical opinions, brings a judgment of condemnation upon the whole Church, since the whole Church certainly venerates Cyril as a Father and teacher. Moreover, how could it happen that he did not shudder at calling Cyril a heretic, on the ground that he taught that God the Word became man: and then, adding as a consequence, that from Cyril teaching this it follows that no distinction between the temple and the one dwelling in it is admitted? By this manner of speaking he surely brings accusation not against holy Cyril, but against the Evangelist, who plainly declares that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), but against all the prophets who foretold the coming of the Word of God in the flesh, especially Jeremiah saying: This is our God: no other shall be esteemed against him: after these things he appeared on earth, and conversed with men (Baruch 3), and Isaiah likewise saying: Child, mighty God (Isaiah 9:6): but above all the apostle Paul, whose sentence this is in his Epistle to the Ephesians: He who descended, the same is also he who ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things (Ephesians 4:9). If, therefore, we wish to agree with your foolish teacher, we shall accuse the prophets, evangelists, and apostles of heresy, because they said that the Word of God became man, as though by these ways of speaking they admitted a conversion of the Divinity into humanity.

But those who do not confess that God the Word became man, the same plainly make Christ a mere man, adorned only by grace with the name of Son of God, as is established by the erroneous opinion of Nestorius and of Theodore his teacher.

For the Divine Scriptures, and the holy Fathers of the Church who cleave to them, most clearly proclaim that God the Word himself, invisible, without body, light from light, begotten of the Father before the ages and times, came, and was incarnate, and became man. For Saint Gregory, in his sermon on the Theophany, or on the Nativity of Christ, has these words: The invisible Word of God himself, he who is older than the ages, he who is incomprehensible, he who is incorporeal, that light from light, beginning from beginning, the fount of life and immortality, that expression of the archetype, that immovable seal, that image like in all things, that term and reason of the Father; he, I say, brings himself to his own image, and bears flesh for the sake of flesh, and is joined to the intellectual soul for the sake of my soul, that he may cleanse like by like, and takes up all things human except sin, conceived indeed of the Virgin, who was first purified in soul and body by the Spirit; for it was fitting that the Nativity be honored and virginity preferred. In altogether similar manner Athanasius expounds in that oration which is against the Arians, concerning the Holy Spirit.

He says: "That one who above was begotten of the Father ineffably, inexplicably, immutably, eternally—the same was below on earth begotten in time of the Virgin Mary." Basil likewise writes in the eighth chapter of his book to Amphilochius as follows: "For neither the heaven and the earth, nor the vast seas, nor the living creatures that dwell either in the waters or on the earth, nor the plants, nor the stars, nor the air, nor the seasons, nor the manifold adornment of the universe commend to us the excellence of his power in the same way as this: that God, incomprehensible, so strove through the flesh that the divinity itself suffered nothing, whereby by his death he might bestow immortality upon us." Saint Augustine also, bishop of a certain African city, in his exposition of the Creed discourses in this manner: "The prophet Habakkuk brought forth for you [in Greek: bring forth you also] testimony concerning Christ, saying: 'Lord, I have heard your hearing, and I feared; I understood your works, O God, and I was amazed.' What works of God did he admire here and fear? Was it the creation of the world? By no means. But why he feared, hear. 'In the midst,' he says, 'of two animals your works shall be known, O God, for you, God the Word, made flesh, shall become known in the midst of two animals.' What you were, and to what depths you descended! You have made me astonished, for the Word, through whom all things were made, was born in a manger." Saint Leo, Roman pontiff, has similar things in his letter to Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople.

God," he says, "being impassible, did not disdain to become a passible man, and being immortal, to be subject to the laws of death."

It is therefore to this opinion that the divine Scriptures and the holy Fathers speak—to be corrected, that is, by your judgment—as though they introduced a confusion of flesh and divinity, since they themselves also plainly declare that the Word of God became man; and by precisely the same reasoning you have traduced Cyril, who says that the very Word of God became man, as though by this manner of speaking he were the introducer of confusion. Moreover, we have clearly concluded from those things which were written by that author of the letter himself to the heretic Theodore against the impious Apollinaris, that he, captivated by Theodore's ravings, denied that he acknowledged that God the Word became man. For he writes these things in the fourth discourse: You have said that certain of our people hold some opinions which were never approved by those who strive to adhere to the ecclesiastical dogmas. For when we had asked them whether they acknowledged that the Word of God became man, they affirmingly brought forth their answer. But who, being in his right mind, would say that God the Word became [man], as is customarily proposed by you, unless he were first afflicted with the disease of your madness? We, further, constantly affirm that God assumed a man; but that he became man, in the way it is customary for you to express it, we in no way tolerate its being said.

Since, therefore, from the things he writes to Theodore he shows that the impiety of the letter admirably agrees with these ravings of his, how would not every just man, whose hope is placed in God the Word incarnate and made man, condemn Theodore and together with him the impious letter? But since you strongly approve of what is handed down in that execrable letter—namely, the doctrine by which God the Word incarnate and made man is said to abolish the distinction between the temple and the one dwelling in the temple—know that the diversity of natures, from which the one Christ, our God and Savior, is constituted, is rightly proclaimed by the holy Church of God; but this distinction between the temple and the one dwelling in it was never proposed by any of the holy Fathers, but was devised only by the impious Theodore and Nestorius, because they had determined thereby to introduce two persons. But if at any time the divine Scriptures and the holy Fathers of the Church have used this transferred appellation of "temple," they employed it only to signify the body of the Only-begotten Son of God, in precisely the way the Evangelist says of him: "But he was speaking of the temple of his body" (John 2:21). No one, moreover, introduced these distinctions into the one person of Christ, as though one thing were in another, but they admitted only a distinction of natures, from which the one Christ is perfected, suffering neither mixture nor division.

You, therefore, who defend the impiety of that letter, by which it is denied that God the Word became man, are manifestly convicted of having admitted a double person in Christ, and in this way, teaching deliriums about Christ as if he were a mere man, you speak the same opinion about him as was said by the Apostle about believers: For you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you (1 Cor. 3:16); so that, if account were to be taken of your error, no difference would any longer remain between us men and Christ, according to what the heretic Theodore, teacher of the writer of that letter, in the third discourse against Apollinaris, introducing Christ speaking about himself, ineptly contrived in this manner: I indeed, whom you behold, can do nothing according to my nature, since I am a man; but I work, because the Father abiding in me works all things: and indeed, he says, I also am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the only-begotten God the Word is in me: it is certain that the Father also abides with him in me, and does the works. And it is not to be wondered at that these things are thought concerning Christ, since he himself plainly says concerning other men: Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our dwelling with him (John 14:23).

For if in any such man both the Father and the Son make their dwelling, what wonder is it if in the Lord Christ according to the flesh both were thought to dwell together, the communion of their dwelling perhaps receiving the communion of their substance? These things, then, having been set forth in this manner by the impious Theodore, it should not at all seem strange that he who fell away from God impiously added such folly to his impiety, just as the prophetic sentence of Isaiah brings forward concerning the impious: The foolish man will speak foolish things, and his heart will devise folly (Isa. 32:6). For whoever affirms that the Father and the Son dwell in Christ in the same way as in the rest of men, and does not confess that God the Word became incarnate and was made man, how can he name Christ himself according to the flesh? For the holy Fathers, confessing that Christ is God the Word incarnate and made man, if they bring forward anything humble concerning him, rightly add that it befits him according to the flesh. Otherwise, it seemed fitting that the defenders of Theodore, moved even by this surpassing blasphemy, should withdraw from his impiety; yet, in order that their shamelessness may be refuted, we shall also bring forward his remaining blasphemies, by which he introduces a double person of Christ.

Accordingly, accusing those who profess that God the Word, begotten before the ages, became man in the last times, he writes this in the fourth book against Apollinaris: This one who was before the ages, he says, was made in the last times, as though certain people confess this, although no one of those who have a care for piety suffers himself to have this disease of madness, so as to say that he who is before the ages was made in the last time. And after a few words he adds: Therefore, following your laws and receiving the inversion, or rather subversion, devised by your wisdom, come, let us confound all things together, and let there no longer be any distinction, neither of the form of God nor of the form of a servant, nor of the temple that was taken up nor of him who dwelt in the temple, nor of him who was loosed nor of him who raised up, nor of him who was perfected in sufferings nor of him who perfected, nor of him who merited remembrance nor of him who was made mindful, nor of him who was visited nor of him who visited, nor of him who was made a little lower than the angels nor of him who made lower, nor of him who was crowned with glory and honor nor of him who crowned, nor of him who was set over the works of the hands of God nor of him who set him, nor of him who received these things for exaltation nor of him who gave exaltation. From these impious words of Theodore and his profane kind of blasphemies it has come about that all who opposed him and that impious letter were put to shame.

For frequently and shamelessly, saying that the Word of God is one thing and Christ another; one who received the benefit, another who conferred it; one who saves, another who is saved, he openly denies the salvation procured for us through the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. For how can he save the rest, who received the benefit of salvation no differently than the others, and was himself saved? Whose body and blood, then, do those who defend this blasphemer think they receive? The one who conferred the benefit, or the one who received it? But if they answer that they receive the sacraments of the Word of God who confers the benefit, how can they say this, when they do not in the least confess that he was incarnate and became man? If, however, they say it is his to whom the benefit was conferred, then the hope of those who venerate a man with worship is foolish, because they have worshiped the creature above the Creator (Wisdom 15:5).

But all of us who are of the catholic Churches, confessing that the incarnate Word of God and made man is one of the persons of the holy Trinity, receive his body and blood for the remission of sins and for eternal life, just as the Lord himself taught us, saying: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day; for my flesh is truly food, and my blood is drink; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him (John 6:54). As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will also live because of me. And these things indeed we believe and confess.

How full of falsehood also is that which is contained in the aforementioned impious letter concerning the twelve chapters of Saint Cyril! For the slanderer, [claiming] that Cyril himself admitted in the aforesaid chapters one nature of divinity and humanity in Christ, and from this concludes that those chapters teem with every iniquity—because this very thing was craftily set forth by your teacher, saying that they were called full of all impiety not to do him injury, but because there it is taught that there is a single nature of divinity and humanity. But that is a foul and manifest lie.

For nowhere is it demonstrated that Cyril—neither in that letter which contains the twelve chapters, nor in any one of those chapters, nor in any other of his books whatsoever—said that there is a single nature of divinity and humanity, since on the contrary he clearly teaches that there is a single hypostasis or person of divinity and humanity in Christ, which the holy Church of God professes and all the Fathers have continually taught, pronouncing anathema upon those who would say that there is a single nature of divinity and humanity in Christ; for one thing is nature, and another is hypostasis or person. Nature, that is, is predicated commonly and generically of any person, but person or hypostasis expresses propriety; for which reason one person is in no way considered in another. But since in that wicked letter concerning the twelve chapters of Saint Cyril it is said that they themselves are full of iniquity, how false this is may be investigated from the very sequence of the letter, and those points may be examined in which it affirms that these twelve chapters conflict with the right faith. But since that impious letter which is called Ibas's accuses Saint Cyril of denying the distinction of appellations, know that in this very matter not only the writer of that letter but also your master has lied.

Indeed, in whatever discourse Saint Cyril sets forth his teaching concerning Jesus Christ our Lord, he teaches this distinction of appellations or denominations: that lofty modes of speech apply to him according to his divinity, but lowly and humble ones according to his humanity, yet all are predicated of the one and from the one incarnate God the Word. But Cyrinus forbids such denominations to be assigned separately to another and another person. You, however, undoubtedly wishing to assign such appellations separately to a twofold person, slanderously claim that Cyril therefore abolished the distinctions of appellations. For since your teacher had also set before himself the purpose of leading you into error concerning this matter as well, and had therefore contrived that the letter called that of Ibas was written against the impiety of Apollinarius, and that it was therefore proper that it be judged orthodox, you ought to observe that in that passage too he lied equally: for, as we indicated above, it was not written against Apollinarius. Moreover, even if, as pleases you, that very point be conceded as true, it is not for that reason to be deemed free from the judgment of condemnation; for no one becomes orthodox from being a heretic because he has argued against another heretic.

For Arius also argued against Sabellius, and Apollinarius against Arius, and Eutyches against Nestorius; and although all of them clung chiefly to different errors, nevertheless none of them was for that reason—because of such mutual disputes—considered orthodox, but all alike are condemned by the Church on exactly the same ground. From this, moreover, it is clear that the writer of the letter in question introduces a double person, in that he said: "How can it be that the Word from the beginning received from the temple what was born of Mary?" By these words he expresses plainly that he by no means confesses that the Word, being God, was made flesh and born of the holy Virgin, but that Christ, whom he designates by the term "temple," is a mere man. It will likewise be clearly established that this impiety too was drawn by the wicked writer of the letter from Theodore's doctrine, if it is compared with what Theodore himself writes in the third book against the heretic Apollinarius. "But indeed," he says, "God, and from God, consubstantial with the Father, and the same [Greek:

He who was born of the Virgin—O wondrous one—and who was formed by the Holy Spirit according to the divine Scriptures and received his fashioning in a woman's womb, was perhaps present, because as soon as he was formed, and received being as the temple of God; nevertheless it must not be thought that God was born of the Virgin, unless perhaps we must think the same thing both of what was born and of what is in the temple that was born, and of God the Word who is in the temple; yet it must not be proclaimed at all, even according to your own word, that God was born of the Virgin, and that he who is of God is consubstantial with the Father. For if it was not a man, as you say, who was assumed, who was born of the Virgin, but God incarnate, how is he who was born God of God, and is said to be consubstantial with the Father, when the flesh is unable to receive this word? For it is indeed madness to say that God was born of the Virgin. For this is nothing other than to say that he is from the seed of David, and was begotten from the substance of the Virgin, and was formed in her, because what is from the seed of David and from the substance of the Virgin was established in the maternal womb, and was formed by the power of the Holy Spirit—we say that he was born of the Virgin.

Thus, while Theodore blasphemes in this way and contends again and again with arguments that it is by no means possible for God from God and consubstantial with the Father to be incarnate and to be born of the Virgin, since flesh cannot be consubstantial with the Father, how is it that his heretical patrons are not affected with the greatest shame, seeing that he has introduced this, contrary to the sacred Scriptures and fighting against the tradition of the holy Fathers, in which it is, of course, most certain to everyone that God from the beginning established his Church in the right confession? For all the priests of God have preached that God the Word, God from God, was born and became incarnate of the holy and glorious Mary the Virgin, and assumed flesh made alive by a rational and intellectual soul, and became man, and was born of the Virgin herself; and in teaching this they neither introduced a conversion of the divinity into humanity, nor imagined that he himself according to the flesh is consubstantial with the Father, as Theodore babbles; but they taught that the one and the same Lord and our God Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father according to the divinity, but consubstantial with us according to the humanity.

Again, moreover, the impious Theodore blasphemes these things also in the aforementioned discourse. "The divine nature was not born of the Virgin, but he who is of the substance of the Virgin was born of the Virgin; God the Word was not born of Mary, but he who is of the seed of David was born of Mary. God the Word was not born of a woman, but he who was formed in her by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of a woman; the one consubstantial with the Father was not born of a mother—for he is without a mother, according to the voice of blessed Paul—but he who in later times was formed in the maternal womb by the power of the Holy Spirit was for this reason said to be without a father." The impious Theodore perverts these things, [perverting] the doctrine of the Apostle saying in the Epistle to the Hebrews concerning Christ the Lord: "First indeed he is interpreted King of righteousness; then indeed also King of Salem, which is King of peace, without father, without mother, without genealogy, neither having beginning of days nor end of life" (Heb. 7:5). For when the Apostle says of one and the same person, "without father, without mother, without genealogy, neither having beginning of days nor end of life," the impious Theodore himself distinguishes the one as without a father from the other as without a mother. Otherwise, from the doctrine of the holy Fathers also the impiety of such foolish men is demonstrated. For Saint Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus, in the discourse which is inscribed concerning the holy Theophanies, or concerning the Nativity of Christ, has these words: "Who would not adore him who is from the beginning?

Who would not praise and celebrate the latest of these? Again the darkness is dissolved, again the light is created; again Egypt is vexed with darkness, again Israel is enlightened by the pillar. Let the people who sit in darkness look upon the great light of knowledge; the old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new: the letter yields, the spirit prevails, the shadows pass away, the truth enters in; Melchisedech is gathered up: he who was without a mother is made without a father—first indeed without a mother, but afterward without a father. The laws of nature are overturned, the highest world must be filled; Christ commands that we not resist. Proclus, bishop of Constantinople, has things similar to these in his sermon on the holy Mother of God. "He who is by nature impassible," he says, "was made subject to many sufferings through calamities [in Greek: through mercy]: God was not made by progress, so that he might become Christ, but through mercy God was made man, in whom we believe; we do not preach a deified man, but we confess God incarnate: he chose his own handmaid as his mother, who was by nature without a mother, and by dispensation without a father. For how is he himself, according to Paul's statement, without father and without mother? If he is a pure man, he is not without a mother; for he has a mother: but if he is bare God, he is not without a father, for he has a Father: and so the same one is without a mother, as creator; but lacking a father, as creature.

Saint Augustine also has these words in his sermon on the exposition of the Creed: "We believe in his Son Jesus Christ, born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. Why, unbeliever, do you disturb this nativity? Do not believe either that he who was born was merely a man, or that, if God was a man, he later wished to be born: for just as he himself willed, so was he born. Marvel rather at this, that the Word was made flesh, and was not changed into flesh, and that God, remaining God, was made man. But why marvel that she who bore him bore her own maker, and that the creature brought forth her creator? Thus the Most High willed to be born lowly, so that he might show his greatness in that very lowliness."

And these things indeed are argued by the holy Fathers. But it is not unclear that the less divine Scriptures, which the holy Fathers of the Church followed, teach the very same thing—namely, that God the Word was incarnate, and was born of the holy Virgin Mary, and was made man. And first the prophet Isaiah: "Behold," he says, "the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God with us." Again the prophet David sings in the one hundred and sixth psalm: "He sent his Word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions." Likewise the apostle Paul: "But when," he says, "the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Since these things are so, who will be so foolish as to dare to say that some man was in heaven, and that he himself was sent to be born of a woman and under the law? For indeed men were under the law before the Incarnation; but he himself, God the Word, the only-begotten Son of God, who was not subject to the law but was himself the lawgiver, was sent by the Father, and was made of a woman, was made under the law, so that he might redeem us who were under the law, so that we might receive the adoption of sons.

If therefore he who was born of a woman were not truly and preeminently the Son of God, as the writer of that impious letter, the heretic Theodore, foolishly contend, how could he have bestowed on us the adoption of sons? Moreover, in that accursed letter it is maintained that that passage of the psalm, "You have made him a little lower than the angels," cannot possibly be affirmed to have been said of the divinity of the Only-begotten—which you have likewise set forth as catholically pronounced, saying that it can be attributed to the man, but not to the incarnate Word. But that the writer of the letter, similarly taught this impiety by the heretic Theodore, uttered such blasphemy will be made clear by us from what Theodore himself sets forth in the fourth book against Apollinaris. "The man," he says, "of whom the prophet speaks, the blessed Paul manifestly shows to be him who was assumed by the Only-begotten; saying [Greek: for when he had said that the testimony concerning him was brought forth by him who said (Psal.

VIII, seq.: What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you consider him? You have made him a little lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, and set him over the works of your hands; you have subjected all things under his feet. Thus he continues (Heb. 2:9): But we see Jesus, made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor: clearly declaring that Jesus is the man of whom the holy David speaks, struck with amazement that mention had there been made of the divine nature which he had, and that he had deigned to visit him with his own visitation; but made a little lower than the angels, because he was to taste death, and to be surrounded with glory and honor, so that he might even be appointed Lord of all things, on account of his union with him. And again, in his exposition of the eighth psalm, spoken concerning the same, the same impious Theodore has these words: Therefore this psalm shows us the difference between the Word of God and the man received by him. But these things are found divided in the New Testament, the Lord indeed taking to himself the opening words of the psalm, in which it says that he is the maker of creation, and has magnificence raised above the heavens, and is wondrous in all the earth.

But when the Apostle takes the remaining things that pertain to the man who merited the benefit as said of Jesus, how is it not manifest that divine Scripture clearly teaches that one is God the Word, but the other is man, and shows us that there is a great difference between them? For the one remembers, but the other is remembered; the one visits, but the other is visited, and is called blessed; and the one, by giving the benefit, diminishes him a little lower than the angels, but the other receives the benefit even through such a diminishing; and the one crowns with glory and honor, but the other is crowned, and is therefore called blessed; and the one sets him over all the works of his hands, and subjects all things under his feet, but the other merited to rule over those whom he did not previously have power over. Thus far the impious Theodorus, blaspheming openly, just as in his accursed epistle, that one is God the Word and the other is Christ; whom you have followed, and have likewise written that that passage, You made him a little lower than the angels, was brought forth concerning man, but by no means concerning God the Word incarnate. But you ought to understand that every man is lower than the angels, but that this was said of the only-begotten God the Word, who, being God, deigned to become man, joining our weakness to himself, as the Apostle himself teaches, saying: We see Jesus, made a little lower than the angels through the passion of death, crowned with glory and honor.

If therefore, as is your opinion, one is Jesus, made a little lower than the angels, and another is God the Word, not made lower, then without doubt Christ, who endured the passion, is a mere man, and the Apostle is even made a liar by you when he says: If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8). For who is the Lord of glory except God the Word incarnate, whom the Jews, denying that he is God, rebuked: why, when you are a man, do you make yourself God (John 10:33)? And your teacher, following the Jews in that impious interpretation, has likewise devised the same thing.

But to confirm the aforesaid opinions with arguments, you have set before your own heads that saying of the Apostle: Who, being in the form of God, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7), as though it fit admirably with your exposition, and as though the discourse there were not about God the Word incarnate, but about a mere man only. And although in this matter you also, carried along by the error of the heretics, contend that the Apostle spoke about a man when he said that he emptied himself, nevertheless it is established for all catholics that the Apostle teaches the emptying of himself concerning God the Word himself.

Since, being in the form of God—that is, in the divine nature—he deigned to take the form of a servant; and the form of a servant signifies the human nature, which God the Word perfected for himself from the virgin womb and from his own subsistence, and did not add it externally to a man already formed, as the impious doctrine of Nestorius and Theodore has handed down. For Nestorius says that the Word of God was together with that man who was born of Mary; but Theodore declared that what was in the one born of Mary was present to him as something similar.

But that the words "You made him a little lower than the angels," and "He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant," were said of God the Word incarnate, we are taught by another passage of the Apostle, who says of him: "Know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, for our sake he became poor, so that by his poverty we might become rich" (2 Cor 8:9). But who would dare to say that a man was rich and became poor, so that he might enrich us? And again, when you say that he who affirms of the incarnate God the Word and only-begotten Son of God that he himself was made lower and emptied himself, introduces a change of the divine nature according to the impiety of Apollinarius, or makes the divinity passible according to the error of Arius, the excellent gospel sentence fits you well, saying: "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Mt 22:29).

For what will be left to you, so that you may say, concerning what was said by the Lord, "No one has ascended into heaven, except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven" (John 3:13)? He does not say that a man descended from heaven, but most evidently establishes that it was God. That he is the Word who emptied himself, who descended from heaven, and was incarnate from the holy Deipara, the ever-virgin Mary, and became man, and was born from her—and the very one who descended is the same who ascended, to whom, because of his descent, emptying and diminution are attributed.

~ Since the Lord also says elsewhere in the Gospels: "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:29), do not think that there it was some mere man, and not God made man, who spoke thus about himself. For it is most evident that the very same one who said, "The Father is greater than I," also said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). For in the place where he says, "I and the Father are one," he designates the equality of the divine Nature, which he has with the Father; but where he brings forth, "The Father is greater than I," he shows his diminution, made for our sake by his own dispensation. Both things, namely equality and diminution, were said of one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, that is, of the incarnate Word of God.

And the Arians, indeed, by their erroneous opinion, deny that the Son is consubstantial with the Father on account of lowly expressions of this kind of speaking, and they say that for this reason he himself is less than the Father; but you, refusing to confess that these humble sayings are to be understood concerning the incarnate Word of God, introduce a new person into the Trinity, approving the impiety of Theodore and Nestorius. But we, setting forth the humble sayings no differently than the sublime ones concerning one and the same incarnate God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, alike avoid confusion and division of the natures, from which we confess that the single subsistence of our God and Lord Jesus Christ is constituted, and we do not introduce a fourth person into the holy Trinity.

But the holy Fathers also, and the teachers of the Church, expounding the sacred Scriptures, have taught that the passage "You have made him a little lower than the angels" was said according to what was discussed above concerning the only-begotten incarnate God the Word. For Saint Cyril, in his letter to Basilides, has these words: "How then has he been made lower than the angels, he who is adored by them? But the cause is evident. For he sits in the condition of humanity, and in the mortal body which he had assumed and made his own; in it he willingly suffered, and is crowned with supreme glory on account of his passion, because through it he abolished death and took away corruption, himself being life and incorruption.

When therefore he names Jesus and says that he himself was made lower than the angels, we do not understand there a man taken separately and individually, but the only-begotten Son of God himself, who according to the dispensation yields in dignity to the holy angels, because according to the truth he was made man, who was made lower than their eminence. For the sublimity of the holy angels is to be outside the flesh and in no way subject to death, which he himself took upon himself by voluntary emptying; and he who is diminished a little by the angels, namely on account of the condition of humanity, existing in the sublimity of the Godhead, is adored by them and sits upon the thrones around which the angels stand, glorifying him always and ceaselessly proclaiming him the Lord of hosts. Concerning the same emptying again, pertaining to the incarnate God the Word, it is established from the same Cyril in the book against the confutations of Theodoreti, which he himself made against the fourth chapter of his work. "That all human things," he says, "are small for the Word born of God, I will say without delay that I cling to it. But I ask whose this emptying is thought to be, and who voluntarily bore it. Therefore, if, as others say, it is the form of a servant, as that which is from the seed of David; how, or in what way, I ask, was he emptied, if what was assumed by God is this? But if the Word itself, which exists in the form and equality of God the Father, is said to have emptied itself; how, or in what way, was it emptied, if it rejected the emptying?

But the emptying of God the Word, which cannot undergo change, is to cast aside and to speak something human because of the dispensation of his coming to the flesh. Again, Saint Cyril in the same book against the Nestorians has these words: Did the divine Paul, then, deceive those sanctified by faith, when he said clearly of the Only-begotten: Though he was rich, he became poor for our sake? Far be it. For he speaks altogether truly, as the herald of the Truth. For who is rich, and how did he become poor? If indeed, as certain men have dared to think and to speak, a man was assumed by God, how did he become poor? Wrong will be done to the one who was assumed, who shone with dignities beyond nature; for he was glorified. Or if this is not at all true, [the wrong is] on the part of those who made the assumption, as though he brought him down to a more ignoble and lesser measure of humanity; but to think that is absurd. Therefore the one assumed did not become poor; it remains, then, for us to say that he became poor in our poverty, who as God was rich.

Likewise Saint Gregory the Theologian, in his sermon on the Nativity of Christ, has these words: But God, advancing with humanity, is one of two things contrary to each other—namely, flesh and spirit—of which the one he deified, the other was deified. O new mixture and wondrous tempering! He who is, becomes; he who was not created, is created; he who can be contained in no place, through the intervention of the spiritual soul is contained as a middle between the divinity and the grossness of the flesh. He who enriches others is made poor: for he takes the poverty of my flesh, that I may obtain the riches of his divinity. And he who is full is emptied: for his own glory is emptied for a brief time, that I may become a partaker of his fullness.

But Saint Athanasius also, expounding that word of the Apostle, Who, when he was in the form of God, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, writes thus: « What could be clearer or more certain than this? For he was not made better from worse, but rather, when he was God, he assumed the form of a servant; nor in assuming it was he made better, but he humbled himself. » And after a few words: « What is this, then, but that he who was in the form of God and the noble Son of the Father humbled himself, and was made a servant for us. » And again after a few words: « For the Word was made flesh, and therefore this man is called heavenly from heaven, because the Word himself descended from heaven. »

Saint Gregory of Nyssa likewise, in the third book against Eunomius, argues as follows: "These things we ourselves have believed concerning the Crucified; and so, according to the measure of his own power, we do not cease to extol him—namely, that on account of his ineffable and inaccessible magnificence, being undivided from the Father and also from the Holy Spirit, he was able to come to a sharing of our infirmity. But they make this an argument of the Son's alienness in nature from the Father, saying, namely, that the Lord appeared through flesh and the cross, so that—since the Father's nature abides in impassibility and can in no way receive a sharing of passion—the Son, transformed into a lowlier nature, came through flesh and death as one not at all incapable of passion." And after other things, he adds: "For this reason both the cross is called the Lord's glory, and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. For if the rest also must be divided in the same way, we shall discern who it is that died, and who it is that dissolved death; and what was renewed, and what was emptied out. For the divinity is emptied out, so that it may become capable of receiving humanity; but the humanity, made divine because of its commixture with the divinity, is renewed.

And these things we have set forth from the doctrine of the holy Fathers, so that, perceiving them, you may understand that those things which have been established by you are impiously maintained by the Arians and Nestorians against our Lord Jesus Christ. The Arians, namely, having attempted to show that the Son is a creature and alien from the Father's substance, attribute his passion and the other lowly things to the divinity alone; the Nestorians, on the other hand, who strive to introduce two sons, professing God the Word separately and a mere man separately, decree that the things pertaining to the lowliness of the passion are to be assigned to the man alone. But these things are not what we are taught by the holy Fathers; for neither do they, from the things that were said in a lowly manner, admit a conversion of the Son's divinity, just as neither from the exalted things do they divide the divinity from the humanity, but they have handed down that both the exalted and the lowly things were said of one and the same God the Word, incarnate and made man.

But since in these same chapters of yours you have also added, drawn from the same letter, that there two natures are rightly said to be, but one person, one power, it will be worthwhile to expose the impiety of that writer concerning this very point as well. For he who does not confess that God the Word was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man—whose two natures does he say there are? But it is clear that he admits two natures in place of a person, in the sense of Nestorius and Theodore, whom that execrable letter extols with the highest praises. For if the letter seems to indicate one person and one Son, Nestorius also and Theodore used this manner of speaking, saying that Christ, a mere man, has over him the person of God the Word, and has the honor and dignity of God the Word, and besides the grace of adoption, and is adored in his place; for which reason they pretend that they say there is one Son and one person of Christ, agreeing only in the name of sonship, which is manifestly gathered from the manner of the statements employed in the letter, where it is said that of a twofold nature there is one power, just as you yourselves have likewise written. For one power is said not of different natures but of different persons, which we also acknowledge and confess in the holy Trinity. Wherefore the holy

The Fathers pronounced anathema on those who would affirm that the man was united to God the Word according to power, or authority, or habit, or dignity; and who would not confess that the union was made in a single subsistence of two natures. Just as that which was likewise rightly said by the holy Fathers concerning the distinction of two natures, the followers of Nestorius, with Theodore as their leader in unbelief, appropriate to themselves, naming natures in place of persons, and venerating a habitual union of persons, so as to pretend that they say one person. The impious Theodore himself shows this, writing these things in the fourth discourse against the heretic Apollinarius: "A distinction of natures is indeed shown to us by these things which have been set forth, since this is concluded, that it was established, as it were through an abundance of kindness, that so there should be a remembrance and visitation of the man who was taken up; and he is deemed most blessed, as it were for the sake of such condescensions. But the very same thing shows the distinction of natures, namely that the divine Scripture itself shows to us the distinction of the nature of the one who took and of the one who was taken. For wishing to indicate that unity which pertains to that which was taken, it elicits through unity or union that both natures made themselves proper to it; so that it has shown to us equally the unity of him who was and who took, and of him who was taken, which proceeded from the conjunction made with him.

Since, therefore, it has been clearly demonstrated that the impious Theodore usurped the name of nature in place of person, we shall bring forward into the midst his still worse blasphemy, in which he teaches what he himself understands by the name of unity, so that his defenders may be more fully condemned. In the eighth discourse, then, on the Incarnation, he writes this: "It is evident, however, what is meant by unity; for through it the coalescing natures complete a single person by unity; so that, just as the Lord said of male and female that they are no longer two, but one flesh, similarly also the principles of unity are no longer two, but there is a single person, with the distinction of natures always remaining. For just as there the duplicity of number is not removed because it is called one flesh—for it is clear how it is called one—in the same way also the distinction of nature is by no means taken away by the unity of the person itself. Moreover, when we distinguish the natures, we profess the perfect nature of God the Word, and a perfect person (for hypostasis cannot be spoken of without person), and likewise equally a perfect human nature and similarly a person. But when we direct our mind to the coupling or conjunction of these, we then proclaim that there is a single person." These things, although horrible for Christians to utter, we have been compelled to bring forward into the midst from the madness of Theodore and of the patrons of his impious letters, beseeching God to be propitious to us; by which things nevertheless it has been demonstrated that that letter is filled with all the abominable impiety of Theodore.

And all these things we have answered to what was contained in your book of chapters, by which you were striving to defend the aforementioned impious letter, and for that reason to restore the depraved opinions of Theodore and Nestorius, whose impiety the aforementioned letter commends. But since you have passed over very many things written in the said impious letter to Maris the heretic, and you did not dare to insert them into your chapters, lest perhaps from them even the Christian people should understand how great an impiety was being championed by you, we judged it necessary to show these things also in brief. For in that part of the letter which has been passed over by you, it is held: "That Cyril, by blinding with poison the ears of all the bishops assembled at Ephesus, obtained the eyes of all the wise; but that he found a way from the hatred preconceived against Nestorius; and that without any investigation or judgment having been instituted, Nestorius was driven from his see by that same synod of Ephesus." Likewise in the same letter it is held: "That the twelve chapters written by Cyril, although they fought against the right faith, were set forth and confirmed by the bishops of the synod of Ephesus, and that they consented to them as being consonant with the true faith; and that Nestorius, because he was held in hatred by his own city and by its leading citizens, could by no means return there." And in this way the writer of that abominable letter does not only protect and praise heretics, but does not even fear to name the catholics.

For concerning the blessed Rabula, bishop of Edessa, a prelate of exceptional piety, at whose tomb even to this day miracles are performed, he writes thus in that impious letter of his: "The tyrant of our city, whom you also yourself do not fail to know, who on the pretext of faith persecutes not only those living with him, but also those who long ago departed to the Lord. Of whom one is the blessed Theodore, the predictor of truth and teacher of the Church, who not only while alive struck down heretics by his own faith, but even after death left spiritual weapons in his books for the sons of the Church, as your reverence also, having conversed with him, has learned, and has given credence to the things written by him. Him he who dares all things has dared to anathematize from the Church." And again, in insult to Saint Cyril, these very things are contained in that accursed letter: "The heart of Egypt has been softened, and without vexation it has assented to the right faith; and those rushing disorderly against the living and the dead are in confusion, making satisfaction for their sins and teaching things contrary to their former doctrine, and that it is necessary to confess in the temple and in him who dwells in it." And these things, scattered and entangled in the aforementioned letter, we have attempted to set plainly before your eyes, so that, even if late, you may at some time think rightly and depart from these depraved opinions and errors.

Furthermore, the impiety of that accursed letter is so great that not even you yourselves, as is said, have dared to set forth in the chapters you sent all the things that it contains, although you have attempted to interpret some of them with a perverse explanation. For who will be counted among Christians who does not call that letter impious, which contains so many and such great blasphemies? For whoever undertakes the defense of that letter, in which Saint Cyril is attacked as a heretic and the first Council of Ephesus is rejected, this man plainly stands on the side of Nestorius and clings to his wickedness—Nestorius whom the letter itself acknowledges was twice condemned by inquiry and judgment, yet claims not for the sake of his doctrines, but that he did not return to the Church because of the hatred of the citizens. And whoever defends the side of that letter is not only guilty of sin for this cause, but also because it condemns Pope Celestine as well, who said of Cyril that the faith of Cyril is our faith.

Likewise, whoever contends that those twelve chapters of Saint Cyril conflict with the right faith condemns not only Saint Cyril and Celestine of blessed memory, and the first synod of Ephesus, but also passes judgment against the holy Council of Chalcedon, which declared Cyril to be its father and teacher in its writings; and beyond that, he passes judgment against Saint Leo, pontiff of the Romans, who, writing to the Council of Chalcedon concerning the twelve chapters of Saint Cyril, says: "The definitions set forth against Nestorius by Cyril of holy memory have remained secure [in Greek: have remained]."

Yet although that accursed letter is wholly full of iniquity, it could not conceal one truth at all: namely, that Theodore, even after his death, was pronounced anathema by pious and orthodox men, and was rejected by the Church—he whom that impious letter calls the teacher of the Church and herald of truth, though he is the most blasphemous of all the heretics who have existed to this day. A small part of his blasphemies we have already set out for you in another letter; for by the words of Saints Cyril, Proclus, and Rabbula we have shown what they themselves wrote against Theodore, and how they condemned him, his impious doctrine, and his iniquity.

Such are the blasphemies of Theodore that not even you yourselves, who defend him as one who sets them forth, have dared to champion them; yet it is agreed by no one who has condemned the impiety by his own judgment that the patron of that same impiety can be defended, unless perhaps he has first withdrawn from error and repented and condemned those things which he once impiously taught. But to the other insults hurled against Saint Cyril in that epistle is added also this: that Cyril acted shamefully, so that, repenting of what he had formerly taught, he set forth a doctrine contrary to those things. From this, however, the writer of the epistle is shown to be utterly insane. For in what place did Cyril establish a doctrine conflicting with his own earlier one? Where did he repent? Or how could it have come about that he was numbered among the holy Fathers by the holy Synod of Chalcedon, if, as the epistle relates, he had repented of his earlier doctrine? For one who returns from error to soundness is not enrolled among the teachers, but is regarded as one converted from error.

Finally, the writer concludes the letter in this way: "It is necessary to confess and believe in the temple, and in him who dwells in the temple." From this passage, as far as the impiety of the letter and its patrons is concerned, the whole right faith is overturned. For the Catholic Church confesses the only-begotten Son of God, the one Lord Jesus Christ, and nowhere does she teach that one must believe in the temple and its inhabitant, or that these things must be confessed, in the way that the letter hands down to those who come to the grace of holy baptism, that they should confess and believe in one God the Father almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God, and in the Holy Spirit—not in two Sons, or in two Christs, as the letter to Maris the Persian plainly lays down must be believed, with the faith of the temple and of him who dwells in it set forth, whereby it comes about that a fourth person of the holy Trinity is established.

It has therefore been demonstrated by all these things that the patrons and praisers of the aforementioned accursed letter are judged to be entirely alien from the orthodox faith. Moreover, since you say that Saint Cyril was received by the Easterners for this reason, that he interpreted those chapters of his, we are not at all surprised that you have been similarly deceived in the chapters you have sent to us, seeing that you appear to be ignorant even of the acts of the first council of Ephesus. For Saint Celestine, and the first council of Ephesus, and Saint Leo, and also the holy council of Chalcedon itself, en S.

They received Cyril's chapters and confirmed them by their own vote, and they never sought any exposition of them. For the exposition was provided not for the sake of the catholics, but on account of the heretics who, devoted to the party of Nestorius, were attacking the aforementioned chapters. For, as you yourselves admit, neither the holy Gospels nor the Apostle nor the other divine writings would be sufficiently understood, unless they had been interpreted by the holy Fathers. Moreover, you heap up arguments of confusion against yourselves, saying that Cyril was then received by the champions of Nestorius in the East when he had expounded his chapters. For on the contrary, both the apostolic Roman see and Cyril admitted into their communion the bishops who had pronounced sentence against Nestorius and had condemned his impiety. And so the holy Roman pontiff Xystus himself, writing with his council to St. Cyril and praising the labors undertaken by him for the unity of the Church, has among other things these words: "The brothers have returned to us, to us, I say, who, pursuing the disease with common zeal, have healed the health of souls." And after a few words: "Rejoice, dearest brother, and rejoice as a victor over the brothers gathered back to us. The Church was seeking those whom she has received. For if we do not wish even one of the little ones to perish, how much more ought we to rejoice in the health of the rulers. We have read how much joy one sheep brought back provided, and therefore it must be understood what praise there is in recalling so many shepherds.

They are looked upon as a flock in each individual case, nor is the cause of one man treated here, whenever the health of many is at stake. And again: “I rejoice,” he says, “that the priest of the Church of Antioch is now called venerable and lord by your holiness; and rightly is he called lord who has acknowledged the common Lord, who with us confesses the mystery of the incarnation in the catholic voice.” And again: “The troubles,” he says, “of those who preach the faith are always to be desired; for for these a copious reward is prepared with blessedness in heaven, since they are commanded to endure curses, persecutions, and every evil for the sake of righteousness. You have suffered falsehood, that you might make truth victorious, and therefore now falsehood must be triumphed over, because no one could perish through the truth.” And finally: “These things,” he says, “the holy brotherhood writes with me to your veneration, approving you in all things and confirming your labors, which nevertheless could not have been heavy or bitter, because they were expended on him whose burden is light and whose yoke we bear as sweet. I

These things Saint Xystus wrote to Saint Cyril concerning the Easterners; but since you too have brought them forward very foolishly, and [claim] that the condemnation of the epistle inscribed to Maris the Persian injures the definition of the holy Council of Chalcedon, we ask by what reasoning you were moved to dare to write this? Therefore do not think that the doctrine of the holy Synod of Chalcedon embraces anything similar to those things contained in the impious epistle; for a Christian to say this is not permitted. Indeed, know that all things contained in that same epistle and in the books of Theodore are wholly opposed to the definition of the holy faith handed down by the Council of Chalcedon. For the epistle and Theodore establish that God the Word is one, and Christ another; but the holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledges our one Lord Jesus Christ, God the Word incarnate, and made man without any change of himself. The epistle and Theodotus do not confess that God the Word assumed flesh from the holy and glorious Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, and was born of her, wherefore they also deny that the most holy Virgin Mary is the Mother of God; but the holy Fathers gathered in the Council of Chalcedon confessed that the most holy Mary is the Mother of God.

The impious Theodore and the anonymous epistle, admitting two persons, nevertheless pretend to profess a single person through habitual union; but the synod, affirming that the union is hypostatic [made] of two natures, proclaims a single person, or rather a single subsistence of Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. Again, that epistle condemns the earlier Ephesine synod and Saint Cyril, whose chapters it even calls impious; but it vindicates and praises Nestorius and Theodore. The synod of Chalcedon, however, follows the earlier Ephesine synod in all things, adorns Cyril with the titles of Father and Teacher, confirms his synodic epistle to which those twelve chapters are appended, and condemns Nestorius; and besides these things, it likewise execrates the Jewish symbol patched together by Theodore, which had once also been condemned in the first Ephesine synod, and which afterward, among the things we have recounted above, was brought forward in the same holy synod of Chalcedon, and anathematizes it together with its author.

These things, therefore, were established by the definitions of the holy Synod of Chalcedon, nor did the synod proclaim anything obscure concerning the faith, but everywhere and in all things it followed that confession of faith graciously granted by the Lord through his apostles, which the holy apostles themselves preached, which the holy three hundred eighteen Fathers of God handed down to the Church, which the one hundred fifty Fathers likewise confirmed, declaring dogmas concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This the holy Fathers assembled first at Ephesus followed; this the holy Synod of Chalcedon embraced, which struck with anathema anyone who handed down another symbol, or an exposition of faith, besides that which was handed down by the holy three hundred eighteen Fathers.

Since these things are so, recognize at last, late though it be, which of the two more rightly defends the holy Synod of Chalcedon: the one who contends that it, faithfully following the aforesaid holy Fathers, rightly defined all things, or the one who strives to attribute to it the impious modes of speaking of heretics? For it can by no means happen that those who admit the pure sanctions and catholic expressions of the first Synod of Ephesus, and who receive the holy Fathers Celestine, Cyril, and Leo and the definition of the Synod of Chalcedon, should also admit the wicked letter to Mari, wholly at variance with the things we have recounted.

For who could embrace at once the teachers of the Church and those who teach contrary things, or men who are orthodox and heretics at the same time, or the condemned together with those who condemn them? Moreover, so that you may more fully understand the things that were thrown into confusion by Theodoret and Ibas, we have judged it worthwhile to set before you these other matters as well.

Know therefore that when Ibas had been accused at various times before the most pious king Theodosius of blessed memory, on account of the Nestorian and Theodorian impiety contained in his letter, and on account of the insults hurled against Saint Cyril and his chapters, and before Proclus, holy archbishop of Constantinople, and before several archbishops of Antioch, and finally by the same king, and by Flavian, who was appointed successor to Proclus in the see of Constantinople, when judgment was being rendered against the same Ibas, Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus were chosen as bishops; by whom Ibas, being reproved concerning his faith and concerning the injuries cast upon Saint Cyril, when an opportunity of defending himself was given him, denied that anything insulting had been said or written by him against Saint Cyril after the reconciliation established between the Easterners and Saint Cyril himself; but it was openly demonstrated at length that that criminal letter, produced by the accusers, had been written after the reconciliation.

It is therefore known that Ibas altogether repudiated the aforementioned letter, on the basis of his own deposition in that same matter. For this reason the bishops mentioned above, considering the impiety of the letter, even if Ibas did not in the least confess that it had been issued by him, brought forth an equal vote in every respect against the impiety that the letter contained. For they judged that Nestorius, together with his impious doctrines, was anathematized by Ibas; but that the things which were collected in that iniquitous letter should be rejected, and that the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers ought to be accepted, and likewise the earlier synod of Ephesus as having been gathered in the Holy Spirit, in the same manner as that which was established by those same three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers—which synod of Ephesus, together with Saint Cyril and his twelve chapters, that impious letter assailed with insults.

Moreover, since the things which had been decreed by the judges were in no way carried out by Ibas, he was himself deposed from the episcopate; and meanwhile the holy synod of Chalcedon was convened, to which Ibas was neither summoned nor attended as a bishop, Nonnus having already been substituted in his place by the laying on of hands, who had also been summoned to that same holy synod of Chalcedon.

When the matters concerning the faith that had to be settled were completed, Ibas arrived and demanded that the case concerning the substitution made in his place be heard, by which he was being deposed from the episcopate, and he brought forward the aforementioned vote of Photius and Eustathius; when it was read, his accusers, arriving together, produced the acts of Tyre, in which that impious letter was also contained. When this too had begun to be read, Ibas, recognizing that he would altogether have to be condemned on account of its impiety if he admitted it was his, interrupted the reading of the acts and spoke as follows: Order the letters of the clerics of Edessa to be read, so that you may know how alien I am from those things of which I am accused. When these had likewise been read, the bishops, considering the vote of Photius and Eustathius and the accusation brought against Ibas, determined that what Photius and Eustathius had judged ought again to be fulfilled by him, and that the definition which the holy synod itself proclaimed should be accepted and subscribed by him—a definition which had embraced both the first synod of Ephesus and holy Cyril, and his doctrine, all of which, as we have noted, were treated with mockery and contempt in that nefarious letter. By these things we are clearly taught that the holy synod of Chalcedon itself ordained that all these things be done by Ibas for the overthrow and condemnation of the impious letter so often mentioned.

We are therefore amazed that you still defend that iniquitous letter, which Ibas himself did not dare to appeal to or uphold, either at Tyre or, after the proceedings held there, at the holy Council of Chalcedon; rather, he used the letters of the clergy of Edessa and the support of Photius and Eustathius, so as to avoid the accusation brought against him on account of that impious letter.

To all the other matters, moreover, which you have set out most wretchedly, you have also added this: that by a false understanding you perverted the publication of Eunomius concerning Ibas, asserting that this publication of Eunomius was made concerning that impious letter. For it is reported that this is contained in it: that although in the earlier part of the letter Ibas had assailed Saint Cyril with insults, yet near the end, by correcting himself, he amended it; whereas it is manifest that this declaration of Eunomius does not pertain at all to that impious letter, but that in it a discussion is set forth concerning the substitution made at Tyre in place of Ibas through Photius and Eustathius. For in the acts at that very [council]!

Ibas openly confessed, as we also indicated above, that he had previously, together with the remaining bishops of the East, heaped injuries upon Saint Cyril, since of course their opinion and his differed; but afterward, once union between them had been perfected, that nothing at all injurious had been brought forth by him against Saint Cyril. And by this confession of Ibas, Eunomius, finding Ibas first gathering injuries against Saint Cyril and afterward repenting and saying that nothing at all had been brought forth by him against Saint Cyril after the establishment of the union, completed the aforementioned declamation. Moreover, no one can doubt that the impious letter indicated, the tribulation of Ibas, overflows from beginning to end with all iniquity and with contumely against Saint Cyril, nor is there any reason for believing that Eunomius wished to expose the earlier parts of the letter as wicked and to extol with praises the remaining parts, which are worse. For no sensible person approves one who is at once a praiser and a vituperator of one and the same and similar thing. Therefore, whoever dares to say that Eunomius's declamation does not look to the substitution of Ibas made at Tyre, but pertains to the aforementioned impious letter—whoever, I say, dares to say this, does not at all obey the truth, but, as a heretic, attempts to bring injury upon the Fathers.

And we also marveled at this, that you were not at all ashamed to write. You praised the chapters of Saint Cyril as obscure, and that impious letter as shining forth, as if inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is evident, indeed, that these words were brought forth by you not by the power of the Holy Spirit but by the impulse of an evil spirit: since you have reproached the Fathers and teachers of the Church with obscurity, yet have extolled with praises the malice and blasphemies of that letter. Therefore it rightly applies to you and to all others who think similarly about the holy Fathers of the Church, that saying of the apostle Peter concerning those who understood the Epistles of Saint Paul perversely: that the unlearned and unstable deprave these, as also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). So also for you, who understand perversely the things handed down by the teachers of the Church and drawn from the divine writings, they seem obscure. And these things indeed concerning Ibas and that impious letter are found examined in certain books.

For it is worth your while to know that those proceedings in which that impious letter is contained are by no means included among the authentic documents which the bishops signed, whose authentic copies are preserved in the most holy Roman Church and in the Church of Constantinople, and also in our sacred palace. Since, therefore, it is manifest on every side that that impious letter is filled with all iniquity and is opposed to the holy definitions of the sacred Synod of Chalcedon, it remains that those who have said that it is contained in the holy Synod of Chalcedon should be judged to strive with every effort to protect not only their own malice, but also to do a notable injury to the holy council. For whatever things were approved and confirmed by the aforementioned holy synod, all these are contained expressly in the definition of faith handed down by it.

But we wish it to be established for you at the same time that Theodoret also, after he had set his pen against the twelve chapters of Saint Cyril, defending Nestorius and his depravity, after the definition of the holy synod had this in his instructions: first indeed, that he anathematize Nestorius and confess the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary to be Theotokos, and this very thing he carried out.

Therefore Ibas as well as Theodoret were received into it not as teachers or Fathers, but as penitents, detesting the pernicious opinions of which they had been accused, and embracing the definition of the synod of Chalcedon and subscribing to it themselves; since it is the established custom in the catholic Church that heretics who abominate their own error and return to the orthodox faith are received into communion, but are not counted among the Fathers as teachers. And so also other Eastern bishops, some of whom, standing on the side of Nestorius, had contradicted the first synod of Ephesus and the holy Cyril, when they afterwards pronounced anathema on Nestorius and his perverse opinion, the apostolic see of Rome and the holy Cyril received into communion, and on that account they are understood to have been received by the holy Church of God.

But we wish this also to be noted by you, that not only Ibas and Theodoret were deposed from the episcopate for having attacked those twelve chapters of the holy Cyril, but Domnus also, archbishop of Antioch, underwent a judgment of condemnation, because he had written that it was expedient that those twelve chapters be suppressed in silence; which judgment passed upon Domnus the synod of Chalcedon approved and confirmed, after he too had been removed from among the living.

Moreover, that these things are most true, and that they stand exactly as we have set them forth, Theodoret himself testifies in his letter to John, bishop of Germania, writing thus: "For what do the profane invent and say, that no new division has been made concerning the doctrines, for the sake of which, then, were I driven out by slaughters or by deceits? What adulteries has anyone committed? Who has overturned what tombs? But it is known even to the barbarians themselves and manifest that I and the rest were cast down for the sake of the doctrines. Indeed, they also expelled the lord Domnus, as one who did not accept the chapters, those things worthy of all praise, those excellent men, professing that they would remain in them. But me, because I read their constitutions, they spread abroad as a prince of heresy." From these things it is clearly gathered that on account of the chapters of Saint Cyril set forth against Nestorius, both Domnus and Theodoret himself and Ibas and certain others besides were driven from their sees, and that Theodoret indeed and Ibas, repenting and approving the aforementioned chapters and all the other things for the sake of which they had been expelled from their sees, were received by the holy synod of Chalcedon; but by no means those who had not repented: and that the condemnation of Domnus was confirmed even after his death.

But when you have written that you likewise execrate those blasphemies of Theodore which we ourselves have transmitted to you, whatsoever they may be, yet you hesitate to say anathema to Theodore, because he is already, as it is said, dead in the communion of the Churches: know that he who has said this may by no means anathematize Theodore, but must be numbered among the bishops, for the reason that, as you have asserted, he departed in the communion of the Church; such a one can equally enroll Judas in the number of the apostles, who, hidden and known only to God who searches the secrets of men, was admitted by him to communion with the other disciples; for according to what those who say these things appear to think, the apostles too are worthy of reproach, who after his death, by a vote passed against him, condemned him and put another in his place. Moreover, since his name is read in the holy Gospels among the other apostles, yet for that reason he is neither received as an apostle, nor could he thereby be freed from the judgment of anathema. So then, hold this: that he departs in the communion of the Churches who has kept the catholic faith undefiled even to death.

For indeed, if some Manichaean, or Arian, or Nestorian, or Eutychian, or a heretic of any other kind, or one seized by the madness of the Greeks, had lived in communion with the Church and departed this life in that manner, but after death was detected to have been a heretic either from his writings or by any other means, the catholic faith nonetheless suffers no harm thereby, nor is he for that reason freed from condemnation because he is said to have died in the peace of the Churches; and in truth, death in no way frees heretics from the judgment of condemnation which their perverse opinion has earned for them; rather, they are condemned all the more justly for this very reason, that they did not repent while alive.

This same thing can be confirmed by many examples—namely, that heretics who did not return to soundness while they lived were condemned after death. For Eunomius, and Apollinarius, and Donosus, and in earlier times Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, and Cerinthus, and very many others who had not been subjected to anathemas while they lived, were condemned after death and are anathematized by the catholic Church, for the reason that they ended their lives in their errors—just as, on the contrary, those who had unjustly suffered a judgment of condemnation, namely Flavianus and John, holy archbishops of Constantinople, were restored after death by the catholic Church herself.

By your judgment, moreover, heretics who have died clinging to their own errors must be freed from condemnation; but Catholics unjustly judged are by no means to be restored after death to the peace of the Church—and how full of iniquity this is can scarcely be expressed.

By these examples we have clearly shown that it has been sanctioned by the tradition of the Church that heretics can be judged even after death and condemned by anathemas. Furthermore, this same point is demonstrated still more forcefully from the Constitutions of the holy apostles: for in the place where they establish that offerings of alms are useful for the rest of the dead, they continue thus: "But we say this concerning pious men; for concerning the impious, even if the entire substance of the world were distributed to the poor on their behalf, it would profit them nothing; for whom, while they were alive, divine things were opposed, it is certain that even when they are removed they will not profit them." Since, therefore, the apostles define matters in this way concerning pious men who have departed, who would dare to determine that heretics after death—and especially Theodore himself—ought to be free from condemnation, whom the holy Fathers numbered among the Jews, Greeks, and Sodomites, as blaspheming worse than they, and condemned together with his impiety?

Moreover, that heretics are to be condemned even after death, as we established above, the holy Augustine also, bishop of a certain African city, clearly hands down in his letter to Boniface: "Although," he says, "even if the charges brought by them against Caecilian and against us were true and could at some time be shown, we would anathematize him now that he is dead; yet we must by no means forsake the Church of Christ, which is not fashioned by contentious opinions but is proved by divine testimonies, on account of any man."

Thus Augustine. In like manner, however, not only did the Church and the holy Fathers anathematize many who had died after erring against the faith, but also bishops who had left their goods either in their last will, or intestate, to heretical relatives, or even to strangers. For the eighty-first canon of the African synod contains these provisions: "It is likewise established that if any bishop has preferred strangers outside his blood-relation, or even heretical relatives, or pagans, to the Church, let anathema be pronounced upon him even after death, and let his name not be counted among the priests of God; nor let there be any place of excuse for him on the ground that he died intestate, since surely, having been made a bishop, he ought by no means to have deferred to another time the ordering of his affairs in a manner befitting his profession.

If therefore, as has been defined by that ecclesiastical canon, bishops strike with anathema even after death on account of riches themselves not rightly distributed, how much more justly must those be subjected to excommunication who have sinned against God himself, since the Scripture says: If a man sin against a man, there will be one who prays for him; but if he has offended against God, who will pray for him?

But since we have shown that it was sanctioned by law by the holy Fathers of the Church in past times that even after death those who have erred either against the faith or against the canons of the Church ought to be anathematized, we perceive that it is likewise necessary to make manifest to all those things also which have been done in this our age, so that every contradiction may be removed which could be stirred up by the profane heretics and by the very patrons of their impiety. For Laurentius and Dioscorus, who at different times had stolen the sanctity of the apostolic throne, although they had sinned in nothing regarding the faith, yet for this very reason, that they had attempted to assume the episcopate by indirect means, the apostolic see judged and condemned them even when they were already dead.

But I wish that you had also added this in your letters: that if anyone has anathematized a heretic and, passing sentence against him, has also joined all those who agree with him, he includes all those who by any means have approved the very thing that is condemned. And so, since you have condemned Paul of Samosata, Photius, Nestorius, and Bonosus, there is no need at all for you to condemn by name Theodore also, who agrees with them in the same things. Know, then, first of all, that those who have followed the authors of heresies in their error are anathematized with their name suppressed, but they did not deceive the rest. Yet the Church anathematizes the leaders and teachers of heresies by name. Theodore, moreover, was not only a teacher of Nestorius, but also by his impious writings led very many into error. For just as the right teachers of the Church are recognized by their own doctrines and are commended on account of them, so on the contrary the authors of perverse opinions are refuted and anathematized by their own writings. Since, therefore, Theodore was both a leader of heresy and brought forth in his books almost innumerable blasphemies, no reason remains for you why you should shrink from pronouncing anathema against him.

But regarding the exposition of the faith that you inserted in your letters, although there are many things about which we would have to complain to you on our side, nevertheless we have thought that all of it ought to be pardoned as due to ignorance and simplicity. For in some places you have written things turned about, in other places you have used words that were never employed either in the sacred Scriptures or by the holy Fathers of the Church; elsewhere you have condemned the very doctors of the Church, according to whatever seemed right to you, and moreover you have passed over in silence a certain man who belongs altogether to the orthodox faith. Wherefore it behooves you, according to the admonition of the holy Fathers, either to speak as those who know, or, if you are ignorant, to be silent and to be instructed by the learned and those who know.

Now, since you have written how we ought to respond to the Egyptians, we are indeed amazed that you—who have defended that impious letter, Theodore, Nestorius, and their perverse opinions—have now undertaken to remind us what ought to be answered by us to the other enemies of the Church. For if anyone considers the things that have been written by you, nothing else will urge the Egyptians than that they should receive Nestorius and Theodore the heretics and trample upon all the holy Fathers who condemned them and their infidelity; and so they may fall from one error into another, since you, writing to us that we should respond to the enemies of the Church, have not hesitated to call that abominable letter orthodox.

Strive therefore first to correct yourselves, and afterwards to teach others. For if anyone defends Theodore, or the said letter of Ibas, or the writings of Theodoret set forth against the right faith, he is numbered among the heretics and is made alien from the catholic Church, whose head is the Only-begotten Son of God, our God and Lord Jesus Christ; from whose Church that impious letter is separated, as are the patrons of Theodore. Therefore it is expedient for you to cease from the defense of that impious letter and of Theodore. For if the apostle Paul forbids anything to be called by his own name, and anything by the name of the other apostles, and rebukes those who said, "I am of Paul, and I of Cephas," etc. A few things are missing.