Theodoretus Cyrensis

EXCERPTS OF THEODORET From the five books which, instigated by the devil, he wrote against the blessed Cyril, bishop of the city of Alexandria, and the holy Council of Ephesus, by which Nestorius was condemned. FIRST EXCERPT. From the preface of Theodoret to the five books against the blessed Cyril and the holy Council of Ephesus. FIRST EXCERPT. Before the assembly at Ephesus was held, we opposed the twelve chapters briefly and openly, so that the understanding of these matters might be made known even to the more unlearned and those lacking in reason. But because the one who put these things forth declared himself in the council, and many of those who had gathered, through inexperience rather than any knowledge imbued with doctrine, considered these things pious, it seemed worthwhile to strive again, to extend the discourse, and to refute in many ways the blasphemy that had been cut down, so that we might more clearly demonstrate to the ignorant how the things now especially put forward by these men are shown to be contrary to the Gospels.

SECOND EXCERPT. From the same author, from the first book of his work. Therefore Emmanuel was long ago, and before many times of birth from the Virgin, called a little child. But Emmanuel indicates the natures both of the one who assumed and of the one who was assumed; for it is interpreted "God with us," that is, God in our nature, God in man, God and man, God made man, God clothing himself without circumscription in human nature, God in a human temple, God with us, God on account of the union of that which he received from us. Therefore Emmanuel is not only God, but also man; and he himself is called Christ, and named Jesus, and invoked as Savior. Likewise from the same first book. If a mixture or confusion were to occur, and one substance were produced from both, then God would not be God, nor would the temple exist as a temple; but both God would be the temple, and the temple would be God by nature, for that is what admixture accomplishes; and if this is so, the Lord did not fittingly say: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19). For he ought to have said: "Destroy me, and in three days I will rise again," if indeed the two natures had made one by the blending of mixture.

THIRD EXCERPT. Again, from the same author, from the second book. "But also Gabriel, evangelizing to the Virgin, as blessed Luke sets forth: 'Behold,' he says, 'you will conceive in the womb, and you will bear a son, and you will call his name Jesus; he will be great, and he will be called the Son of the Most High, and God will give him the seat of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end to his kingdom. And therefore that which will be born from you, holy, will be called the Son of God' (Luke 1:31). Consider that here also everything is said in human terms. 'He will be,' he says (ibid., v. 35), 'great,' he did not say 'he is'; 'and he will be called the Son of the Most High,' he did not say 'he is called' or 'he is'; he did not say 'he has the seat of his father David,' but 'he will give it to him'; and 'he will reign,' he did not say 'he reigns.' Over whom? 'Over the house of Jacob,' he did not say 'over angels and archangels.' And again, 'holy, he will be called the Son of God,' he did not say 'he is called.' What do you say to these things, who, setting your own passions before the Truth, on account of human struggles, have suffered to wage war against God? To whom do these things apply? To God, and to him who always is, and Lord, and king, and holy, and Son of God? Or rather to the temple, which is taken from the seed of David and, on account of the unity of the Word of God, has merited these very things?

And again there, a little later. Therefore, the Word of God did not predict that it would become great after the birth of the Virgin; but the temple, which from the Virgin is holy, assumed, united, and even co-named son itself; not that we should adore two sons, but that, contemplating the invisible God in the visible temple, we may offer to him one glory of veneration. Again, in the same second book. When you find: "Now the Lord, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan" (Luke 4:1). And again: "Jesus went out in the power of the Spirit into Galilee" (Ibid., 14). Do not think that the Word of God needed the cooperation or help of the Spirit; but the visible temple, which enjoyed the various gifts of the Holy Spirit. And again, there, after some things. But that you may clearly perceive the division of the two natures, let us come to the teaching of the Lord himself. The Jews approached him, saying: "What sign do you show us, that you do these things?" (John 2:18). Jesus answered: "Destroy this temple," drawing them by a demonstrative voice to the visible, "and in three days I will raise it up" (Ibid., v. 19), manifesting to the hearers the power of the Deity.

From the same book. This one God exalted as author and Savior (Acts 5:31). Who, then, was exalted? Not the Most High, but that nature which the Deity exalted [Baluz. stirred up], which the Jews killed by hanging on a tree; for this was exalted by the union with the one who assumed it and dwelt in it. From the same book. It is evident, he says, who rose on the third day, and who raised him, according to the Savior’s promise when he said: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will rebuild it” (John 2:19). What rose on the third day is what the Jews hung on a tree: this God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power (Acts 10:38). For God the Word did not need anointing or the operation of the Holy Spirit; but the temple, which he assumed from the seed of David and united to himself, and this the Apostle clearly shows when he recalls the anointing that was done by God, and the Holy Spirit by whom he was anointed, and the power he enjoyed, and how he worked healing: “Because,” he says, “God was in him” (Mark 6:14).

From the same book. We see Jesus a little less than the angels because of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, so that without God he might taste death for all (Heb. 2:9). He distinguishes from the passion, so that "without God," he says, "he might taste death for all." For this one he also asserts was made a little less than the angels; but the Word God is not less than the angels, but is the creator of angels, and of powers, and of dominions, and of every invisible and visible creature. From the same book. Adding one testimony to all these, I will give an end to my discourse: Jesus Christ yesterday and today, the same and for all ages. How, then (this, most wise ones, we must observe), how is he the same both yesterday and today and for all ages, both temporal and eternal, both in time and above time? For if he is eternal, he is not temporal; and if he is in time, he is not above time. [Words of Marius Mercator.

Likewise from the same author, from the fourth book, after the testimonies of the holy Fathers which the wicked and impious man strives to twist to his own nefarious meaning, after the assertion that he did not fear to make mention, among some heretics (for I speak also of Theodorus), of those whom he also attempted to extol with the highest praises, he brought forth these words, to the injury of the holy Fathers who condemned Nestorius at Ephesus, with an exclamation, saying: "Hear, O deaf, and see, O blind. And who is blind and deaf, if not he who is mentally deranged, and who does not wish to attend to the truth, closing his eyes to the rays and depriving himself of light? Therefore hear the teacher of truth rightly commanding, to divide the evangelical and apostolic utterances, and to ascribe the sublime ones to the Divinity, but to assign the humble ones to the humanity. And finally cease to resist this pious division; nor, by fear of the anathema, strike terror into the simpler folk. For we regard as mere refuse what is put forth by you as terrifying, and we preserve the teachings of the holy Fathers.

The words of Marius Mercator With these words that profane man, both against Nestorius and against those like him, strives to diminish the sentence rightly passed under the interposition of anathemas, as he thinks, so that the followers and accomplices, through fear of present and future punishment, may not cast aside the dogmas of depravity and attempt to come to the path of unity. Finally, so that the wickedness of his heart may clearly appear, in the last part of the fourth book he so celebrates with his praises Theodore, bishop of the city of Mopsuestia, whom almost all Catholics recognize as a heretic. FOURTH EXCERPT. From the last part of the fourth book of Theodoret. For this reason, he says, I did not bring forward the great Theodore, the champion of piety and defender of evangelical proclamations, because he himself, on account of some things or other, is attacked along with us by you; and after many sweats and labors acquired, after so many contests and numerous studies, he is assailed by the calumnies not of outsiders, but of his own and his associates' faith; for it was necessary to enumerate his dangers along with those of Paul after the gentiles, and the robbers, and even the false brothers (2 Cor. 11:26), and finally perils of that kind. For the sake of this matter we wished voluntarily to pass over so great a man.

EXCERPT FIVE. Likewise in the fifth book, which is the last of his entire work. The words of Marius Mercator. This accursed man strives to construct this calumny against the holy synod which rightly struck down Nestorius, so that he dares to say that the blessed Fathers who assembled at Ephesus pronounced that sentence not with the intention of right doctrine, but rather out of fear [Baluze: envy], inasmuch as the long-buried perfidy of Apollinaris seems to have been renewed through them; and he exaggerates this insult against the holy pontiffs of God with these faithless words. From the fifth book of Theodoretus in defense of Theodorus. So great was the envy to which you have enslaved yourselves, that what Apollinaris once spoke through one or two, and these hidden, now through many prelates of the Church he displays in the sacred assemblies of the Churches, and such [Baluze: lethal] herbs are offered to the flocks by shepherds, and the bites of wolves are inflicted upon rational sheep through the ministry of rectors; and he who in two or three cities outside the enclosures of the walls addressed a few, whom he also seduced with various songs, now through you dances in the midst of cities; for you preach his errors and adorn yourselves with novelties of words, reviving his blasphemy, which had already been consumed in times past.

The words of Marius Mercator. What kind of unity of divinity and humanity the same Theodoret professed is necessarily declared by what he wrote in these words. EXCERPT SIX. From the same book. “What,” he says, “the Lord says about a man and a wife, that they are no longer two, but one flesh (Matt. 19:6), undoubtedly applies to natures that are constant, but have a distinction; and just as there the number two does not prevent them from being called one flesh—for it is certain in what way they are called one—so here the unity of person does not hinder the difference of the natures. Finally, when we distinguish the natures, we say that the nature of God the Word is complete, and the person is without doubt perfect; for it is not lawful to assert a substance without a person; we likewise confess the perfect human nature with its own person. But when we look to the conjunction, then at last we rightly name one person.” EXCERPT SEVEN.

Also from the fifteenth chapter of the same book. These things, he says, expose the vanity of Apollinaris, who asserts that God the Word dwelt in the assumed flesh in place of reason or mind. For if the assumed nature did not have a human mind, then it was God who contended against the devil, and God who achieved the victory; but with God achieving the victory, I have received no benefit from this victory, as one who could contribute nothing to it; and I am also deprived of the joy that comes from this matter, rejoicing over another’s triumphs. But the devil dances and exults, and grows proud and boasts, as if he had wrestled with God; for it is a great thing for him even to be overcome by God. Also from the sixteenth chapter of the same book. With this defense the devil could fittingly say to God: Lord, creator of all things, I did not undertake a contest against you; for I know your dignity, I understand your power, I recognize your dominion, I acknowledge my servitude, although I am known to be a fugitive; I yield the victory even to the angels and to the whole heavenly host, among whom I once, wretched, also existed; but I undertook this contest against the one whom you formed from clay, and made in your image, and honored with reason, and made a citizen of paradise, and showed to be lord of land and sea.

This man I deceived by seduction, not by necessity; this man I do not cease to overcome, cast down, and deliver to death even to this day; I persist in leading him to the arena and commanding him to wrestle with me [Baluz. perceiving]: be present yourself as spectator; and with the skill that athletes employ, show him wrestling, demonstrate also the rules of the contest, anoint [Baluz. claw] as you will; only do not give him aid; for I am not so bold and bereft of mind as to attempt to contend against you, my maker. The devil would justly say these things to the Savior Christ, if it were not a man, but God, who contended on behalf of man. From the twenty-ninth chapter. The Son of God, inseparably joined to man, taught him the discipline of the highest virtue, and kept him unharmed by the darts of sins, and showed him whole and superior to diabolical deceit, and, permitting him to taste death for a brief time, immediately freed him from its tyranny, and bestowed upon him a share of his own life, raised him to the heavens, and made him sit at the right hand of the Majesty, and gave him a name that is above every name; conferring his own dignity upon him, and assuming the appellation of his nature.

Hitherto concerning the book, or Pentalogium; now concerning the letters, and first the one which Theodoretus wrote to Nestorius, to which Mercator, having translated it by himself into the Latin tongue, prefixed this preface. The words of Marius Mercator. To Nestorius, established in exile on account of his perfidy, Theodoretus wrote a letter, wherein he makes clear that it was not from love of honor, but compelled by truth itself, that he had approved the dogma of the blessed Cyrillus, whom he calls the Egyptian; but that he in no way gives his consent to the condemnation of the same Nestorius. The letter of Theodoretus to Nestorius. To my lord, truly most God-loving and venerable holy father Nestorius, bishop, Theodoretus sends greetings in the Lord. That I am not overcome by urban society and deference and glory, nor have need of lofty thrones, I think your sanctity knows. For even if nothing else, at least the solitude of the city, whose administration I seem to have been allotted, has sufficiently taught me this philosophy, which is known to have, even to the height of solitude, crowds of causes which can delay very many, even those who greatly exult in such things.

Let no one, therefore, persuade your sanctity that I, desiring to be a bishop, have with closed eyes received Egyptian writings as if they were correct doctrines; for, by the truth itself I confess, having often turned them over and diligently examined them, I found them free from heretical depravity and feared to impose any stain upon them; not, however, as if he who has been the cause of disturbance to the whole world should be approved; and I hope that for this matter I shall incur no guilt on the day of judgment, because a just judge examines the intention of each. But to those things which have been unjustly and iniquitously done against your reverence, even if someone were to cut off both my hands, I could not give my consent, with divine grace undoubtedly cooperating with me and supporting the weakness of my soul. Moreover, I have made this clear in letters even to those who demand these things, and I have sent to your sanctity copies of what I have written back to them, so that you may know that no time will change us by divine grace, nor will it show us to be like polyps or chameleons, since the former imitate rocks, the latter leaves, according to their own colors. We, both I and those with me, greet most warmly the entire brotherhood that is with your reverence in the Lord.

The words of Marius Mercator. He sent another letter to Constantinople in favor of the Nestorians, in which he says that he indeed confesses two natures and the other pious dogmas, like the Egyptians; but concerning the injustice which was committed against Nestorius, no correction has followed. From Theodoret to the monk Andrew of Constantinople. And after other things. But God is faithful, who will not allow either us or you to be tempted beyond what we can bear; but he will make even the outcome accompany the temptation (1 Cor. 13:10), so that we may be able to endure, and he will refute falsehood: although even now the assertion of falsehood is proven refuted, and the power of truth is shown. For behold, those who had confounded the natures of Christ the Savior with impious reasoning, and had dared to preach one nature, and to attach passions to the divinity: on account of this they also insulted the most holy and venerable pontiff of the supreme God, Nestorius, as if with a bit and bridle (Ps. 31:9), according to the prophet, with their jaws completely broken, and having been led from the crooked to the straight, they have again learned the truth, using the assertion of him who endured battles for the truth. For instead of one nature, they now confess two (anathematizing those who preach mixture or confusion), and the impassibility of Christ's divinity.

[in passibilitate] they venerate, and they explain that the passions belong to the flesh, and they divide the evangelical sayings, and they ascribe the sublime and God-worthy ones to the Divinity, but assign the humble ones to the humanity; such things have now been brought in writing from Egypt. The words of Marius Mercator. He also wrote to Andrew, bishop of Samosata, after reading the letter of the holy Cyril, pontiff of Alexandria, which had been sent from Beroea. Theodoret to Andrew, bishop of Samosata. The magnificent man Aristolaus, a magistrianus from Egypt, sent Cyril’s letter, in which he anathematizes Arius, Eunomius, Apollinaris, and those who say that the Divinity of Christ is passible, and those who assert the confusion and mixture of the two natures; and at this we rejoiced, although he avoided our proposition. But he demands subscription to the condemnation made long ago, and that the dogma of the holy bishop Nestorius be anathematized. Your holiness knows, however, that if anyone anathematizes the teaching of that same most holy and venerable bishop without distinction, it is the same as if he were seen to anathematize piety.

Therefore, if we are compelled at all, we must anathematize those who say that Christ is a mere man, or who divide our one Lord Jesus Christ into two sons, and who deny His Divinity, etc. I consider that it has been most fully demonstrated to my most holy and venerable lord, Bishop John, that I will in no way consent to the condemnation of my most holy and venerable lord, Bishop Nestorius, nor violate the common promise made at Tarsus, Chalcedon, and Ephesus; for he remembers also those things which were often set forth by us at Antioch after our return. Let no one, therefore, deceive your sanctity that I will ever consent to do this, with God undoubtedly cooperating with me and strengthening me. From the epistle of Theodoret to Himerius, Bishop of Nicomedia. Among other things. We make known to your sanctity our certain intention, that, having read the letters sent from Egypt and often discussed among us, we found them indeed consistent with the doctrine of the Church; but we have proved them to be contrary to the twelve chapters, which we have continued to oppose up to the present time.

Therefore, it has pleased us that, if your Holinesses receive the churches divinely entrusted to you, you should communicate with the Egyptians and the Constantinopolitans, and with others who are known to have fought alongside them against us, because they have professed to hold our faith—or rather, that of the apostles—but that you should not give consent to the condemnation of the venerable and most holy Nestorius, which is said to have been pronounced. For we deem it truly unjust and impious if, for the same crimes of which his associate was also guilty, pardon is granted to that one, while the door of repentance is closed to this one; and much more unjust and more impious to hand over an innocent man to death. Let your Holiness know, therefore, that we do not judge that communion should be granted to them before you receive your churches. These things, however, have been decreed not by me alone, but by all the most holy bishops of our region, after holding a council. And I have already told your Holiness before that if the dogma of my lord, the venerable and most holy bishop Nestorius, were condemned, I would not communicate with those who do this. But if it pleases your Holiness to insert this same thing in the letters that are to be sent to Antioch, let this be done; therefore, I beseech you, let it not be delayed, as I cling to your footsteps.

To the same, after he learned that John had anathematized the doctrine of Nestorius. After other matters. "It does not," he says, "escape your Holiness that after I read the letter which was sent to the emperor, I grieved exceedingly in my mind; because I clearly recognize that the one who wrote this, holding the same opinion, has indiscriminately and unjustly condemned him who knew and taught nothing except sound doctrine. But the inserted anathema, although it is more than sufficient to disturb the reader than the consensus of his condemnation, nevertheless, because it was placed not indiscriminately but with a certain consideration, it provided consolation. For he did not say: 'We anathematize his doctrine'; but: 'Whatever he said or thought otherwise than the apostolic doctrine contains.'" The words of Marius Mercator. Likewise, from the acts which were written against Domnus, bishop of Antioch, in which the same Domnus is accused, that, in his presence, openly in the Church, the same most nefarious Theodoretus dared, after the death of Cyril of blessed memory, pontiff of Alexandria, insulting his blessed dormition, to speak thus.

From a sermon delivered at Antioch by Theodoretus after the death of Saint Cyril. No one now compels anyone to blaspheme. Where are those who say that it is God who was crucified? God was not crucified; it was a man, Jesus Christ, who was crucified. But God raised up his temple from David, as David himself foretold: A man begets a man. By nature, the Son of God is God the Word; Christ, however, is the son of David: but the Son of God is not a temple [Baluz.: the son is a temple]. There is no longer any dispute; Egypt and the East have come under one yoke; envy is dead, and heresy is buried with it. Now let those who preach that God suffered be silent, etc. Another version, found in the Fifth Synod, differing not only in words but also in several sentences. No one now forces anyone to blaspheme. Where are those who say that it is God who was crucified? God is not crucified; it is a man, Jesus Christ, who was crucified, he who is from the seed of David, son of Abraham. It is a man, Jesus Christ, who died. But God the Word resurrected his temple, which is from David, as David spoke: A man begets a man. He who is by nature the Son of God is God the Word. Christ, however, is the son of David; but he is the temple of the Son of God. There is no longer any dispute; the East and Egypt are under one yoke; envy is dead, and with it contention is buried. Let the Theopaschites rest.