Theodoretus Mopsuestenus

I. THEODORUS MOPSUESTENUS. PREFACE OF MERCATOR. Marius Mercator, servant of Christ, to his fellow servant the reader, greetings. The Greek discourse is that of Theodorus, once bishop of the town of Mopsuestia in the province of Cilicia. This I have attempted, to the best of my ability, to translate into the Latin language, word for word, wishing to convey to Latin ears his depraved opinion concerning the Lord’s dispensation, an opinion alien to the Catholic faith and utterly devoid of salt, by which he wickedly deceived Nestorius, once bishop of the city of Constantinople, so that it may be avoided in every way, not followed. At the same time, I wish to warn that Julianus, from bishop of the town of Eclanum a Pelagian or Coelestian heretic, followed this Theodorus, to whom, after traversing lands, crossing the sea, and surveying the East, with his companions, partakers, and his own, he hastened with great effort, as to a proclaimed teacher of Christian doctrines, so that he might be confirmed by him in the Pelagian or Coelestian heresy, which he had undertaken to defend and follow, and that from there, as one more instructed, he might compose those eight volumes, as he thinks most prudent, against the Catholic faith rather than against Augustine of blessed memory.

Let the aforementioned Julianus recognize from this translation, if he does not disdain to read it, that the said Theodorus, whom we have stated deceived Nestorius with him in bad faith, is also contrary to him and to his own dogma—about which he has, in swollen and unsound mind, composed books—and that, even after his departure from Cilicia, he was condemned by anathema in the assembly of the bishops of his province. Let him not, therefore, be angry or indignant with us, if we, together with Theodorus, whose infinite praises he rehearses in his books and on whose authority he boasts that his own opinion rests in his error, expose, convict, and lament him as alien to the Catholic faith and justly condemned; for he is more to be lamented than pursued with any hatred. EXPOSITION OF THE PERVERTED FAITH OF THEODORUS. Those who are now being instructed for the first time in ecclesiastical dogmas, in order to recognize them clearly, or who have decided to convert from heretical error to the truth, ought to be taught that we believe in one God, the Father, everlasting—not one who later began to exist, but who is from eternity everlasting God; nor one who afterwards became Father, since he was always God, he was always Father.

We believe also in one Son of God, only-begotten, who is from the substance or essence of the Father, as truly Son, and of the same essence with him, whose [Gerb. with him, whose; Baluz. into that which is] he is and is believed to be the Son. And in the Holy Spirit, who is from the substance, or essence, of God, not who is the Son; but God in essence, as being of that essence of which God the Father is, from whom he is according to essence: For we, says Scripture, have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit who is from God (1 Cor. ii, 12); separating him from every creature, but joining and uniting him to God, from whom or of whom he is according to essence, in a special manner, above every creature in every way, which, not according to the essence of God, but according to what it is a creation, having its cause, is thought to be from God: whom we think neither to be the Son, nor to have received existence through the Son.

We confess the Father as perfect in person, and the Son likewise, and the Holy Spirit in like manner, preserving for ourselves the rule of piety, in which we hold that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not three distinct essences, but one, which we recognize in the unity and equality of the Godhead. It is necessary also that we know concerning the dispensation which the Lord God accomplished through the Lord Jesus Christ for our salvation, that the Word of God [Baluz. as old books: of God] assumed a man, perfect from the seed of Abraham and David, according to the utterances of the divine Scriptures; this man existing by nature as those were whose seed he was; a man perfect by nature, constituted of a rational soul and human flesh; which man, naturally like us, was formed in the Virgin’s womb by the power and might of the Holy Spirit, made from a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem us all from the curse of the law and from servitude, receiving the adoption of sons long predestined (Gal. iii, 13); he [the Word] united and joined him [the man] to himself ineffably; preparing him indeed to experience death, according to human law; but raising him from the dead and lifting him into heaven, he made him sit at the right hand of God: because of which he exists above every principality, and power, and dominion, and virtue, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the future (Eph.

(1, 21) He who is to be adored by every creature received veneration, as having an inseparable conjunction with the divine nature, and as every creature shows reverence to God beyond all thought and understanding. And we do not say there are two sons, nor two lords, because the Son according to essence is the Word God, the only-begotten Son of the Father, to whom this one is joined, a partaker of the Godhead, and shares the common appellation and honor of Son; nevertheless, the Lord according to essence is God the Word, to whom this one is joined and associated, and has a communion of honor with him. And therefore we do not say there are two sons, nor two lords, because, while the one who is Lord and Son according to essence is manifest, he who was assumed for our salvation, having an inseparable conjunction and association with him, is referred together with him both in appellation and honor, as Son and Lord: not as each one of us, existing on his own, is called a Son of God, whence we are called many sons of God, according to the blessed apostle Paul (Gal. 3:26); but he, having this uniquely, in that he is joined to God the Word, partakes of the dignity of Son and of lordship, and indeed entirely removes the understanding of two lords and two sons; and it provides for us, in the conjunction of God the Word, to have all faith, and all understanding and contemplation; and on account of these things, he receives veneration from every creature from his association with God.

We therefore say one God and Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things were made, understanding principally God the Word, who is by essence Son of God and Lord; and likewise also thinking of the one who was assumed, Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and power (Acts 10:38), as having conjunction with God the Word, and sharing in the dignity of Son and Lord. He is also called the second Adam, as the blessed apostle Paul is witness (1 Cor. 15:43); who, as if he were of the same nature as Adam, revealed to us indeed the future state, and having as great a difference from that Adam as was fitting between him who will be the bestower and minister of such great goods of the future state, and him who brought upon us the beginning of present sorrows: Hence in like manner he is called the second Adam, as one who has announced the second state. And since of that former mortal and passible state, full of many evils, in which we received likeness to him, whose state Adam became the beginning, the Lord Christ, appearing from heaven, demonstrated the future state, who will lead us all into his familiar community: For the first man, he says, is earthly from the earth, the second man is the Lord from heaven (Ibid. 47); that is, to be seen from there, so as to lead us to his imitation. Whence he also adds: As the earthly is, so are the earthly, and as the heavenly is, so are the heavenly.

Just as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us also bear the image of the heavenly (Ibid. 48). In that one, he says, who is subject and visible to all, the divine nature will render invisible judgment upon those who are to be judged, according to the Apostle Paul, who says: And indeed, God, disregarding the times of our ignorance, now commands all men everywhere to do penance, because he has set a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness, in the man in whom he has determined, showing faith, raising him from the dead (Acts 17:30). This is the teaching of the ecclesiastical dogmas; and therefore let anyone who thinks contrary to this be anathema. REFUTATION OF THE THEODORIAN SYMBOL BY MERCATOR. Nay, we Catholics say to you, who have uttered such things with your most impure mouth and most wicked tongue, anathema without ceasing, and to all your followers. For see, if you are willing to wake up, what evil you are trying to introduce; whether from ignorance or malice, you must decide.

These are indeed your perjured words, with a most depraved sense hostile to catholic truth: that the Word of God took up a man from the seed of Abraham and David, perfect, constituted of a rational soul and body, which man, you say, according to us naturally, was formed in the virgin's womb by the power and potency of the Holy Spirit, made from a woman, made under the law, so that he might redeem us all from the curse of the law and servitude, receiving the adoption of sons long predestined (Gal. 3:13), he joined and united him to himself ineffably, preparing him to experience death according to the law of men, but raising him from the dead and lifting him into heaven, he made him sit at the right hand of God (Ibid.). And a little later there: Now worshiped by every creature, he received veneration, as having an inseparable conjunction with the divine nature. Do you therefore wish to construct from this sense that, as you very often prattle, Christ, already born of the Virgin through the Holy Spirit, adhered to or was joined to the Word of God, and from that association acquired merit and the name; and that he is to be called Son of God by name only, not by nature, and possesses other privileges not genuine but granted by grace; dissembling what is written: The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14).

When you hear this from those who object to you, you slander them as though they think that God was turned into flesh—which God forbid that anyone, even the most insane, should say or think. For the Son of God, God the Word, became man, which he was not, not laying aside what he was, but remaining God in the substance or nature of the Godhead, with the Father and the Holy Spirit. For does the soul, even of any ordinary man, when mixed and joined to the body, lose either the immortality of its own nature, or the fact that it is invisible and incorporeal? Certainly not. Against this most vain and empty slander, there should also be set that most faithful and most sacred history of the three angels descending at the overthrow of Sodom, which records that they were received by Abraham beforehand, and that they both ate and washed his feet (Genesis 18:1). Are they to be said, in that assumption of bodies, to have been turned and changed from angelic substance into the nature of bodies? May God avert such madness! Certainly not, because, remaining in their immortal and incorporeal nature and substance, they were placed in bodies for a time and fulfilled the duty divinely commanded to them.

Who then could endure this babbler, and hear him profess with mere words, for the deception of the simple, that he does not speak of two sons of God, while with open statements he plainly shows two sons, of different merit, different dignity, different status, different nature? But he deceives and misleads the inexperienced, as we have said. For how does he say that he does not speak of two sons, nor think so, while dividing one from the other—one temporal, the other eternal in essence and nature—and declaring that the temporal one is to be honored only by participation and by name, but is not by nature the Son of God and God? For he divides the status and merits of each, wishing one to be God and Son of God by nature, the other by conjunction and association with that one who is by nature God and Son of God. Yet he ought to have recalled the saying of the Apostle Paul, where he says: "I myself wished to be anathema from Christ for my brothers according to the flesh, who are Israelites, whose is the adoption of sons, and the testaments, and the constitution of the law, and the observances, and the glory, and the promises; whose fathers, and from whom Christ, according to the flesh, was born, who is above all things blessed forever" (Rom. 9:3). Indeed, God above all things, who according to the flesh has his origin from the Israelites, from the seed of Abraham and David, through the womb of the Virgin: for we have learned from the testimony of the Gospel that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14).

From that time, neither the weak and fragile aspects of humanity, nor the divine, sublime, and eternal aspects, are to be separated from any one person or substance. He ought to have heard Isaiah proclaiming: "A boy has been born to us, and a son has been given to us, whose principality is upon his shoulder; he shall be called admirable, the messenger of great counsel, God, mighty, father of the future age, prince of peace; his kingdom shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace; upon the throne of his father David, and upon his kingdom, to confirm it and strengthen it in judgment and justice, from now and forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall accomplish these things" (Isaiah 9:6). This God, mighty, is assuredly the boy who without doubt was wrapped in swaddling clothes in Bethlehem and placed in a manger, who was adored by the Magi, who later sought Egypt with his parents, so that from Egypt, according to another prophet foretelling, he might be called, saying: "From Egypt I called my Son" (Hosea 9:2).

He should also have Jeremiah thrown in his face, crying out: "This is our God, and no other God shall be esteemed besides him, who found every path of righteousness and gave it to his servant Jacob and to his beloved Israel. After this he was seen on earth and lived among men" (Baruch 3:38). Let it be said to us, I ask, who this is who was later seen on earth and lived among men. It is certainly the Word of God, God man and man God, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father, who, when he was established on earth in the flesh and lived visibly among men in that flesh, suffered at the hands of men in that flesh, was crucified in that flesh, died in that flesh, rose again on the third day in that flesh, and with that flesh will come as judge to judge the living and the dead. This whole is by nature the Son of God, from God the Word and the man, with a rational soul and solid, perfect flesh; and these three substances are now one substance, and also one person; for God substantially, and therefore changeably, became flesh, took up and bore the man, and will never set him aside nor ever set him aside, as he reigns and rules together with him.

What is this duality of natures here? What is this diversity of substances, brought to us with great and impious loquacity in one Lord Christ? Surely so that we may hear of two Christs and two different sons of God. And certainly a common man, constituted from soul and body, from diverse substances and natures without doubt—namely corporeal and spiritual, gross and subtle, visible and invisible, mortal and immortal—comes together into one, not contrary to nature, but naturally and by the institution of God, who decreed and arranged that it should be so once and from the beginning and in perpetuity; therefore, when man is and is pronounced man, he is one nature, and one substance, and one person. Nor did the apostle Paul, when he said: "The first man from the earth, earthly; the second man, the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor. 15:47), and the rest which he more fully expounds in the same context, signify that he is twofold or that there are two natures; nor did he who said: "When man was in honor, he did not understand; he was compared to senseless beasts and became like them" (Ps. 48:13), make mention of two natures in him.

Nor should this be omitted, which is said in Genesis: "Jacob went down into Egypt with his sons, all seventy-five souls" (Gen. 46:27). Likewise the prophet: "All souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so the soul of the son is mine; and the soul that sins, that alone shall die. And he who ate the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge" (Ezek. 18 and 20). Likewise another prophet: "Praise, my soul, the Lord" (Ps. 145:1), "and all my bones shall praise you" (Ps. 34:10). Likewise from the part of the body: "My spirit will not remain with these men," he says, "for they are flesh" (Gen. 6:3). Likewise another: "My flesh rejoiced in hope" (Ps. 15:9); and elsewhere: "Every flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:6). Do these things happen to them without souls? Or because only souls were named above, are they separated from the association of the body, whether in good or in bad merits? Who would be so utterly insane as to say this? Not at all, but naturally, as long as each is connected and coheres with the other, it is not expressed in duality but in unity, and the nature is signified, that is, of man, or human nature.

No one of sound mind, therefore, when a living man either endures adversity or rejoices in desired things, should say that he is not constituted from both, or that he is afflicted by pain or exults in joy, since no one doubts that the soul, in its own nature and proper substance, is not affected by pain; which even divine Scripture teaches us more clearly on this matter, saying: "Do not fear those who kill the body, for they can do nothing to the soul" (Matt. 10:28). What need is there to heap up more testimonies? Or what end will there be in seeking them out? Or who is, or was, or ever will be able to scrutinize everything and recall everything by which it is proved that this man spoke impiously not as something new, but as old teachings, partly of Paul of Samosata, partly of Ebion, partly of Marcellus of Galatia, and of Photinus? Yet let him hear one gospel passage for countless ones, a beam-like passage [Gerb.: let him hear crying out; Baluz. deletes "passage"]: "No one ascends into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven" (John 3:13). And certainly Christ, who was yet to be crucified, said this: "he who descended from heaven," he says, "and who is in heaven, the Son of man." Thus, therefore, the Word is God-man and man-God Word, and just as in the glory and majesty of God they are one, so also in those things which are lowly according to man they are one. And one Lord Jesus Christ from the womb, who is substantially the Son of God, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit: one God in Trinity, forever throughout the ages.

Observations on the Symbol and Its Refutation. Two general councils have made mention of this symbol: Ephesus, in the sixth action, and Constantinople II, in the fourth action. Among the ancients, besides Mercator, mention has also been made of it by Cyril in his letter to John of Antioch and the Synod of the East, Pope Vigilius in his Constitutum, the Emperor Justinian in his book for the Acephali, Facundus of Hermiane in the third book, second and fifth chapters, Leontius Scholasticus in the third book against the Nestorians, number 18, and others. Among the more recent writers, mention has likewise been made by Manuel Calecas in the second book against the Greeks; Bellarmine in the third book on Christ, fifth chapter; Pelavius in the fourth volume of Dogmas, first book; Christian Lupus in the first volume of Scholia on the canons of the general councils, in several places, but especially on page 774. No one, however, has made mention of it without at the same time condemning it, either as containing nothing sound, as Cyril does; or as impious, Judaic, and criminal, as Leontius does; or as composed by Satan, as the Fathers of the Fifth Synod do, etc.

The third synod, that is, the Ephesine (in the sixth action), proscribed it. If any are found, whether bishops or clerics or laity, either to hold or to teach those things which are contained in the exposition presented by the presbyter Charisius, concerning the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, etc., they shall be subject to the sentence of this holy and universal synod. The fifth synod also proscribed it. For after the impious symbol was read, the holy synod exclaimed: This symbol Satan composed. Anathema to him who composed this symbol. The first Ephesine synod anathematized this symbol together with its author, etc. Cyril in his letter to Proclus: Let your holiness know that, when the exposition composed by him was brought before the holy synod—which, as those who presented it said, contained nothing sound—the holy synod indeed rejected it, as being full of perverse understandings and, as it were, of Nestorian impiety.

Mercator, when he prepared to refute the creed, whose closing formula was: "This is the teaching of ecclesiastical doctrines, and therefore let everyone who thinks contrary to these be anathema," immediately adds: "Rather we, Catholics, say to you, who have uttered such things with your most impure mouth and most criminal tongue, incessantly anathema, and to all your adherents." The Emperor Justinian, or whoever else wrote under Justinian's name that book which Facundus refutes on behalf of the Acephali: "Nevertheless, so that all Christians, recognizing the madness of Theodore, may not be led astray by his impious doctrines, we have inserted in the present book of ours the perverse things from his blasphemies, written in the creed fabricated by him, which consist in his very words" (In Facundus, Book III, Chapter 5). Leontius: "He stands against the first instruction of the Christian religion, and abolishes the deifying creed of those who are regenerated—the faith, I say, of the Synod of Nicaea—not only mutilating it, but utterly destroying all faith, and handing down another besides it, holding those great lights as nothing, and not shrinking from such a bold crime; for he has published another creed of faith, or rather, I should say, of perfidy.

Which dogmas of the creed destroy the primary faith of the Christian religion, the sufficiently praised authors show. For since faith consists chiefly in the Trinity of divine persons, the incarnation of the Word, and the grace of Christ, some argue three points concerning the Trinity of divine persons; others, the same number concerning the incarnation of the Word; a third kind of error concerning the grace of Christ, or the end and effect of the incarnation, we detect in the last dissertation on the first part of the Works of Mercator. Nearly all the more recent writers commonly argue about the words which are read concerning the Holy Spirit, whom we think is neither a son, nor received existence through the Son. Manuel Calecas tries to draw these words into a good sense, as if the Holy Spirit is said not to have received existence through the Word in the same way as any created thing; but his kindly interpretation, or violence, has accomplished nothing much.

Others argue, whose name Facundus suppresses, that a fourth person seems to be introduced into the Trinity; for when it had been said: "We believe in God the Father, and in the only-begotten Son of God, and in the Holy Spirit," at number 5, speech is made about the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom indeed we ought to believe, as if he were distinct from the other three. But the objection is futile. In the book which is circulated under the name of Justinian, Sabellianism is objected to the author of the creed, as if he no longer introduces a fourth person, but contracts the other three into a single one. The words of this number seem to have given cause for the objection: "But we confess the Father as perfect in person, and the Son likewise, and the Holy Spirit in like manner," etc. For after citing these, the author of the book adds: "But the hearer must observe that, by saying 'likewise' and 'in like manner' concerning the person of the Holy Trinity, he is asserting one person of the three names of the Holy Trinity, according to the madness of Sabellius." Such an objection, as it is undoubtedly most serious, Facundus easily refuted.

The Council of Ephesus condemns the entire Creed as contrary to the Catholic faith concerning the Incarnation of the Only-begotten, and, as Cyril says, as a source of Nestorian impiety. Hence Mercator reports the author as having spoken with impiety, not from novel, but partly from the old teachings of Paul of Samosata, partly of Ebion, partly of Marcellus of Galatia and Photinus. Mercator therefore reproaches: 1° that Theodore in the Creed makes Christ a mere man and a son of God: not by nature, he says, but by adoption or grace; 2° that he preaches two Christs in reality; 3° that he denies that the words of the evangelist, "The Word was made flesh," can be taken in their proper sense, unless the Word is said to have been turned into flesh. He demonstrates these points at length, but adds another, based rather on a preconceived opinion, as I think, than on certain inference: for he objects to the author of the Creed that he asserts that a man was first formed by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin, and existed, before he adhered to the Word, and that from the conjunction with the Word he was made adorable to every creature.

But it is established by certain reasoning and by the undisputed testimonies of Theodore that, from the very moment of conception, the Word and the human nature existed in the manner which he admitted. For what is more evident than either that statement of Theodore which Mercator himself cites in an excerpt: "He was secretly joined to it, for he was not absent when it was formed, he was not separated when it was born, etc.," or that one which Facundus uses to repel the accusation (Book III, Chapter 5): "It is good, especially in this place, to conclude what force those things have which have been said—whether 'to live,' or 'to be baptized,' or 'to be crucified,' or even 'to die,' or even 'to be buried,' and 'to rise again.' We do not say these things applying them to some mere man. For we do not delay in adding this in each demonstration of the things said, so that we may give no occasion for slanderers to speak ill; but indeed to the Word dwelling [in the body], from the very formation in the mother's womb." Finally, from the words of the number we have compiled, it is not obscurely indicated by Theodore that the grace of Christ, on account of which he came into this world, is nothing other than either doctrine or example.

Now, as for the author, Facundus was, as far as I know, the first to raise the question. For although the judgment of the ancients concerning Theodore was settled, he dared to dissent, lest anyone whom he was trying to present as free from heresy against the Fifth Synod be immediately convicted by the Creed. I am surprised, however, that men of great name—Manuel Calecas, Bellarmine, and Petavius—adhered to Facundus, who make Nestorius the author. For how did they either spurn the judgment of the Fifth Synod, when Facundus scarcely brought forward anything in his own defense, or fail to hear Leontius, who diligently examined each of Theodore’s points? I say nothing of Mercator, whose works were hidden at that time, but now, having been published, they no longer permit doubt. Nestorius used his master’s Creed to spread heresy; for he saw to it that those who returned from heresy to the Church subscribed to it, just as if it were a pure exposition of the Nicene or Constantinopolitan faith. He did this, however, through two agents of his impiety, Anastasius and Photius, who also sent two other presbyters, Antonius and Jacobus, to Philadelphia, to reconcile the Quartodecimans and to induce to subscription whomever they could. But Charisius, presbyter and oeconomus of the Church of Philadelphia, having gotten wind of what was happening, reported the whole matter to the Council of Ephesus, in whose sixth action this entire story is narrated at length.

The words of Marius Mercator. Let us also demonstrate, from his writings which we have translated from Greek, of what perfidy the aforementioned Theodore is.