Theodori Mopsuesteni Excerpta

Theodori Mopsuesteni Excerpta. First Excerpt. Theodorus, bishop of Mopsuestia, from the second codex, book four, folio ten, against Saint Augustine, who defends original sin and that Adam was made mortal through transgression, discoursing in a catholic manner. With so many things standing forth which demonstrate that Adam was formed from earth in such a way that he was entirely mortal, he wished to occupy his discourse concerning the proper food, and not being able from that to perceive the truth, for the true dogma, joining advocacy from a seductive lie, God did not say: You will be mortal; but: You will die by death (Gen. 2:17). With those who are by nature entirely mortal, he threatened to inflict the experience of death, which, according to the custom of his own benevolence, he delayed to bring to effect. For just as when he says: He who has shed a man’s blood, his blood shall be shed for him (Gen. 9:6); he does not say this because he who kills a man will be mortal; but because he is worthy of being condemned to such a death. So also in the present case he said: You will die by death; not that they would then become mortal; but that they were worthy of receiving the sentence of death through transgression.

But also consider the divine sentence which God seems to impose upon Adam after the sin; for it says thus: “Because you listened to the voice of your wife, and ate from the tree of which I had commanded you not to eat from this alone, from it you ate, cursed is the earth in your works, in sorrow you will eat it all the days of your life; it will bring forth thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the grass of the field, and in the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread, until you return to the earth” (Gen. 3:17). Through these words, however, he threatened that he would have a life full of hardship, thereafter taking fruits from the earth with labor, by which he would be nourished and sustained, no longer having, as before, such great abundance set before him as he enjoyed from the bounty of paradise. For God did not give the tilling of the earth as a punishment, as if transferring men from an immortal nature to mortality, since he had also commanded him to work and tend paradise (Gen. 2:15). But on account of the former great abundance and pleasure of paradise, he threatens that his sustenance from the fruits of the earth will be full of hardship. For indeed, even when he had become mortal, he then needed the fruits of paradise, just as now he seeks the fruits of the earth; and as a punishment, deprived of his former delights, he is penalized with this most wretched and laborious way of life.

Hence at last he consequently added: “Because you are earth, and you will return to earth” (Gen. 3:17). By this he also signifies the mortality of nature; for it is not to an immortal being, now for the first time receiving a sentence of death, as the most wise defenders of original sin—or rather the marvelous fathers of sin—assert, that the word “earth” was composed; but divine Scripture indicated that this appellation was fitting for a being naturally mortal from the beginning, often using this term for men to show the corruptible and dissoluble nature of them. For it says: “He remembered that we are dust.” “Man, his days are like grass, and like a flower of the field he will flourish, because the spirit has passed through him, and his place will be no more” (Ps. 102:15). It means that we are all corruptible and dissoluble, like grass that blooms for a short time and soon perishes: for we live for a brief time, and then we come entirely to non-existence. So also Abraham says: “I am earth and ashes” (Gen. 18:27), as if to say: I am not worthy to converse with so great a God, a man made from earth and destined to be this entirely. Therefore he should rather have said: “You will be earth, and you will return to earth,” if indeed nature had now for the first time become mortal.

SECOND EXCERPT. From the same Theodore, from the second codex, book three, four folia before the end of the book. But the marvelous champion of original sin could perceive none of those things, since he was by no means trained in the divine Scriptures, nor had he, from infancy, according to the voice of blessed Paul, learned the sacred letters (1 Tim. 3:15); but, declaiming often about the meanings of Scripture or about dogma, he frequently and impudently brought forth many inept things, both in particular and in general, concerning the Scriptures themselves and very many dogmas. For the movement of power [Baluz. fear] allowed no one to speak against him; but only those who had knowledge of the divine Scriptures silently disparaged him. But most recently he fell into this novelty of dogma, by which he said that God, in anger and fury, decreed that Adam should be mortal; and that, because of his one transgression, he punished all men, even those not yet born, with death. And thus disputing, he neither fears nor is ashamed to hold such opinions about God as no one, even among men of sound mind and having some care for justice, has ever attempted to conceive. But he also did not recall that divine saying, that this proverb would no longer be spoken in Israel: "The fathers ate a sour grape, and the teeth of the children are set on edge"; because thus says Adonai the Lord: "The teeth of those who have eaten a sour grape will be set on edge" (Ezek.

(xviii, 2); showing through these things that God does not at all punish one for another, according to the error of some, but each one will render account for his own offenses. The blessed Paul also adds things consonant with these: "God," he says, "who will render to each according to his works" (Rom. 2:6). And: "Each of us will bear his own burden" (Gal. 6:5). And: "Why do you judge your brother, or why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the tribunal of Christ" (Rom. 14:10). But the marvelous man thought that God, moved by such great fury on account of one sin, would both subject that one to the most atrocious punishment and promulgate a like sentence to all his descendants; and among them, how many just persons there have been, one could not easily number: from among whom it was especially fitting for him to consider that it would seem very incongruous that Noah, Abraham, David, Moses, and the rest of the innumerable just persons should be rendered liable to punishment on account of his offense, and that one, approved from the taste of the tree, and that God extended his anger so far beyond the measure of justice that he would cast aside all the virtues of so many just persons and consign them to such great suffering on account of the one sin of Adam.

For even if nothing else, at least by considering the case of Abel, he ought to have judged appropriately: Abel, who, being the first righteous man, was the first to die; and if God had established death as a punishment for men, how was it not the utmost impiety that the one who was the cause of sin should live, and that Eve, the contriver of wickedness, should also live with him? I pass over the devil, who has persisted in immortality up to this time, while the first righteous man, the discoverer of virtue, and the first to take care of divine worship, was struck down before all others with the punishment of sinners. But that most wise man ought also to have carefully considered the case of Enoch, who did not die; for he was not endowed with such great virtue or piety that he should be better than all others—I mean Moses, and the prophets, and the apostles, and all the rest, of whom the most blessed Paul says: "Of whom the world was not worthy" (Heb. 11:37); so that, with those dead, he alone should endure without experiencing death. But from the beginning, God had this determined within himself: that first men should become mortal, but afterwards they would enjoy immortality; thus he himself arranges it for our benefit.

And a little later. More clearly, he says, God showed the same thing when He translated Enoch and made him immortal. For if God had imposed death as a punishment for sin, and had not from the beginning determined this within Himself, dispensing all things ineffably for us according to His own wisdom, Enoch would by no means have become immortal; nor would the Lord Christ have come to experience death. And a little later. For this reason, he says, the Lord became the author of all good things for men, so that just as Adam existed as the beginner of the first and mortal state, so He Himself, being the initiator of the second and immortal state, would first preserve the natural characteristics of the prior Adam, in that He is born from a woman, is wrapped in swaddling clothes, and gradually undergoes the increments of age: for Jesus, he says, advanced in age, and wisdom, and grace, before God and men (Luke 2:52); in that He undergoes circumcision, in that according to legal custom He stood before God in the temple, and is subjected to His parents, and is given over to lawful conduct; thus also for the completion of the remaining things, and death, as the tribute of nature, He finally undergoes, so that, dying according to the law of human nature, and rising from the dead by divine power, He might become the beginning for all men, who undergo death according to their own nature, that they might rise from the dead and be changed into an immortal substance.

Just as we have all been made conformable to Adam according to the present state, so we shall be made conformable to Christ the Lord [Baluze adds: according to the flesh] in the future. For He will transform the body of our humility, to be made conformable to the body of His glory (Philippians 3:21). And: As is the earthly, so are the earthly; and as is the heavenly, so are the heavenly (1 Corinthians 15:48). And: Just as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us also bear the image of the heavenly; showing that, having been made partakers of the first state of Adam, we also necessarily obtain participation in the future state of the second Adam, Christ the Lord according to the flesh, as one who arose from this same nature and took up all things that belonged to the nature: and therefore He underwent death, so that, by taking up the death of nature and rising from the dead, He might perfect nature free from death. And He took up death indeed for this reason, but sin by no means; rather, He remained wholly immune from this: for what was of nature, that is, death, He undoubtedly assumed; but sin, which was not of nature but of will, He in no way took up. But if sin had been in nature, according to the utterance of this most wise man, He would necessarily have taken up sin existing in nature.

EXCERPT THE THIRD. From the same Theodore, from the second codex, from the third book, folio eighteen. If, he says, God did not know that Adam would sin [Baluze: truly he knew], let this be the response of these most wise men [Baluze adds: wisdom], that it is utterly insane even to conceive of this; it is manifest that He knew he would sin, and because of this, without doubt, that he would die. How, then, is it not the height of madness to believe that He first made him immortal [Baluze: mortal] for six hours (for that was the time from his creation until the commission [of the sin], since he was made from earth on the sixth day, and, eating contrary to the divine command, was driven from paradise); but after the sin showed him to be mortal? For it is certain that if He had wished him to be immortal, not even the intervening sin would have changed God's sentence, because He did not make the devil from immortal to mortal, and that although he is the origin of all evils.

EXCERPT THE FOURTH. From the same Theodore, from the second codex, from the third book, folio twenty-five. For, he says, it is not the case that, for those who from Adam up to the coming of Christ the Lord were in such great impieties and iniquities as the blessed Paul expressed in his own words, as was declared from his utterances above, he is going to bestow the reward of resurrection as something great, if he hands them over to certain punishments without end and without correction. For where will the resurrection be thought of as a gift, if punishment without correction is inflicted upon those who rise? And a little later. Who, he says, is so insane as to believe that such a great good becomes the material of infinite punishment for those who rise? For whom it would be more useful not to rise at all than, after the resurrection, to undergo the experience of such great and such evils under infinite penalties. EXCERPT THE FIFTH. From the same Theodore, from some other book against the Lord Jesus Christ and his incarnation.

For, he says, if we say that there are two natures in Christ, it does not necessarily follow that we assert two sons or two lords, because to think this is proved to be the height of madness. For all things that are in some respect two, and in some respect one, do not destroy the division of each by the unity: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). But not because they are one is the property of each to be denied. And elsewhere, speaking of man and wife, he says: "They are no longer two, but one flesh" (Matthew 19:6). But not because they are one flesh are man and wife no longer two; for they remain two, according to that in which they are two, and one, according to that in which they are one. In this manner, here too they are two by nature, but one by conjunction: two by nature, because of the diversity of many things; but one by conjunction, because that which is assumed shares an undivided veneration with that which assumes, as its temple remains undivided.

All things, therefore, that are spoken of as two, then have the use of two, when one is believed to be indifferent from the other, according to which they receive the name and enumeration of two: for example, divine Scripture mentions four beasts (Dan. 7): a bear, a leopard, a lion, and another, which surpasses these in savagery, and they are four because each beast is proven to exist as nothing less in substance than the other beasts. "The testimony of two men is true" (John 8:17), because each is by nature what the other is. And likewise: "No one can serve two masters" (Matt. 6:24), because the one offering service as to a master, each is no less a master; so also here, if each were by substance a son and a lord, they could in some way be called two sons and two lords, according to the number of persons. But since here one exists as son and lord by substance, and the other is proven to be neither son nor lord by essence; but by the union which that one has made with this one, he is known to have partaken of the same, therefore we speak of one son and one lord. Principally understanding as son and lord the one who is believed and proven to be truly both by substance; but also embracing in thought that one who is inseparably joined to him, and through the ineffable union with him is considered a partaker of son and lord.

Thus, wherever the divine Scripture mentions this son who was taken up, we say that he is called son by relation to the one who receives him, according to the unity; for when it says: "Concerning his Son, who was made for him from the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3), it does not yet speak of the Word, but of the assumed form of a servant: for he is not God according to the flesh, nor was God made from the seed of David, whom blessed Paul clearly calls Son. We understand him to be Son, not because he is called Son in himself, but because by that conjunction which he has with the one who is truly Son, he is so named. The Creator took pity on the lost creature, and without mixture forms the infant, leads him to manly age, suggesting the likeness of nature by the process of growth, according to the measure of credibility; but secretly being joined to him, he was not absent when he was being formed, was not separated when he was born, was joined to him as he spoke and was present, persevering in his actions, and there preserving his connection without sin.

Jesus, it says, advanced in age and wisdom (Luke 2:52). But this cannot be said of the Word of God, because God, perfect, was born of perfect God, wisdom from wisdom, power from power; therefore he does not advance, nor is he imperfect, so as to need increments for perfection. For the divinity did not bestow all its own wisdom upon him as soon as he was formed or born; but it granted this to the body bit by bit. Say, it says, to them: The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers like me (Deuteronomy 18:15). The Word of God is not from among brothers: for a prophet is one who receives the grace of the Spirit and predicts the future, ministering to the Spirit, to foretell those things that are to come. Therefore the Word of God—to whom did it render service, or whose prophet was it shown to be? You see, then, that divine Scripture speaks cautiously.

I beseech you," he says, "pay attention." They say to us: "Why then do you separate?" You answer, who do not separate. Is the Word of God in the last times? What do they say? Do you think they say this? Not at all, but it is before the ages. And if it is before the ages, that which is from the seed of David is much more so; but David himself, from whom the seed comes, is not before the ages, for he is proven to be posterior to many men, and after twenty-eight generations from David, that which is from the seed of David. But if that which was formed in the womb is before the ages, it is not from the seed of David, and divine Scripture lies. A man is anointed, our Lord Jesus; the Word is not anointed: for the Word is greater than Christ, because Christ has been made great through wisdom. For the Word is from above, but Jesus Christ the man is from here: Mary did not give birth to the Word, for Mary was not God; but she gave birth to a man like us, yet better in every way, because from the Holy Spirit.

We lead you to a diligent and careful examination of the doctrines: we labor for your sake, lest we render an account to the Lord for our silence. The perfect Son before the ages assumed the perfect one who is proven to be from David, the Son of God the son of David. You will therefore say to me: You preach two sons. I do not say two sons of David—have I asserted that God the Word is the son of David? But neither do I say two sons of God according to substance: for do I assert two sons born from the substance of God before the ages? I say, however, that God the Word dwelt in that which is proven to be from the seed of David. Not so, he says, did God the Word dwell in that which is from the seed of David as in the prophets. For they enjoyed a particular and moderate measure of the grace of the Holy Spirit; but here he continually remained in those things in which they were at times, and was filled with the glory and wisdom of the Word. Another is undoubtedly to be understood besides him, and a son subsisting properly and separately; for the Word did not fill itself with wisdom and glory, but rather conferred these insignia upon another.

We adore the purple because of the one who wears it, and the temple because of the inhabitant; the form of a servant because of the form of God; the lamb because of the high priest; the assumed because of the one who assumes; that which was formed in the virginal womb because of the creator of all things. With these things confessed, offer one veneration; one adoration will do no harm, if you have first confessed the realities. You say one veneration, but through one veneration you introduce blasphemy, as if, because there is one adoration, there is also one substance. "I do not begrudge," he says, "Christ that he became God; for what he himself became, I have become, because it is of my nature." Today Jesus became immortal; when Mary approached him after the resurrection, he says to her: "Do not touch me"; for she thought that he was the same Lord who had been; and she did not know that after the resurrection he had been made perfect.