Dissertations of Garnier

HISTORY OF THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRRHUS

PREFACE

I. The history of Theodoret seems to me not unlike those theatrical narrations which, by the perplexed changes of fortune and unexpected events, not only keep the minds of the people in suspense and wonder, but also often deceive the expectations of the prudent, and certainly always distract their judgments into contrary directions.

II. For the life of this famous Bishop of Cyrrhus, although it began with happy starts and was conducted through various hazards and multiple shifts of affairs, could yet have been thought, at some point, to end in an outcome equal to its beginning; were it not that death, which is usually a rest for others, became for Theodoret a cause of turmoil. For when, while living, he had disturbed the Church in the East, either by design or imprudently, he divided it into factions everywhere in the world in his own name after he had passed away; and thus arose, because of the affair of one man, a division of the whole Christian world such that, even after the passing of so many years, it could not be removed. Since even now, among some nations in the East, those who execrate Theodoret as an impious man and ^A others who revere him as an excellent guardian of the faith, the struggle and dissension have not yet been calmed.

III. Therefore, when I consider more attentively this face of events and such variable fortune, I am easily led to believe that it was brought about by the providence of the Divinity that there should be an example in Theodoret, from which men might know what evils virtue itself can perform, and what it can suffer, when, under the guise of piety, it imprudently adheres to those who dare to fight against the Church.

IV. And certainly, it is difficult to find anyone much holier than Theodoret, whether one looks at his birth, which was prodigious in miracles; ^B or his training in life, in the bosom of wonder-workers; or his profession, through which, having poured out his wealth upon the poor, he desired to be in need; or his study of letters, by which he comprehended all things and admirably understood the sacred ones; or his zeal for the faith, even prodigal of his own blood; or, finally, the innocence of his character, which made it so that he was incredibly beloved by his own, and from his adversaries, however hostile and curious, he suffered no accusation that concerned the integrity of his life.

V. Yet such a great man was deceived by the very source from which great men are accustomed to go astray: through his high estimation of himself above others, through a spirit of partisanship, and through a love of glory. Led by these causes from the right path, he obstinately favored the heretic and ^C impotently attacked the most holy defenders of the faith; he traduced a synod of the whole Church, as if it were the tyranny of some powerful faction; he slandered the peace of the Church—which he had wished to be established on his own conditions—as having been made by others; and after alternating turns of deposition and restitution, he was forced to lie hidden in a retreat remote from men: it is doubtful whether for the sake of penance or of shame.

VI. I undertake to depict a life so varied and so manifold, nor yet with colors fetched from elsewhere than those from which Sirmondus briefly delineated it, namely from Theodoret’s own books. For at what time he was born, in what part of the East, and from what parents he lived his life—not only before his episcopate, but even before the Synod of Ephesus—no one else besides himself records: nor indeed does he ever do so intentionally, but only by chance, when he was occupied with two other works, the *Philotheus* and his *Letters*. ^D

VII. Since, however, I am not attempting to write a history according to the most exact and rigorous laws, I have thought it better to use the words of the authors themselves as often as they could conveniently be introduced into the series of my discourse, rather than my own. For when each man gives testimony in his own words, greater faith will accrue to the assertion, and the reader will be able to form his judgment with easier effort.

CHAPTER ONE

I. At what time Theodoret was born. II. Concerning the state of the eastern Church. III. In what city. IV. From what parents. V. Through the prayers of which saints. VI. Through what miracles. VII. Whence he received his name. VIII. In whose circle he grew up.

From the year of Christ 386 to 393.

I. At what time Theodoret was born, he himself does not record anywhere expressly, nor does any other writer: yet the series of his life, in more than one part, holds notes of time. Whence, if anyone wishes to remeasure the past age in his mind, he will easily find that Theodoret’s birth fell in the consulship of Honorius Caesar and Evodius, which year was three hundred and eighty-six after Christ, the second of Pope Siricius, and the eighth of the emperor Theodosius the Great.

II. Around that time, which connected the fourth century with the fifth, the Church of the East was in such a state that it had great cause both to fear and to hope: for those three famous heresies were being brought to birth which received their names from Nestorius, Pelagius, and Eutyches: but at the same time, the Church shone with so many most brilliant lights, of a number so great that it is like a miracle that they existed all at once.

^A To such masters of the faith the providence of the Divinity joined innumerable monks as auxiliaries, men most holy in their life, who reconciled the faith with these teachers, by so many and such great miracles performed, that the prophecy of Christ concerning the works of the faithful surpassing His own seemed then most especially to be fulfilled.

The foundation of our unshakable faith had indeed been established: the Trinity of the Divine Persons. For the two ecumenical councils, Nicaea and Constantinople, had sanctioned the divinity of the Word and of the Holy Spirit: yet many had not yet abandoned the heresy of Arius and Macedonius; indeed, the heretics still held their assemblies in the major cities, and in the royal city of Constantinople itself.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church labored under internal dissensions. For, to say nothing of other places, even in Jerusalem the most holy men were in turmoil over Origen, whom some regarded as a teacher of the Church, while others execrated him as a hydra of heresies and a plague upon the world.

Antioch itself, the head of the East, was torn between two orthodox bishops, Meletius and Paulinus, and with such great detriment to the Christian cause that Chrysostom, the outstanding star of the Church of Antioch, while he approved the faith of both, wished to remain in seclusion for three years, certain to follow neither as long as he had a peer. One might think the genius of this century was a license for dogmas and a love for factions.

III. While Antioch was thus being split into factions, Theodoret came to light in that same city, in the year when that famous John, no longer—as formerly—by an insolent privilege a deacon speaking to the people, but by a kind of right of his own, having been made a presbyter, was able to instruct the Church with his sermons. He filled the souls of the people with such admiration for himself that he earned the name Chrysostom, and after eight years was placed in charge of the Constantinopolitan Church.

IV. He [Theodoret] derived his origin from noble and wealthy parents, but ones who were far more preeminent in piety; and of his mother he himself recounts the manner in which, by one and the same miracle of the ascetic Peter, when she was twenty-three years of age, she was healed both of the love of the world by which she was held, and of the sickness by which she was tormented.

'She was suffering,' he says, 'from an ailment of the eyes of such a kind that the medical art seemed to yield to it. When nothing had remained untried to cure this, a certain woman from among the domestics approached and made mention of the miracle performed by Peter: the mistress heard this, and immediately betook herself to the divine man. She wore about her earrings, and necklaces, and other things of gold, and a garment variegated with silken threads: for she had not yet tasted of a more perfect virtue, and she was in the flower of her age, and took delight in the ornamentation of youth. The divine head, gazing upon her, first healed the sickness of her excessive elegance, addressing her thus: "Tell me," he said, "my daughter (for I will utter my words, and I will not change the allocution of that holy tongue), if ^A some painter, most skilled in his art, should accurately depict an image according to the laws of art, and should set it forth to be seen by those who wish to see it, and another person, unskilled in the art, should come along, fashioning at his whim what he might wish to paint; and then, finding fault with that artistic painting, should add longer lines with eyebrows and eyelashes, and should render the countenance fairer, and should induce a red color upon the cheeks: do you think the former painter would not be incensed, as if a grave injury had been done to his art, and by additions which were not needed, imposed by an ignorant hand? Therefore," he said, "believe that the Creator of all things, the molder and painter of our nature, is deservedly indignant that you argue against that immense wisdom with ignorance. For you would not be pouring on red or white or black color if you did not think that this addition was needed. Do not corrupt the image of God, nor endeavor to add that which He did not wisely bestow; nor devise an adulterous beauty, which both corrupts the chaste and sets snares for those who look." The woman, who was most excellent, heard these things, and was immediately taken by the net of Peter, and cast herself at his feet, and begging, asked that her health be restored to her eye. But he said that he was a man, and endowed with the same nature as she; that he bore besides a heavy burden of sins, and for that reason had no confidence before God. And when his mother wept ^B and implored, and affirmed that she would not leave unless she obtained health, he said that God was the curator of these things, and that He always grants to the faithful what they ask; accordingly, "He will grant it now also," he said, "not bestowing favor upon me, but considering your faith; wherefore if you have this whole and sincere, and free from all doubt, bidding farewell both to doctors and to drugs, accept this remedy given divinely." Having said these things, he laid his hand upon her eye, and the sign of the cross being expressed as a saving sign, he drove away the disease. Then, having returned home, the medication having been washed away, and all adventitious finery being cast aside, she instituted her life according to the laws prescribed by the physician, neither putting on variegated clothing, nor adorning herself with gold: and these things occurred when she was very young, being in the twenty-third year of her age, and not yet having become a mother.'

V. She did indeed become a mother through divine virtue and the prayers of the most holy ascetic Macedonius, which Theodoret relates thus, after thirteen years of marriage. 'She had not yet received children,' he says, 'naturally, of course, being prohibited by nature from bearing fruit; which matter did not indeed affect her badly, for being instructed in divine things she believed that this was expedient: but my father was vehemently distressed by the childlessness, and wandering everywhere he prayed to the servants of God, that they might ask children for him from God. Others therefore both promised that they would pray, and exhorted him to acquiesce in the nod of God. But the divine man and the petitioner...

^A agreed clearly, and he promised that he would receive one son from the Author of all things. Three years later, when the promise had not yet met with its outcome, the father returned again, asking for what had been promised. But he ordered the wife to be sent to him. And when the mother was present, the divine man told her that he would ask and she would receive a son: but that this son must be returned to the Donor. And when the mother replied that the safety of her soul and deliverance from hell was in her prayers: "Furthermore," he said, "the munificent Giver will also give a son; for to those who seek sincerely, he dispenses benefits twofold." Returning thence and bringing back the benediction of the promise, in the fourth month after he had promised, she conceives and carries in her womb, and returns to the man of God, showing him the bundles of the seeds of his blessing.

Nor did the singular favor of God cease here. For the mother, having recently given birth, had been extinguished by a lethal disease, and a great incitement and example for virtue would have perished for Theodoret, had she not recovered her health through the prayers of the same Peter by which she had been brought to God. Theodoret describes the miracle thus: ‹ "My mother was lying in bed after childbirth, the doctors, as they say, despairing, her household mourning, and awaiting her passing, her eyes closed, struggling with a great fever, recognizing none of her family." But as he arrived, he who bore the apostolic name and grace, and said, "Peace be to you, daughter" (for this was his salutation), it is said that she immediately unbarred her eyelids, and looked at him with fixed eyes, and sought the fruit of his blessing. After the choir of women wailed (for joy of spirit mixed with sorrow had expressed that cry), the divine man commanded that they should all pray with him. For he said that in this way Tabitha had received health, with the widows weeping, and the great Peter offering their tears to God. They prayed as he had commanded, and they obtained what he had foretold. For once the prayer was finished, the disease also found an end, and sweat, flowing soon from everywhere, extinguished that heat. ›

VI. The holy man's prayers restrained the offspring conceived by a miracle, lest it be poured out prematurely. For ‹ "in the fifth month after conception," says Theodoret, "the mother came into the danger of abortion, and sent again, because the disease forbade her to go, to her new Elisha, and suggests that she had not wished to become a mother, and at the same time recalls to his memory the things promised. But he, having caught sight of her coming from afar, both recognized her and signified the cause. For at night the Lord had indicated to him both the disease and the salvation. Having therefore taken his staff, he left, leaning upon it, and having entered the house, and having given the salutation of peace, as he was wont: 'Be of good mind,' he said, 'and do not fear: for he who gave will not take away the gift, unless you violate the pacts entered into. You promised, namely, that you would return that which will be given, and would consecrate it to divine ^B obedience.' 'So also do I,' says the mother, 'wish and desire to obey. For I would prefer a premature birth to the alien upbringing of a son.' 'Drink therefore,' says the divine man, 'this water, and you will feel divine assistance.' She drank as he had commanded, and the danger of abortion went away." ›

VII. And this was the reason why, when he was born, he received the name Theodoret, as if given by God to his parents, and in turn offered by his parents to God, to whom he would serve in a monastery, wherever it would first be permitted by his age: for this had been the vow of the supplicant parents, this the law of the praying saints.

VIII. After he had grown up, Macedonius recalled this condition of his birth to Theodoret, and at the same time the necessity of establishing his life more holily. ‹ "With many labors," he would say, "my son, were you born; and I myself have spent many nights, asking this one thing from God, that your parents might become this which they were called when you were born. Therefore, lead a life worthy of your labors. Before your birth you were consecrated by promises. But those things which have been offered to God are to be held in veneration by all, and not to be handled by the common crowd: wherefore it is necessary that you do not admit depraved motions of the spirit; but to do, and to speak, and to think only those things which please God, the legislator of virtue." ›

Theodoret himself was more than once released from disease by a miracle through the girdle of the same Peter. ‹ "Of this, too," he says, "just as the garments of the most blessed Paul used to work wonders. For his girdle, divided in two—for it was wide and long, woven from thick ^C linen—with one part he girded his own loins, the other my own. My mother, often placing this on me when I was sick, and often also on my father, drove off the disease, and she herself also very often used the same remedy for health." ›

And this was the reason why his pious mother was accustomed to bring the infant to his spiritual Father, so that from him from whom she herself had received life of soul and body, by him a blessing might be imparted to her offspring growing day by day. That admirable man lived not far from Antioch in a tomb, and the good old man was accustomed to embrace the infant in his bosom, and to treat him with gifts suitable to his age, by which he might win him over to himself and to piety.

The same was provided by another monk of stupendous holiness, that Aphraates, who, having once gone out of his cell, publicly objected to the Emperor Valens the heresy and the persecution of the Church of Christ. For he would admit the little child ^D that came to him into his cell, and having bestowed his blessing, would teach him by example both to despise human things, and to fear nothing, not even supreme power, when the cause of Christ seemed to be at stake; with the admiration of other saints alike, as his age allowed, he was inflamed with words to lead a life different from the common one, to be acted upon with an unusual spirit.

By so many prodigies, and by so many examples of the saints, the divine providence seemed to be preluding that it would show something admirable in Theodoret, and the first…

rudiments of one following God promised an example of absolute sanctity; nor did the outcome perhaps disappoint it, nor did the end respond ill to the beginnings I have mentioned. But, what is astonishing, the power of providence exerted itself in complex and hidden ways, and Theodoret arrived through these devious windings at the place to which he was being led by the predestination of God.

CAP. II.

I. Theodoret is handed over to a monastery to be instructed in piety and letters. II. Character and talent. III. The teachers he followed. IV. Association and association with Nestorius and John. V. He is made a lector by Porphyrius. VI. Deacon by Alexander. VII. Hatred toward the heretics of his time. VIII. He becomes bishop of the Church of Cyrrhus. IX. The lamentable state of the region. X. Yet there were noble monks in it. XI. Who were occupying the major sees at that time.

From the year of Christ 393 to 410.

I. Theodoret, hardly seven years old, was handed over to a monastery, to be instructed not only in the institutes of the religious life, but in letters as well. In both genres he made such progress that, although he had inherited a very ample estate upon the death of his parents, he distributed his paternal wealth to the poor, and admirably cultivated his mind in almost all sacred and profane sciences. Hence he gathered no mediocre reputation, whether for sanctity or erudition, throughout the whole East; and in this, as it were, apprenticeship, he was training his mind for the greatest things, worthy of his innate excellence.

II. For he had by nature a great and lofty spirit, and therefore he despised all human things, save for fame; he was bold to attempt and endure all things, when a pretext of piety was held out; he was prodigal of money, but toward the poor and for public expenses; he was most tenacious of his purpose, and almost stubborn; incredibly desirous of friendships, and, once he had established them, he maintained them constantly.

III. Equal to his spirit was his talent, namely capacious and apt for all branches of learning, avid for knowledge, and joined to a memory and a faculty of speaking that was almost prodigious. Beyond these, he chose teachers to follow who were at that time the most celebrated in the whole world: Theodore for science, Chrysostom for eloquence, each an ornament of Antioch, and, as was the opinion then, lights of his own age. But he expressed both in himself in such a way that, unfortunately, he later defended the errors of Theodore with the eloquence of Chrysostom, the more perniciously the more admirably he defended them.

IV. At first, he inhabited no other monastery than that which was called Saint Euprepius, located near Antioch. For he did not exert himself far from his mother, who herself also professed the monastic life, since he was the only consolation of his parent, and was making her soul and, in turn, he was being moved by her, toward grasping the perfection of piety.

V. But it happened by chance that at that time Nestorius and John were living in the monastery, one of whom later presided over the Church of Constantinople, the other over the Church of Antioch. Both seemed to study piety, and perhaps in reality they did study it; but it mattered greatly at that time to seem pious, when the reward of such an opinion was to preside over a whole huge diocese, and for monks to become patriarchs. With these two, Theodoret had a close necessity, which took its origin from the association of the religious life, gaining increase from common studies, that is, from the closest bonds of great souls; but when it was later confirmed by other causes, it brought great evil to the East and to the whole Christian world, provoked by the wickedness of one and the other.

VI. At that time Porphyrius governed the Church of Antioch, who after the death of Flavian had intruded himself into the holy place by evil arts. He is nevertheless praised by Theodoret for his kindness and prudence, and this praise was a certain testimony of a grateful mind: for he was created a lector by him when he was about twenty years of age.

VII. To Porphyrius succeeded a man far better, Alexander, as one who excelled much in the discipline of a severe life, pursuit of wisdom, voluntary poverty, eloquence, and many other gifts of the Holy Spirit. He seems to have ordained Theodoret a deacon because of his reputation for both virtue and learning, when he had already attained the legitimate age.

VIII. Endowed with this dignity, he began to treat of matters of faith in public assemblies with such great fame for eloquence, erudition, and sanctity, that it increased most of all because, although he had been inscribed into the clergy, he nevertheless remitted nothing of the rigor of ascetic discipline, nor did he depart from the monastery before he was created bishop; although not even then did he cease to live an ascetic life.

IX. The heretics who were residing in Antioch at that time feared him when he debated—the Arians, the Macedonians, but before others the Apollinarists—for the reason that he thought they were to be attacked all the more vehemently as he feared a greater danger to the faith from them. Nor was that fear imprudent: for they were not numbered as a few, nor from the common people alone, but many from among the nobles, who, as they flourished in wealth and dazzled the eyes of the populace with the appearance of piety and doctrine, were handing down, in secret but numerous meetings, the heresy concerning the divine Word, that He acted in the role of the human mind in Christ. That novelty, as happens, was received more easily by men whom hope in the powerful, religion in the pious, and admiration in the learned reconciled. It also sweetly enticed minds, full of luminous

^A expressions regarding Christ, and an explanation of the mystery of the divine incarnation nearly subject to the senses. For the example of a human being was employed, which everyone might provide for himself, as if the Word in Christ were what the soul is in us: from which even the common people themselves seemed to understand that stupendous mystery, by which the Word was made flesh ª.

Furthermore, the Apollinarian heresy was a scion of the Arian, not because it denied that the Word was consubstantial (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father, but because it asserted that He was in Christ in place of a soul—not indeed that which feels, as it seemed to the Arians, but that which understands, and which is called the mind. Nothing, regarding outward appearance, was more plausible to the unlearned crowd than this opinion, and nothing more convenient for explaining that which the Church believes concerning the hypostasis of one of two natures, concerning Mary the Theotokos, and concerning God having suffered in the flesh.

By the strength of his intellect, Theodoret saw the danger imminent to the faith from this, and in order to dispel it, he strove so keenly toward this object with his great mind, and so turned over in his thought all the parts and subtleties of the heresy—which he hated most bitterly—that he suffered that which eyes severely affected are wont to suffer: for he seemed to himself to see the whole heresy in reality, wherever even the slightest appearance or shadow of it might occur.

X. Meanwhile, it happened that the Church of Cyrus was deprived of a shepherd. Theodotus, the prelate of the East (who had succeeded Alexander), in order to provide for the widowed [church], thought that no one should be appointed other than Theodoret, since he was almost the only one equal to the task of routing the heretics, who, on account of the grave neglect of the bishop Isidore in his old age, were miserably vexing this church. Therefore, he ordains him, though struggling and loving the study of leisure, and sends him to Cyrus, so that he might cultivate the field, which he himself says is most foul with briars and tares. ^B

XI. Cyrus is situated in that part of Augusta Euphratesia which inclines toward the west, and approaches closer to the sea. Neither the fame nor the size of the city responds to the name, which it is said to have received from Cyrus its founder. For how could it, when it is devoid of ports and is the head of a region which, besides the fact that it extends scarcely forty miles in length and no more in width, has many large mountains, partly entirely bare, partly planted with fruitless trees? Yet, the Cyrestica region, wonderful to relate, contained eight hundred villages: to such a degree are their own homelands dear even to the miserable. Theodoret writes to Leo the Great that the pastoral care for so many churches had fallen to his lot. Almost everyone used the Syrian language; a few, even in the city, had known Greek refinements. Many villages were occupied by 143 heretics of manifold kinds, but the Marcionites [formed] the greatest part. These hid their impiety, by which they worshipped a brazen serpent, in the remote hiding places of the mountains, being Christians only in name, and in all other things similar to the Gentiles. The harshness of the region, the negligence of the shepherds, and their own poverty had rendered them inaccessible until this time.

XII. And such was the state of the Cyrestica province when Theodoret arrived; although he was consoled in his coming by the fact that, at that time, a by no means ordinary multitude of anchorites who were truly admirable existed in the desert places of the East. As he himself narrates, Maris, Jacobus, Lymnaeus, Joannes, Moyses, Antiochus, Antonius, Polychronius, Damianus, Asclepius, and many other examples—or rather, portents—of religious exercise, brought renown to the Cyrenian region. He often visited these mortal angels, and they received the incoming prelate with incredible reverence and love. With great confidence they asked of him spiritual benefits, which they might either purchase or repay with their prayers. Among these, the request of Maris is notable, which, on account of the unusual nature of the deed, it is pleasing to record, and indeed in the very words of Theodoret: ‹ He was ninety years old and wore haircloth garments, sustaining his life with bread and a little salt. But when he was held by a long-standing desire to see the spiritual and mystical sacrifice, he had asked that an offering of the divine gift might take place there. I, however, willingly complied and ordered the sacred vessels to be brought; for the place was not far off; and using the hands of the deacons as an altar, I offered the mystical and divine and salutary sacrifice. He, moreover, refreshed with spiritual pleasure, imagined that he was seeing heaven itself. ›

XIII. Theodoret approached the Church placed in that state in the year of Christ four hundred and twenty; at which time Boniface governed the Roman Church; Cyril the Alexandrian; Theodotus, the one who ordained Theodoret, the Antiochian; Atticus the Constantinopolitan, whom Sisinnius succeeded, the predecessor of Nestorius; Praylius the Hierosolymitan, the successor of John. Never perhaps were so many illustrious prelates in charge of the greatest sees at the same time. Cyril, indeed, to say nothing of the other three, was reputed to be the most learned of all in the Eastern Empire at that time, and he sustained the dignity and primacy of his own see, which he had already held for the eighth year, by his own fame and merits.

CAP. III.

From the year of Christ 411 to 427.

I. How the prelate held his form of life, and what he handed down to his clergy to be observed, he narrates in a letter to Nomus. ‹ Although against my will, he says, ordained

I have lived for twenty-five years in such a way that I have neither been summoned to court by anyone, nor have I accused anyone myself. None of the most religious clerics who have been under me have frequented the ^A tribunals during all these years. I have not received an obol or a garment from anyone; none of my household has ever accepted even a single loaf of bread or an egg: except for the rags with which I am clothed, I have wished to possess nothing. ›

II. That he writes he was ordained against his will, I might indeed easily believe, because of the man’s modesty: but perhaps a more suspicious person might seize from that the occasion to ask what, after all, is this thing that Theodoret fled from in the bishopric of Cyrrhus? Was it that he was a bishop? Was it that he was a Cyrrhine? It favors that doubt that he repeatedly boasts that he does not burn with a desire for a greater see: for that kind of boasting is usually believed to be either a studious dissimulation of a hidden vice, or even an open confession: for as are the customs of men, just as each person labors under greater mendacity and ambition, when he least of all should, so he boasts more importunately of being a lover of truth and a contemner of glory. Moreover, someone might interpret it in a more unfavorable light, because he relates that he taught at Antioch for six years under Theodotus, for thirteen under John, and for seven under Domnus. Might he not, from that very fact, be held guilty by his own confession, either of a small lie—which one would prefer to think—or of a desire for the audience of the Antiochians more ambitious than befits a bishop concerned for his own see? The latter is indeed more credible, whether he did it out of love for his country, which he frequently visited when it was only two days’ journey distant from Cyrrhus, or whether he was weary of his own not very noble Church, in which few had a taste for the delicacies of Greek learning; or whether, finally, he longed for the applause of foreign cities. For what outstanding orator does not love fame? Or what reputation, if it is confined at home, ever earns the name of fame? Certainly, he was frequent not only in Antioch, but also in Beroea, and he delivered sermons which the clerics heard with great pleasure and which he himself poured forth most willingly: this, what vanity of the human mind, he left testified regarding the Beroeans. For when he had brought forward four reasons why a mutual love existed between him and the Beroeans, ^B ‹ If you wish, he says, I will tell you a fifth: the connection that the tongue has to the ears; for the one produces words, and the others receive them: we have this same thing with you; for you listen to our sermons with pleasure, and I most willingly pour out this small drop into you. ›

III. But these are faults of humanity rather than of will, so that they can easily be pardoned in exceptional men, because they easily creep in amidst applause; thus, they did not hinder him from maintaining the person of a prelate according to his dignity. For he seems to have reflected in himself the form that the Apostle prescribes to Timothy and Titus, having expressed it in every way, but above all those things by which Paul forbids a prelate of the Church to be litigious, greedy for base gain, and a lover of money, but rather sober, chaste, and a teacher, to teach the truth to the peoples entrusted to him, to kindly take pity on those who wander, and to keep peace with all.

IV. How much he abhorred litigation and the greed for gain and riches has already been shown; with what sobriety he lived, and with what chastity—which is the companion of sobriety—even if he avoided saying it openly, he nonetheless sufficiently hinted at it, because when he had written of Abraham, who after having become an anchorite was made prelate of the Church of Carrhae, he had remitted nothing of the rigor of ascetic discipline: ‹ I, he says, having marveled at this, that he did not change his life when he had changed his station in life, nor followed a softer manner of living in the episcopacy, but added ascetic labors to it, I recounted him in the history of the monks, and did not separate him from the order he had loved, as one who also seeks this blessing. › By which words he showed himself to be an imitator of Abraham. And indeed, when he had sometimes come to the assembly of the holy ascetics, nothing was set before him but what they were accustomed to have, namely, lentils soaked for food, and water for drink. Add that he distributed his own quite ample paternal wealth to the poor, that he clothed himself in rags rather than in garments, that ^C he constantly and almost importunately praised, among the holy things, the contempt for things pertaining to the body, by which act he can be seen to have spoken from the affection of his mind, as it happens, and to have depicted himself, as it were, in the colors of others.

V. As soon as he arrived at the see, he applied himself with tireless zeal to ^D purifying the parish from heretics; with what labors and with what fruit, he explains to Nomus. ‹ Eight villages corrupted by the heresy of Marcion, he says, together with the neighboring places, I led, though they were unwilling, to the truth: another village filled with Eunomians, and another with Arians, I illuminated with the light of divine knowledge; and by the grace of God, no darnel of heresy is left among us. And indeed, I did not accomplish these things without dangers; but with blood frequently shed, often stoned by them, and driven to the very gates of the underworld. › In another place he reports ten thousand Marcionites brought by him to baptism: so great was the reward of the labor, and so great the crown of one fighting even unto blood.

VI. Nor is it a wonder that fruit could be gathered with such a result by a strenuous cultivator, to whom the holy workers of miracles, and the celestials themselves, and especially John the Baptist, were collaborating. He himself narrates the matter where he writes of James the Wonder-worker. ‹ I asked him, he says, most earnestly, that he would pray to the God of the universe, for me...

that he might render the harvest free from weeds, and clear of the seeds of the heretics. For the error of the execrable Marcion, which had greatly prevailed, was weighing heavily upon me. But he, to my entreaty, said: "You have no need of me, nor of any other intercessor before God; you have John at the summit, the voice of the Word, the forerunner of the Lord, who is ever interceding for this on your behalf." ›

^B How great was the power of such prayers to restrain the demon, lest through the envy by which he was consumed he should hinder the worker, God showed to Theodoret. ‹ There came at one time, he says, by night a certain destructive demon, and speaking in a Syrian voice: "Why, hey you, do you wage war with Marcion? Why finally have you undertaken this struggle with him? What trouble has he caused you? Cease to war, lay aside your enmities, or by experience you will learn how great a good is quiet. For know that I would long ago have struck you down, had I not seen the choir of martyrs with James guarding you." I heard these things, and to one of my companions, who was sleeping nearby, I said: "Do you hear what is being said?" And he said: "I heard it all; and when it pleased me to rise, that I might look around and learn who was speaking, I refrained for your sake, because I thought you were sleeping." So we both arose, and looking about, we heard neither the movement nor the voice of anyone. Furthermore, others of the household had heard those words with us. I understood, therefore, that by the choir of martyrs he meant the oil-flask, which, containing the blessing collected from many martyrs, was suspended by my bed: moreover, beneath my head was the old garment of the great James, which was stronger for me than any adamant wall. ›

^C 147 VII. While God was thus favoring his undertakings, Theodoret in turn, mindful of the divine law, showed constant presence to his parish. For although he frequently held sermons at Antioch, whenever he arrived, he denies that he ever came without being summoned by official mandate to synods, from which it was a sin to be absent. ‹ Let your greatness know (he is addressing Nomus), that neither in the time of the most blessed and holy Theodotus, nor under John of blessed memory, nor under the most holy bishop, Lord Domnus, did I enter Antioch of my own accord, but I barely obeyed when called five or six times. I obeyed, however, ^D that I might follow the ecclesiastical canon, which orders that he who, being summoned to a synod, is unwilling to be present, be held guilty. Truly, to see how these things fit aptly with what precedes and even follows, is not for a man who is merely observant. ›

VIII. He also provided for the temporal goods of his Cyrenians. ‹ I erected public porticos, he says, from ecclesiastical revenues, I built two very large bridges, I took charge of public baths, and when the city was lacking water from the flowing river that runs by, I constructed an aqueduct and filled the city with water. ›

Moreover, he also dealt with Pulcheria Augusta by letters concerning the relieving of burdens, tearfully setting forth the miserable state of the city, upon which ‹ so heavy a burden lay, that many estates were deserted by their farmers, many even completely abandoned by their proprietors, and yet for these, the most unhappy decurions were nevertheless dunned, who, not able to bear the exaction, in part begged, and in part took themselves off by flight. ›

What of the fact that for the suffering city he procured a physician, of whom it was in need, and many other things of this kind, which it is tedious to recount, with an admirably liberal spirit, himself needy, that others might abound.

IX. Nor indeed was the beneficence of Theodoret content with the borders of Cyrrhus and the measure of his own means: but he extended himself more widely, and those of other regions in need, whom he could not help with his own, he aided with the resources of friends: the letters are witnesses, in which he was sometimes compelled to confess that he had lavished upon the poor the riches which he had either received from his parents, which were very ample, or which the Church of Cyrrhus possessed, which were not mediocre, and he vehemently incited his friends by letter that they should do the same; which we will narrate in its own time.

X. Such were the duties of a good man, these of one who was at once prudent and a seeker of charity. As he knew each one, whether famous for the reputation of his holiness, or noble in doctrine, or powerful in authority, so he sought his friendship: for what is more useful in every part of life? He cherished first of all, as a father, Acacius of Beroea, and him he not only praised as an apostolic man, but even followed in his pressed 148 footprints as a leader of life. He likewise cherished John of Antioch, both because of the dignity of the see which he held, and that he might love him in return as one who loved him, and might pay back the cultivation with his own immense praises. He similarly cherished Andrew of Samosata, a man famous throughout the entire East, who wrote objections against the chapters of Cyril in the name of the Orientals. Moreover, at Constantinople he sought the friendship of many, even of those in power, but mostly of those who favored Nestorius, of which kind were Antiochus the praetorian prefect and consul, Irenaeus the count, and many others besides.

But he wished above all to be seen as linked by close ties with all the most holy monks, and to demonstrate this, he committed to memory the admirable struggles not only of the departed, with whom he had associated familiarly, but also of the living: and this is the *Religiosa Historia*, to which he gave the name *Philotheus*.

He consoled the absence of friends, whom he had left behind on departing from Antioch, with frequent salutations by letter, and that especially in the manner of the people after the solemn days, whether of the birth or the resurrection of Christ. Hence

so many festal epistles are still preserved, which, even though they be very brief, as befits such salutations, nothing more urbane, elegant, or even more pious can be found. ^A

XI. He was affected by the misfortunes of these friends as if they were his own, the mark of a man exceptionally kind; this was the reason that he frequently wrote letters of consolation, worthy of a bishop, yet not void of human feeling. How could anything be more humane than these words to Alexandra, a most noble lady: "If I were to consider only nature regarding the misfortune that has befallen you, I myself would be in need of comforters, not only because I consider that which is yours to be my own, both in joys and in whatever else may come, but also because I dearly loved that admirable and justly praiseworthy man," etc.

XII. He cultivated with all neighboring bishops not only humanity, but also Christian charity. In the province of Euphratesia, of which the Cyrestica is a part, there were at that time, as far as I know, twelve cities besides Cyrus; epistles written to the prelates of many of them are currently preserved, all of them friendly and full of the spirit of charity. They are indeed preserved to Alexander, the primate of Hierapolis, to Andreas of Samosata, John of Germanicia, Theodoret of Zeugma, and Sabinianus of Perrha; nor is there any doubt that there were others, for instance the heads of Dolichie, Europus, the Urimoi, Neocaesarea, Sergiopolis, Sura, and Macrianopolis: for there are many epistles not inscribed with the name of the city to whose bishop they were sent.

Nor did he limit his friendship to the borders of his own province, but extended it to the neighbors as well. 149 Euphratesia Augusta is bordered on the east by Osrhoene; on the south by Phoenicia Libani and Syria Prima; on the west by Cilicia Secunda; on the north by Armenia. The capital of Osrhoene was Edessa; of Syria Prima and the whole Orient, Antioch; of Cilicia, Anazarbus; of Armenia Secunda, Melitene; of Armenia Prima, Sebaste. He wrote frequently to the bishops of each of these, and instilled such love for himself in everyone through his letters that from this there subsequently arose the accusations he suffered, if not as the cause, at least as the occasion.

XIII. One could argue that he might have written something as early as the first years of his episcopate, given the man's singular erudition and active genius; but the timing forbids such a supposition; for he published his first work around the year 425. Therefore, he spent the first five years in his own Cyrestica cultivating true piety and defeating the heretics who then flourished, the Arians, Macedonians, and Apollinarists. These he first attacked with sermons, and later with books, which, so that they might be more easily read by everyone, he composed in the manner of dialogues: he refuted the Arians, or rather the Eunomians—who were also called Anomoeans—with two, and the Apollinarians with two.

He wrote also commentaries on the Canticles, not those which are kept in published books: for they are supposititious; but others, which we shall show to have perished in the censorship. He wrote likewise on Daniel and other prophets, whether those called major or those called minor. And that was the apprenticeship of the author, ^B who has published more than any of the Greeks, besides Chrysostom and Cyril, if one is to judge by the works that have reached us.

But that praiseworthy and most useful labor against the heretical Arians and Apollinarists harmed the author, and the whole Church, not in itself—for what could be more beneficial?—but on account of an unhappy circumstance. For since Theodoret, in unraveling the wiles of Apollinaris and the cognate sophistries of other heretics, suffered that by which men are wont to be vehemently affected—he imagined the forms of this heresy, the more fallacious as they were the more hateful—and, with the love of faith and hatred of error striving together, he so deeply impressed them upon his mind that he later seemed to perceive the heresy himself, in whatever books he encountered words easily bent to a prejudiced meaning. These things, as we have said, the more briefly, the more obscurely perhaps, the subsequent outcome of events will declare.

CAP. IV.

I. Nestorius is placed over the Church of Constantinople. II. A friend of Theodoret. III. He had learned the heresy from Theodore of Mopsuestia, to whom he gave his name. IV. He strives to spread it everywhere. V. Saint Cyril resists. VI. St. Celestine condemns him with the author at Rome in a council of the West. VII. Cyril in the Council of Egypt, whence he sends twelve anathemas to Nestorius, with his own and apostolic letters. VIII. Theodoret, at the request of Nestorius, refutes the anathemas. IX. He falls into heresy. X. The cause of the fall. XI. An epistle to the monasteries injurious to Cyril. XII. Gennadius is thereby incited against Cyril.

* From the year of Christ 428 to 431.

I. Theodoret had already passed nearly eight years in his episcopate, when, upon the death of Sisinnius, bishop of the royal city, and the clergy being divided into parties while deliberating on a successor, Emperor Theodosius, in order to settle the dispute, believed that Nestorius should be summoned from Antioch and placed over the Church of Constantinople.

II. He was celebrated for his eloquence and his conduct of life, and it seemed he would be not unlike Chrysostom himself, who had once been summoned from Antioch: wherefore, having been desired by the wishes of all, except the clergy and monks, he came to Constantinople, and was ordained on the tenth day of April of the year 428.

III. He had lived for several years with Theodoret in

the monastery of Saint Euprepius near Antioch, and with him he was most closely joined, not only in companionship, but also in a communion of studies and doctrine: for both had had as their common teacher the famous Theodore, in books and sermons, whose writings they always enjoyed, and whose conversation they frequently partook of whenever he came to Antioch at the appointed times of the synods. There, on account of the incredible opinion held of him by all, he was detained for some time, in order to satisfy the eagerness of his listeners. Hence arose the close bond between Nestorius and Theodoret. Although the necessity for friendship between Theodoret and Nestorius was so great, yet the character and inclination of the mind of each were not the same: Theodoret had a sincere mind, Nestorius a deceitful one; Theodoret sought the thing of piety itself, Nestorius its appearance: the former served his friends almost as though they were his masters; the latter treated them as if they were his slaves. To put it in a word, Theodoret wished to be what Nestorius wished to seem.

IV. A certain false rumor is reported regarding Nestorius, that when he was summoned to Constantinople and passed through Cilicia, where Mopsuestia is, he met Theodore, the bishop of Mopsuestia, truly an old man, having completed almost thirty-six years of his episcopate; and that he discussed with him plans for the heresy which both had long harbored in their hearts, and which Theodore had ordered, in writing—but so far suppressed—to be opened according to the time and place, namely, when Nestorius had attained such power and authority in the minds of the princes as was necessary to attempt so bold a crime. Although this is handed down by Evagrius, otherwise a noble author, it nevertheless conflicts with the calculation of time: for Theodore had reached his final day before there was any thought of appointing Nestorius to the Church of Constantinople. For no thought of it was had until, after the death of Sisinnius, the clergy of the royal city was divided into parties, with some wishing for one bishop and others for another. Yet Sisinnius died on the 24th of December, in the year 427, in which year the death of Theodore occurred. How, therefore, could Nestorius, who did not reach Constantinople via Cilicia until the month of March of the year 428, have met with Theodore?

Furthermore, the heresy of Theodore and Nestorius was injurious beyond measure to Christ, to the Virgin Mary, and to the whole human race: for it begrudged Christ his divinity, the Virgin the name of Theotokos, and men the hope of salvation. For he asserted that Christ was not God in reality, but a mere man, united to God the Word by a relation only. From which it follows that neither could the blessed Virgin be said to have brought forth God, nor could men hope for salvation, as that which cannot be expected from a man. As soon as he conveniently could, Nestorius spread such impiety—by sermons, by conversations, and by malicious arts—not only in the royal city, but effectively not only in the East, but even in the city of Rome, to which he transmitted his discourses.

V. But after the loathsome enemy of Christ stirred up the whole world by the heresy he had proclaimed, and having been warned once and again by Saint Cyril, he not only did not cease from his impiety, but dared to strengthen it more confidently, partly by the force and power at Constantinople, partly by the deceits at Rome: the matter was brought to the apostolic see by letters, both from Cyril, who at once complained and accused, and from Nestorius, who, by sending discourses through Antiochus, an illustrious man, attempted to prove his own faith. ^B

VI. The case was agitated in the Roman council, with Saint Celestine presiding, and a sentence was passed by which the heretic was ordered, unless he preferred to be deposed within ten days of the notice, to revoke his error and to subscribe to the chapters written by Cyril: Cyril, the bishop of the first see after the Roman, was also ordered to fulfill the duties of Celestine in this business, and to execute the sentence according to the prescription of the canons.

VII. That Cyril might accomplish this, he gathered a synod from all of Egypt, and from there sent four bishops to Nestorius, along with the letters of the supreme pontiff, his own, and also twelve chapters or ^C anathemas, in which, by the mandate of the supreme pontiff, he had embraced the Catholic truth opposed to the blasphemies of Nestorius, to which Nestorius was to consent in writing if he wished to appear Catholic and to remain in his see.

But Cyril, before holding the synod and sending those bishops to Constantinople, had ordered Possidonius, a deacon of his own Church, who had brought the letters of the supreme pontiff from Rome, to proceed to Jerusalem and Antioch, and to deliver the letters of Celestine to the prelates of both cities. By these they were informed by the supreme pontiff of the sentence passed against Nestorius, and at the same time were drawn away from the parties that friendship might have urged them to support: they were also bound to defend the cause of the faith, partly by fear, lest something similar happen to themselves; partly by a sense of honor, as those who were called into the society of a business most important at that time.

At the time when the deacon of Cyril came to Antioch, the autumnal synod had recently finished, ^D and Theodoret happened to remain there with five others: Archelaus of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Apringius of Chalcis, Heliades of Zeugma, Meletius of Neocaesarea, and Macarius of Laodicea, the bishops with whom, having deliberated more maturely on the matter, it was decided that, in the name of John, they should write to Nestorius, so that by the confession of the *Theotokos* he might avert the storm impending over his head. Furthermore, he will not be a vain conjecturer who thinks that the letter was written by Theodoret. For it is said to have been dictated according to his counsel, and it carries his style, and it is akin to [index: entries preserved]

^A another, in which the same line of argument regarding the Virgin Theotokos is treated, and which seems to have the same author as almost all the others contained in the second part of the Council of Ephesus, some of which, however, are known to have been written by Theodoret.

VIII. Nestorius, as he was through pride impatient of repentance and even of admonition, spurned the friendly counsels of the Orientals, and he also spurned the authority of the apostolic see, which the Egyptian legates had brought upon arriving at Constantinople: for he had cleverly rendered void the denunciation contained in the letters of both the supreme pontiff Celestine and Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria. For he had managed through his machinations that the emperor Theodosius should summon a general council to be held at Ephesus, and that he should take care, by a summoning decree, that nothing meanwhile be attempted by either side; but that the entire cause should be deferred to the bishops duly gathered.

153 The wily heretic, before the matter which he had learned of by letter from John could be made known in the royal city, had intercepted the sanction through the aid of courtiers corrupted by his gold, and with that art had made a mockery of the supreme pontiff's sentence and the synodical chapters of Cyril, with his own twelve propositions. He dared—such was the man's impudence—given the letters to the holy Celestine, to intimate not obscurely: "It has pleased the most pious ^B emperors, with the Lord's help, to summon the council of the whole world inexcusably for the investigation of other ecclesiastical matters: for I do not consider that the doubt about the words will have a difficult investigation, nor that it will be an impediment to the discussion of the divinity of the Lord Jesus."

But when he understood that Cyril's chapters had been scattered throughout the city, along with the letters of the Roman and Egyptian synods, and that great conversions of spirit were being effected thereby even at court, and that he had not achieved by his two sermons what he was aiming at, he first refuted Cyril's anathemas in the royal city itself with contrary anathemas. Then, having sent copies of the synodical letters to Antioch, he asked John to ensure that the twelve chapters prescribed by Cyril were argued against by two men of his council, Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Andrew of Samosata, as if they contained the impiety of Apollinaris. Both obeyed John’s mandate; yet one differently than the other, namely Theodoret more bitterly, Andrew more mildly: for the former did not abstain from insults and even calumnies, while the latter only objected to expressions which he thought were uttered inconsiderately. Theodoret attacked Cyril as if he were a heretic; Andrew, whom he acknowledged as a Catholic, he vexed almost against his will: and hence perhaps it came about that, at the time when they were to come to the council, which was to be a certain field of battle, the man of Cyrrhus flew there eager for the fight, while the Samosatenian feigned illness so as not to come to where there would be a necessity of impugning the truth. So it would be right to think of Andrew, if ^C method alone were held for the objections which he proposed against the chapters of the Orientals. But if we believe Anastasius the Sinaite, the duration of the business, in which his friends were in peril, later inflamed the man’s bile: wherefore, both to avenge Theodoret, whom he thought harmed by Cyril, and to defend his own earlier objections, he wrote virulent condemnations against Cyril’s response, a fragment of which is reported in the book of Anastasius, which is called *The Guide*.

IX. And this was the first fall of Theodoret: for while he was writing on behalf of his friend’s cause, he did not only 154 condemn Cyril’s chapters on account of the appearance of Apollinarian error, which happened to others of good standing as well; but he himself was swept away by a blind impulse into four errors, on account of which he was condemned by the fifth synod. For when he criticized the first anathema, he denied that the blessed Virgin gave birth to the Word made flesh; when he criticized the second, he denied that the natures in Christ are united ^D according to substance (*hypostasis*); when the fourth, he denied there was a single substance (*hypostasis*) of Christ; when the tenth, he denied that God could be called dead. Yet these four no Catholic could refuse to admit, unless he either wandered in the thick darkness of ignorance, or, because of a perverse affection of mind, wished to resist the truth: which of these would anyone have felt about Theodoret? And which would anyone have said was that of a Catholic?

X. Indeed, it was truly admirable—a man given by a singular gift of the Divine; whom miracles had led into the light; whose parent could not be a mother before she was a saint; whom men of astounding sanctity fostered in their bosom; who entered a monastery at seven years old; who was entirely in imitation of Chrysostom; whom Theodotus, the light of the East, instructed in ecclesiastical customs; whose eloquence Antioch, the other head of the Eastern empire, not only admired but was stunned by; who filled every part of an episcopal office; who baptized ten myriads of people in one vicinity; who taught the truth to infinite heretics, and watered the field entrusted to him by Christ not with sweat alone, but even with blood; whom God Himself showed to the most holy ascetic Jacob as a conqueror of heresy, only to have him unfortunately fall into heresy, with a friend who was rushing of his own accord dragging him down into misery. But this does not seem the only occasion of his ruin: a certain miserable concurrence of causes swept the man to the precipice. For he had by nature a lofty spirit, and a talent equal and preeminent to his spirit, with an equal force of eloquence. The loftiness of spirit made him look down on all human things except glory; the preeminence of talent made him fill his mind with sciences beyond measure, and as it were puff it up; the force of eloquence made him the miracle of the East, and caused him to believe, as is human, those who spoke to him. The custom and admiration of his masters increased this character: for he imbibed the morals of both along with their doctrine: from Theodore he learned to suspect few things;

from Chrysostom, to fear no one; and from both, to speak freely with everyone. The vice contracted from Theodore grew by the applause he received, while the excellence he had acquired from Chrysostom did not keep itself within bounds.

He had crushed heretics of every kind—Arians, Marcionites, Macedonians, Apollinarians, and the rest—in continuous battles. Great was the resulting glory of his name, and great his own confidence. He suffered what perpetual victors are accustomed to suffer: he desired to test his strength against the most noble opponents. His age fueled his ardor for fighting; for he had not much exceeded his fortieth year, a time when magnanimous souls are most deeply stirred by the love of glory. A most desirable opportunity presented itself to join battle with Cyril, the leader of many triumphs and the most learned man of almost the entire world, yet one who was vulnerable, as it seemed to him.

The cause of his bold venture was not only honorable—that of bringing aid to a struggling friend—but also religious: to oppose a man who was ostensibly defending the doctrines of Apollinaris. It was a noble thing to assist Nestorius, the prelate of the royal city, who was in favor at court, and at the same time to strike against Cyril, whose power, the greater it was due to the favor of the West, was the more odious to the East and more formidable to the emperors themselves. The command of the prelate pressed him: to obey him was pious, to resist him, unsafe. What else could it seem to a man so affected than that to argue against the anathemas was to provoke a battle that would have to be fought with the whole world looking on? For the emperor had summoned bishops from every part of the earth to a synod: it was a fine thing, in an assembly so celebrated, to display one’s eloquence, to make the most learned man in almost the whole Church guilty of heresy, to cast from his throne the bishop of the see that was first after the Roman, and to bring the legate of the supreme pontiff to heel. What more? It was seductive to be called, as he was wont to be in Antioch, a miracle of eloquence and a prodigy of learning. These things, which when taken separately can unsettle any steadfast man, when combined, drove the man who was his own admirer headlong into that state to which pride is wont to bring men who are equal even to the angels themselves.

^B That this is no vain conjecture regarding the cause is shown by the persistent impugning of the revealed truth, which is a certain indication of the pride of a wandering mind: for although Theodoret had the anathemas expounded to him by Cyril once, twice, and even thrice, he barely abandoned his adopted opinion about them many years later, if indeed he ever did abandon it, as will be seen later.

XI. Two other, no less clear indicators show that he desired to appear superior to all in learning and to assail the second prelate of the Church with the most shameful insults. For at the time he sent his refutation of the chapters to John of Antioch, ^A he sent also a letter to the monasteries, in which there was nothing ^B more insulting to Cyril, nothing more arrogant. He writes that the whole world is being stirred up, but some by battle, others by laughter; that those who bear the name of Catholics are fighting among themselves; that heretics are laughing at the battle of men consuming themselves in mutual dissensions; that the cause of these things is the chapters of the impious Cyril imported into the royal city; that they are not far removed from the heresy of Apollinaris, Arius, Eunomius, and Macedonius, or even from the madness of Valentinus, Manes, and Marcion. In the first, he asserts, the Word is changed into flesh, and the incarnation is made only in appearance—which is the delirium of Valentinus, Manes, and Marcion. In the second and third, he defends a hypostatic and physical union, which is the heresy of Apollinaris. In the fourth, that both sublime and humble words are attributed to one and the same Word, which is the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius. In the tenth, that God is said to have suffered and died, which is the madness of Arius and the detestable error of Eunomius. In the ninth, that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, and not from the Father alone, is being taught, which is another heresy of Apollinaris and Macedonius. He says that these are the offspring of the Egyptian, these are the plagues of souls, these are the monsters which it was right for those to whom the care of religion was committed to have strangled before they were brought forth; yet that they are being nurtured by those by whom they least of all should be, etc.

Furthermore, with these writings the faith of the monasteries was tried, not only in the royal city but also in the East and Egypt. For Theodoret wanted to use equal arms and equal arts of war against Cyril. Cyril had written a letter to the monks of Egypt regarding the error of Nestorius; he had seen to this being spread through the ministry of the ^C apocrisiaries in the royal city among the monasteries, and thence, as happens, throughout the whole city. He had also divulged his synodical letter with the chapters in the same city; from thence, through the aid of Acacius of Melitene, these writings had come to the East. Theodoret wished to stir up the same monasteries against Cyril, and with his authority, he exacerbated and nearly moved many holy men in every place against the defender of the Catholic faith.

XII. At that time, there was nothing holier in Constantinople than Gennadius, who, twenty-seven years later, succeeded Anatolius on the episcopal seat. Deceived by the refutations of the chapters, he himself wanted to write against the chapters: but into what curses did he finally not erupt? "Woe is me," he said, "because of my evils. Alas, alas, for from what other source can anyone in the present time take a beginning? Who will provide water for my head, and a fountain of tears for my eyes? And I will weep for this day and night, because his tongue has extended deceit, and not faith: he has been emboldened upon the earth. Truly, peace is a deception to sinners. For this reason," he says, "their pride has taken hold of them."

^A Nevertheless, this was done deliberately and slowly, with the delay of many days being intentional. The prelate of Antioch was acting so that, with the Fathers already gathered for a long time (the fifteenth day from the appointed time had elapsed), and weary of the delay, he might give them the opportunity to depose Nestorius, to which he was also cunningly impelling them, having sent ahead two metropolitans, as he was in the vicinity, who were to advise them to do what seemed necessary to be done, until he himself should arrive. By these means, the ambitious man hoped that he would preside over the council of the whole world, as he desired. For he was certain that, as soon as he arrived, he would exercise a sudden judgment, by which, before the legates of the Apostolic See could arrive through the stormy sea, he would depose Cyril of Alexandria, yet without restoring Nestorius, and thus he himself alone would remain powerful enough to moderate the council of the patriarchs; for the Bishop of Jerusalem was of no authority compared to the Antiochene. It was an audacious and violent crime, but not one that would be lacking in result, aided by the conspiracy of the counts Candidianus and Irenaeus, who were addicted to Nestorius, together with the Orientals.

III. Letters from the Antiochene having been brought by the two metropolitans, Cyril, according to custom, initiated the synod on the second day of the week. That day fell on the tenth of the Kalends of July, on which day, all things having been duly performed according to the prescription of the canons, Nestorius was deposed on account of heresy and contumacy.

IV. The matter having been heard, Count Irenaeus hurried as a messenger to the Orientals who were placed on the way: they flew like birds on the following Sabbath, whereas before they had proceeded slowly. John seemed to lead the procession on account of the authority of his see; in reality, however, Theodoret was leading, being as it were the soul of the whole faction: for he moved the prelate of the Orient by his own signals, whom others followed by custom, but he himself was driven, kindled by his own zeal.

^D For, not to mention John’s excessive love for Theodoret, the authority of Theodoret with John arising from his reputation for learning, the old intimacy of both with Nestorius, the recent enmities of both with Cyril, their secret meetings with Count Irenaeus, and many other things of this kind, on account of which Theodoret can deservedly be considered the author of all the faction’s plans; his genius, certainly, and his style, and a certain singular use of words, shine forth so clearly in the writings of the Orientals that it reveals an author not very desirous of hiding himself.

As soon as John reached Ephesus, before the dust had been wiped off, in the inn itself, at an untimely hour, in a clandestine meeting, with the Nestorians joined to his own, and with count Candidianus conspiring, he exercised a tumultuous judgment concerning Cyril, and Memnon, the bishop of Ephesus, and the rest of the Fathers of the holy synod. Cyril, with Theodoret accusing; Memnon, with the Nestorians acting; the Fathers, with Candidianus reporting, are condemned: Cyril, because he [promoted] the heresy of Apollinaris,

CHAPTER V

H. Theodoret flew ahead from the East in his mind, as if impatient for the field of battle; by the Orientals...

and by the innovations of Arius and Eunomius in the twelve chapters; Memnon, for having exercised tyranny in the city out of favoritism toward Cyril; the Fathers, because they had delivered judgment while the Orientals were away, had approved Cyril’s letters, and were following Memnon’s party. Cyril was therefore deposed along with Memnon, and the Fathers were bound by a sentence of excommunication until they should desert Cyril’s party and pass over to the Orientals. This was the form of the trial, the origin of which was envy and ambition; its author was the Cyrenian; its outcome, the division of the Church.

V. A report was made to the Emperor in the name of the Orientals, and at the same time the tardiness of their journey was excused, with the author of the report lying about everything, so that the Emperor, loving Nestorius and hostile to Cyril, might be deceived. This was the more easily accomplished because Candidianus, having shamefully abandoned the office of magistrate, wrote the same things as the Orientals and blocked the way for the envoys of the Catholics so that they could not reach the city.

VI. What the deluded Theodosius decided against Cyril at Constantinople; what he imperiously ordered when he sent Palladius to Ephesus; how he wished to have all the prelates who were in Ephesus tried by Count John, with John presiding; with what violence Cyril was thrown into prison; what the Orientals contrived in the meantime, so as to create suspicion of rebellion among the Catholics in the eyes of the Emperor or to create danger from the rioting populace—all this may be understood from the acts of the Synod of Ephesus. It should be observed, however, that these very items now held, aside from the reports and letters, were abridged by Cyril himself.

VII. For about two straight months, the Orientals had been harassed at Ephesus by force, by fraud, and by the tyrannical arts of the counts, when at length Dalmatius, the most holy Father of the monks in the royal city, informed Theodosius of the whole matter. Indignant at the treachery of the counts, the Emperor ordered seven bishops from each side to be sent to him, so that he might hear them in person concerning the events at Ephesus.

VIII. Theodoret was one of the seven Orientals; but as he was proceeding to Constantinople, led by the hope that he would speak in the royal city with the same applause to which he was accustomed at Antioch, and thus either restore the altogether afflicted cause of his Nestorius or at least stir the minds of the people, he was ordered at Chalcedon 160 to await with his companions the arrival of the Emperor, as they were to pass through into the Rufinian estates. While awaiting the approaching prince, he wrote letters in the name of the legates to the three bishops of the Italian churches—Martinian of Milan and John of Ravenna and Aquileia—and he also wrote to Rufus of Thessalonica, so that, if he could, he might bring the prelates of such great sees into the party of the schism. The letters sent to the first three are lost; the one to Rufus survives. The others are compensated for their loss, if indeed others existed and were not the very same ones sent to the individuals equally, as they say.

He also had meetings with the people of the royal city, regarding which he himself wrote thus to his own metropolitan ^B at Ephesus: "All the people, by the grace of God, are doing well and are constantly coming out to us. We have begun to discourse to them as well, and we have celebrated the greatest communions, and for the fourth time it has been declared to them, by the prayers of your piety, regarding the faith; and they have heard with such great pleasure that they did not depart until the seventh hour, but remained until the heat of the sun: for in the greatest hall, which has four porticos, a multitude was gathered, and we preached from above from a platform near the roof."

That he narrates that he preached in the hall, came about because the prelate of the Church of Chalcedon, although subject to the Constantinopolitan see, yet out of zeal for the faith forbade liturgical gatherings to be held in the church by men who had abstained from the holy synod. Theodoret complained of this to the Emperor, although this was not so much a complaint as an immodest clamor of impotent anger, and the contriving or threat of sedition; but this truly happened as follows: When he was admitted at some time by the Emperor for an interview in the Rufinian villa, he argued with the lord of the world more audaciously than the law of modesty allows: yet the boaster narrates the event as follows: "I said to him: 'Since you have given me the confidence to speak, hear me with indulgence. Is it just that heretics indeed, though excommunicated, should conduct services in the churches, but that we, who fight for the faith, and on account of this are deprived of communion by them, should not enter the church?' He answered: 'And what am I to do?'—'What your master, the Count of the Largesses, did,' I said, 'in the city of Ephesus. For when he found some gathered, he suppressed them saying: "If you will not be peaceful, I will not allow one party to gather;" and it behooved your piety also to command the bishop here, that he should not permit either them or us to gather, until we may convene, so that your just sentence may be made known to all.' To this he said: 'Truly I cannot command the bishop.' Therefore I replied: 'Neither should you command us, and we will take the church and we will gather, and your piety will know that there are many more with us than with them.'"

^D IX. The Orientals were heard by Theodosius for the fifth time, such was the patience of the religious prince. Moreover, they sent him four protests, three from Chalcedon in the name of the legates, the fourth from their own at Ephesus, all of them more full of boasting than of modesty.

X. Yet they gained no other reward for their labor from this than the fact that, the truth being revealed, the catholic legates were called to the city to be substituted for Nestorius.

^A bishop; a command was given to the Orientals that each ^B should return to his own church; and this was also signified to the others gathered at Ephesus. But how impatiently Theodoret took this is revealed in his letter written in the name of the Orientals to the Ephesians: “It pleased the most pious emperor, after many exhortations, that we should each return to our own places: that both the Egyptian and Memnon the Ephesian should remain in their own locations. For thus the Egyptian was able to blind everyone with his gifts, so that while he, having committed countless evils, returns to his throne, this innocent man (he means Nestorius) is scarcely allowed to be sent off to his own residence.” These words of Theodoret, who was writing in the name of the other six legates of the East, prove that the Sacred rescript of Theodosius recently issued to the Fathers of the orthodox synod of Ephesus was a manifest forgery: for it so favors the Orientals and so approves their prayers regarding the commencement of a disputation and their complaints about the Catholics refusing it, that Theodoret would appear to have abandoned his own cause if he had not kept in mind—and even achieved—a triumph therefrom. For how much favor is there in this toward the Orientals, and how much censure toward the Catholics? “Since it was not possible for you to agree, and your piety did not wish to come to a dispute regarding the questions raised, we have decreed that the Orientals should return to their regions and churches, that the synod gathered at Ephesus be dissolved, that Cyril return to Alexandria, and that Memnon remain at Ephesus. We wish, however, your piety to know that as long as we shall live, we cannot condemn the Orientals: for since no one has been willing to dispute with them, they have been convicted of nothing in our presence.” Both sides, however, when they inveigh most strongly against the fact that God is said by the Catholics to have suffered, show clearly that this had become, after the panegyric oration of Proclus, the common form of the question to be proposed: “Whether He who suffered for us is God?” or more simply, “Whether God suffered?” Meanwhile, the leaders of the Catholic party, who had been honorably received into the royal city, held a synod as was the custom, to which the metropolitans subject to the see of Constantinople were summoned, and they substituted Maximianus for Nestorius, and at the same time deposed from their see the four metropolitans who had refused to convene, substituting better men in their place. ^C While the bishops were returning from Chalcedon to the East, having been dismissed by the emperor, they received in the city of Tarsus, in Cilicia, the first news of the deposition of the four bishops which had taken place at Constantinople: which was the reason for them stopping, with Helladius, the bishop of that place, it seems, holding them back and taking pains lest anyone who had suffered common ruin on account of defending the cause of Nestorius should be deserted by those who could not bear the injury done to Nestorius. A certain tumultuous synod was therefore held in a foreign diocese, and a conspiracy was formed in favor of Helladius and his three associates, and a security was given by oath, that no one should consent to the deposition of Nestorius, or to the ordination of Maximianus, or to the reception of Cyril, Memnon, and the other bishops who had deposed Nestorius. Furthermore, as he was about to depart, Theodoret delivered a final sermon at Chalcedon to those partial to Nestorius; for, turning away from the estuary of the Propontis, they had arrived in a fleet of small boats to bid farewell to the defenders of their pastor and to hear Theodoret one last time, whose voice they called the image of the Nestorian position. With John presiding, he held an assembly, in which he praised Nestorius as a martyr, and raged impotently against the Ephesian Fathers, as if they were tyrants. Furthermore, there is nothing more artful in this oration for stirring up the minds of the people, whether by the mercy of a pastor or by hatred of the Ephesian Fathers; nothing more imprudent for his own cause: for by flattering the sectaries of Nestorius, when he denied that God had suffered, he betrayed himself as an associate of impiety. “Pagans,” he said, turning his speech toward Cyril, “worship wood and stones, as they hail those things as immortal: you, however, preaching to them, say that they ought not to worship these things, but only the true God, who ‘hath weighed the mountains in a balance, and the woods in a scale,’ and who ‘measureth the waters in his hand, and the heaven with his span, and all the earth with his fist; who hath set the heaven as a canopy,’ who ‘containeth the ^D roundness of the whole earth and the inhabitants thereof as locusts.’ And this one, who made all things by his word, and gave to those things that were not, that they should be, by his will alone: as if forgetting all these things, you make him subject to passions, and you lay down a law that a passible God should be worshipped,” etc. [Isaiah XL, 12. ibid. 22.] XI. They returned to Antioch, at which time the autumn synod was supposed to be held. Theodoret, finding an opportunity, prompted John and the other Orientals that what the legates had established at Chalcedon, and what had been confirmed on the way at Tarsus, should also be sanctioned by the synodal sentence of the entire diocese by them as well, whether they were those who had brought themselves to Antioch from Ephesus, or those who had remained in the East at the time of the synod. Indeed, that this was done at the urging of Theodoret, he himself at one point revealed, and reason itself suggests it. For why otherwise

would he have borne the changing of his opinion thereafter with such difficulty, as the letters to Andrew of Samosata say? How great in truth is this distress of mind? "I will by no means acquiesce in the condemnation of my most holy and venerable master, Bishop Nestorius, nor give my consent, nor violate the common promise which was made at Tarsus, at Chalcedon, and at Ephesus; for I remember those things which were recently, after our return, often brought forward by us at Antioch," etc.

XII. Yet he was not content with this, but burst out into such a degree of lack of restraint that, as Marius Mercator reports, he wrote five books against the blessed Cyril, prelate of the Alexandrian city, and the holy Ephesian council by which Nestorius was condemned, at the instigation of the devil. And these ^B are the books which the fifth synod and Saint Gregory the Great report as having impugned the Catholic faith, and as Nicephorus Callistus reports as having impugned the third synod. But let no one be surprised at the statement of Mercator concerning the books written at the instigation of the devil: for nothing more bitter could be written against the Ephesian Fathers, nor anything more calumnious be said. "So much has envy prevailed," he says, "to which you have enslaved yourselves, that what Apollinaris once spoke through one or two, and those hidden, this man now exhibits through many prelates of the Church to the congregations of the churches, and such weeds are offered by the shepherds to the flocks, and the bites of wolves are inflicted through the ministry of the rulers upon the rational sheep. He who, in two or three cities outside the walls, used to address a few, whom also he seduced with various songs, now this man, through you, dances in the middle of cities: for by his 164 errors which you preach, and by the novelties of terms you are decorated, repairing his blasphemy, which had already been consumed by time." Who would believe that these words were uttered by a man of sane mind? The ^C license of his books was so great and so savage that, by the command of Theodosius—as will be narrated later—not only were they consumed by avenging flames, but they also justly brought an eternal stain upon the name of their author from the fifth synod.

CAPUT VI.

^A Aristolaus the tribune approached Antioch, bringing mandates from Theodosius to both John and Cyril, that they should either come of their own accord and restore peace to the churches, or come to Nicomedia, not to depart from there before they had entered into concord. II. John held a synod regarding this matter at Beroea near Acacius, at which Theodoret was not present, seeing quite well what outcome the matter was going to have. For he knew the character of John—more moderate than he would have preferred—and of Acacius, who had long been skilled in serving the times; he also knew the will of both, that they would rather consent to the deposition of Nestorius, the condemnation of his dogmas, the ordination of Maximianus, and indeed ^B even the reception of Cyril, than to be even slightly endangered in the favor of the prince. III. The emperor had given laws of peace, honorable as was fitting for Cyril, but harsh for John. For he ordered John to condemn the dogma of Nestorius and to prove his deposition in writing; and [ordered] Cyril to put aside private offenses and, for the sake of charity, to forget what he had suffered at Ephesus. IV. It pleased the council of the Orientals to accept the offered conditions, so that the mind of the prince might not be offended in any way; but so that they might not seem to have fallen from their cause, it was attempted to deal ^C cunningly with Cyril, if by any fraud he could be brought to do that by which it would be believed that, led by repentance, he had changed his opinion, and having retracted either his *capitula* or his writings, had crossed over to the side of the Orientals. Therefore, Paul of Emesa was sent from the council to Alexandria, who tried by various arts to effect that what he had in his mandates should be accomplished: that the Ephesian acts should be rescinded; that all of Cyril's writings should be suppressed; that only the Nicene faith should be subscribed to; that the four bishops recently deposed by the synod of Maximianus should receive back their sees; that Paul alone, in the name of the whole Orient, should confirm the peace in writing; and that the letters of John, which offered forgiveness ^D rather than satisfaction, should be accepted. The efforts of Paul and his arts lacked success: yet, exhausted by these and others, Cyril published an exposition of the faith, and sent it, perhaps unwarily, to Antioch through his own clergy: for what he believed he was prescribing as a form of faith to others by a kind of right of victory, they received as satisfaction, which he who offers first confesses himself to be guilty and convicted. Moreover, the four bishops who are called deposed were Eutherius of Tyana, Helladius of Tarsus, Himerius of Nicomedia, and Dorotheus of Marcianopolis, all metropolitans subject to the Constantinopolitan see: who, because they obstinately refused to consent to the ordination of Maximianus out of their love for Nestorius, were cast out by the synod that ordained Maximianus. [alt-version omitted]

^A In this judgment, which can be seen as less of men than of God, something admirable occurred. For, to say nothing of Himerius, a friend of Theodoret, whose memory is less clear, Dorotheus certainly paid the deserved penalties for his impiety, in that he was the first to speak anathema against those who worship the Theotokos; Eutherius also paid, because of the poison conceived long ago, which he finally vomited upon the Catholics on this occasion. But it is astonishing that Helladius clung to Nestorius so far that he lost the see which he had earned by the holiness of his life through his obstinacy. For this is the admirable Helladius who, as Theodoret writes, after the happy passing of the most holy archimandrite Theodosius, assumed the charge of the flock, and who, having grown old in those labors for sixty years, was later divinely made bishop of the Cilicians, not abandoning his former philosophy, but adding daily pontifical sweats to those labors.

VI. While the business of peace was being conducted partly in the East and partly in Egypt, where Aristolaus had betaken himself, weary of the delays which the contention of the parties was spinning, Theodoret, bearing ill that the matter was not turning out according to his own opinion, sent letters to the twin Andreas, namely, the monk of Constantinople and the bishop of Samosata; he sent letters likewise to John of Antioch and Himerius of Nicomedia, in which he testifies that he had indeed found nothing in the letters of Cyril contrary to sound doctrine, yet he could not, however much one might have to tolerate even the most extreme things, grant consent to the deposition of Nestorius, whom he extols with wondrous praises. He protested likewise that he could not condemn the dogmas which were being debated in the question, unless—which has been the worst example for future ages—an exception were added, by which they would be said to be rejected, whosoever their author might happen to be: for thus he thought one should consult for the reputation of Nestorius: "Whosoever," he says, "indiscriminately anathematizes the doctrine of this most holy man, seems to condemn piety itself."

^B The letter further to Himerius ought to be judged not as the work of Theodoret alone, but of the entire synod of the bishops of the Euphrates. For at the time when the business of peace was being managed by the Antiochenes, the Euphratensians had gathered—whether it was a convention held contrary to custom at the urging of Theodoret and the summons of Alexander the primate, or whether it was celebrated according to custom in the autumn time, which is more probable. In it, the letters which Cyril had sent to the East as witnesses of his faith were read for the first time; and after a careful examination, truth compelling them, they were approved. It was then decreed that there should be no communion in sacred things with the Egyptians and Constantinopolitans until the four bishops, of whom there was previous mention, were restored to their sees. Finally, the assembly decided that consent should never be given to the condemnation of Nestorius: for it appeared ^C unjust and impious that, when two were guilty of the same crimes, one should be granted indulgence and to the other the door of repentance should be closed. But that part of the letter which seems synodical must be transcribed. "We make clear our intention to your Holiness, that, having read the letters sent from Egypt and often discussed them among us, we have found them indeed in agreement with the doctrine of the Church; but we have proven them to be contrary to the twelve chapters, which we have steadfastly continued to oppose until the present. It has therefore pleased us that, if your Holinesses receive the Churches divinely committed to you, you should communicate with the Egyptians and Constantinopolitans and others who are known to have fought against us with them: because they have professed to hold our faith, or rather the faith of the apostles; but to the condemnation of the venerable and most holy Nestorius, which is said to have occurred, do not be induced to offer consent. For we judge it truly unjust and impious if, for the same crimes of which his associate was guilty, one should be granted pardon while to the other the door of repentance is closed: therefore it is much more unjust and more impious to hand over an innocent man to death. Let your Holiness therefore know that we judge that there must be no communion with them before you receive your Churches. This statement not I alone, but all the most holy bishops of our region have decreed, having held a council." Great indeed should not seem the propensity of the Euphratensians toward Nestorius. For the country ^D of Nestorius was Germanicia, which is a city of Euphratesia. Alexander, the primate of the province, was joined to him by a close necessity, as were the bishops Theodoret of Cyrus, Andreas of Samosata, John of Germanicia, and Heliades of Zeugma; the rest, however, either possessed less authority or were drawn in by their connection to others.

VII. After he learned of the confirmed concord of the Churches, and the letter sent by John of Antioch concerning the whole matter to the emperor, and also [alt-version omitted]

seats—I mean the Roman, the Alexandrian, and the Constantinopolitan—he gave letters again to Himerius, in which he revealed the sentiment of his mind and at the same time the arts of his faction. "Let it not be hidden from your holiness," he says, "that after I read the letter which was directed to the emperor, I was deeply ^A grieved in my soul; because I clearly recognize that he who wrote this, while holding the same sentiment, has indiscriminately and unjustly condemned him who has known and taught nothing other than sound doctrine. But the attached anathema, although it may be capable of disturbing the reader more than an agreement with his condemnation, nevertheless, because it is placed there not indiscriminately but with a certain consideration, it has provided consolation: for he did not say, 'We anathematize his doctrine,' but 'whatever he said or thought otherwise than the apostolic doctrine contains.' "

VIII. He also gave other letters to Nestorius, having testified to his own constancy in defending his cause: "To these things," he says, "which have been done against your veneration unjustly and iniquitously, not even if someone were to cut off both my hands will I be able to offer consent, with divine grace doubtlessly assisting me and alleviating the infirmity of my soul; 168 this, however, I have also made certain in letters to those who demand these things, and I have transmitted to your holiness the copies of what was written by me to them, that you may recognize that no time will change us through divine grace."

IX. Moreover, he even charged the bishops of Phoenicia—whom he had hitherto retained in his own parts by his authority, and whom his own conscience had nevertheless forced to accept the conditions of peace—with the crime of prevarication by letter, as if they had accepted a new creed apart from the Nicene; after they had confessed at Ephesus that they rested so firmly in the Nicene, that they were never going to suffer any other whatever to be established.

On that account he was criticized by Cyril under a silent name. "Why then," he says, "do they rashly assail the bishops of Phoenicia with reproaches, calling their consensus a 'new creed,' which they published usefully and necessarily, so that they might indeed purge themselves and appease those who had thought that they were approving the Nestorian novelty." This rebuke could have exacerbated the spirit of Theodoret against Cyril, already more incensed than was just; but he knew that it was in the interest of his reputation, while all things were being settled by the order of the prince, not to stir up any disturbances, but rather to seize opportunities ^B by which he might either be received into friendship by Cyril, or appear to have been received: for thus he was able more safely to excuse or conceal his obstinacy in refusing the conditions of peace.

X. Soon an opportunity occurred for guile: for Cyril, having written a laborious treatise on the scapegoat, sent it to Acacius of Melitene, and he, along with ten books composed by himself against Julian the apostate, sent it to John of Antioch, asking that he share it with the most learned of the bishops of his diocese. When Theodoret had received these from John, and had read them attentively, he sent a letter to Cyril full of praise and duty, and received mutual ones from him, and not only those ones, which he kept the more diligently as he destined them for the more cunning purposes.

And indeed, he afterward ^C abused this, when he wished to persuade Dioscorus that he had cultivated Cyril’s friendship and praised his doctrine. "That the blessed Cyril of blessed memory often gave letters to us is well perceived, I think, by your holiness; but also when he sent his books against Julian to Antioch, and similarly the book *On the Scapegoat*, he asked the blessed John, the bishop of Antioch, to show them to the teachers in the East; and the blessed John, complying with the letters, sent the books to us, which we read and approved, and we wrote to the blessed Cyril, and he wrote back to us and commended our diligence and benevolence: which letters are preserved among us."

169 XI. Theodoret, moreover, with peace established, not only did not agree, but did not even rest: for, persistent in his purpose and conscious of his reputation, he led whomever he could into his own parts, partly by arguments, partly by authority. Nor indeed were there few who followed the leader; on the contrary, a faction arose which, because it adhered neither to Cyril nor to John, the leaders of the parties and dioceses, received the name of Acephali, if there is any faith in Liberatus; and thus Theodoret could now seem not one of the sect of Nestorius, but the head of the factious and the prince of the disturbers of the Church.

^D I know that concerning the origin of the name Acephali, it is not believed by all to be from Liberatus, but rather from Leontius: namely, that they were so called, who a long time later, when they followed the Eutychian heresy at Alexandria, like the remnants of Dioscorus, yet did not adhere to Peter Mongus, the bishop of the city, however much he himself was also infected by the Eutychian heresy. But, if faith is to be attributed to Leontius, which without doubt is owed, it does not immediately seem that Liberatus should be abrogated, when a concord can be initiated. For he may have written that the name fell to the part of the Eutychians, the other that it fell to the faction of the Orientals: both apt to the force of the word made to signify the sect which, as far as it is equal, is not joined to a head: there will, however, be a better argument for Liberatus than for Leontius, in that he handed down where the name of Acephali was first heard in this whole matter; the other, whence it adhered to the Eutychians: although the opinion of Leontius is better known than that of Liberatus; for the reason that man-

- ^A frenatam dimisisti? See that no one [*] thinks you shrewder, to use these as insults against Theodore, because he called Apollinarius, and those who share his sentiments, most wicked. If this is not the case, why with an absurd remark, like a drunken slur, did you pour out such blasphemies of this kind against him?”

V. On this occasion, I suspect, Cyril, having written letters to John of Antioch, complained about Theodoret as a factious man, who had not abjured the society of Nestorius, but rather, under the empty pretext of defending his masters, sought to uphold the doctrine of his disciple against the judgment of the Church. The letters are as follows: “I had thought that until this day the most reverend Theodoret, having put aside the empty opinions of Nestorius, had washed away the stain contracted from them, following the example of other most holy prelates. For I had believed that he had long removed from himself those things which obstructed peace, with mutual conditions and letters having been received from me. But, as the pious presbyter Daniel reports, I have learned that he has not retreated from his former ways of acting, but holds fast just as before to the blasphemies of Nestorius, and openly shows that he has neither pronounced anathema against him nor consented to his deposition. May your holiness grant me the power to speak, since charity urges me to speak: for this reason, why do some, with head held high, not follow your praiseworthy counsel in matters pertaining to your prudence? Why, like cattle leading themselves astray from the flock, do they perform nothing but what they wish? If those things that I have heard are true, then that most reverend man ought to experience the sting and the goads of your holiness’s wrath.”

VI. Furthermore, when Theodoret perceived that, with the writings having been published as we have said, the commotion he had hoped for did not occur, but on the contrary all things were proceeding more peaceably, as many were tired, as happens, of long-drawn-out disturbances and no longer offered easy ears to his speeches, he gave himself over entirely to the composition of books and the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures: in which genre he had scarcely any superior, whether one considers the literal explanation of the sense, or his brevity, or his clarity of expression. In the meantime, he would not cease to frequent synods, in whatever part he could, and also to act by counsel, so as to bring those he could to his own opinion; but he especially sought to reconcile those who were celebrated for greater fame of holiness, and whose minds, simpler than they were learned, he would captivate through the communion of the ascetic life and their harsher manner of living: wherefore he was also frequent among them.

Indeed, he even contributed the goods of the Church to public works necessary for his city; for, when he was writing to the consul Nomus, he recounted porticoes, two bridges, a bath, and an aqueduct: in which magnificence one might wish for some hospice or basilica or monastery, so that more of Christian piety and episcopal providence might shine forth—but perhaps at that time there was no need for these in his city, [or in the] province.

CHAPTER VII.

I. Instead of the books of Nestorius that were burned, excerpts from Diodore and Theodore are substituted. II. Armenian monks then stir up troubles. III. Cyril and Proclus attack the excerpts. IV. Theodoret defends them. V. Cyril complains to John of Antioch about Theodoret. VI. Who turns himself to the composing of books and the adorning of Cyrrhus. VII. Concerning the council of the Armenians, of which Baronius makes mention. From the year of Christ 434 to 440.

I. The association of letters that is said to have existed between Theodoret and Cyril was not of long duration. For when Nestorius, by the emperor's command, had been deported to the Oasis, because he was stirring up troubles from his monastery with the help of his friends, and his books had burned in the flames, since some of those people were persuading others that they held the same sentiment as Nestorius with the Fathers: it seemed to factious men that the loss should be repaired with interest. For instead of the books of one man, not very highly esteemed by all, others were substituted, which either Theodore of Mopsuestia, the master of Nestorius, had written, or which Diodore of Tarsus, the teacher of Mopsuestia, had written: so that, since both were held in infinite esteem by all in opinion, the same error might spread all the more perniciously, the more it lay hidden under a more noble name.

II. And from this arose the cause of the tumults in Armenia, with many miraculously praising both doctors, [while] more argued that both were guilty of impiety. There also arose the source of complaints, which the monks, fervent in their zeal, carried—most serious ones—to Alexandria to Cyril, to Antioch to John, and to the royal city to Proclus, the successor of Maximian.

III. Cyril composed a book against Diodore and Theodore, of which nothing remains except for the fragments in the Acts of the fifth synod. John seemed a little more lenient toward Theodore. Proclus published a Tome on the faith to the Armenians, to which he joined certain excerpts from Theodore, though prudently omitting his name: for such was his reverence and almost sanctity in the East, that, when the increase of religion was hoped for, it would be shouted in the church: *Long live the faith of Theodore.*

IV. John approved the work of Proclus in his own synod. Cyril also approved it in Egypt, as it was consonant with his own three books against Theodore. But Theodoret, moved in his soul on behalf of Theodore—the master in whom he had always gloried—composed three books as well, and indeed ones that were bitter, as one can understand from the fragments which were used in the fifth synod to judge the cause of Theodore. For what is more acerbic than that which he levels against Cyril? “What therefore did Theodore say that was new, for which you pelted him with such great blasphemies, ordering him to bridle his tongue, when your own was running so

wildly? He then hired a physician, of whom he was deprived, Cyril, and later erected a basilica to the apostles: a fact he left written in the eulogy of James and in his letters.

VII. Baronius, at the year four hundred and thirty-nine, mentions a certain great council gathered by Proclus in the royal city, concerning which it is worth the effort to inquire, since the matter of Saint Cyril is at stake, and it is said that the source of the hatred conceived by Dioscorus 172 against Theodoret is revealed. The most illustrious cardinal therefore writes: 1. That Proclus summoned a not inconsiderable multitude of bishops to the council, in order to consult for the dignity of his own see. 2. That it was acted therein against the machinations of the Alexandrian Church, as if Cyril were seeking the primacy of the whole Eastern Church. 3. That letters were issued by the council to the Alexandrian prelate, by which he was warned concerning the canons of the two prior general councils, the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan: and indeed, of the Nicene, commanding that individual dioceses be satisfied with their own limits; but of the Constantinopolitan, placing the prelate of new Rome second after the prelate of the old. 4. That the letters were received by the Antiochenes and confirmed by their assent. 5. That Dioscorus, who was then the apocrisiarius of the Alexandrian Church in the royal city, opposed this with great force; but, when he achieved nothing, he turned the grief of his mind against the Antiochenes, whose instigator he believed Theodoret to be, and accused them of treason against his own and the Alexandrian Church.

But although Baronius, by the weight of his authority, could have brought Binius and other collectors of councils to his own opinion, he would scarcely, if at all, have persuaded curious investigators of the matter. For Theodoret’s letter 86, which is the only one he uses, does not contain in itself what seemed so to the cardinal; nor does any writer mention such a great affair; nor could Cyril’s modesty have tolerated so ambitious a design; nor could Christian charity, binding most holy prelates like Proclus and Cyril with a most sacred bond, have been able to utter so injurious an opinion; nor, finally, had any occasion presented itself at that time for debating this right of presiding over the councils of the Eastern Church: and since these latter three points are certain, the first will be finished without much effort in the review of letter 86. <“Know, my lord, that he (Dioscorus) bears this pusillanimity against us, since we assented and adhered to the synodical rules of the holy Fathers made under Proclus of blessed memory; and for this he has scolded us once and again, as if we had betrayed, as he says, the rights both of the Antiochenes and of the Alexandrians.”>

But as for the synodical [letters] which Theodoret records as having been made under Proclus at Constantinople and approved by the Antiochenes, they are not other, I think, than those which were drawn up in the cause of Athanasius, bishop of the Perrhenians, in the council from which Proclus wrote to Domnus concerning that matter. For the letters of Proclus are referred to at the Council of Chalcedon under this title: *Copy of a synodical letter. To the most holy and most God-beloved, and our fellow-minister Domnus, Proclus, greeting in the Lord.*

Yet some question may arise. Wherefore, if the matter took place as we have said, that Theodoret wrote that the Antiochenes 173 gave their assent to the synodical [letters] of Proclus? *following the canons of the holy Fathers.* Why did Dioscorus make those same Antiochenes guilty of betraying his own and the Alexandrian Church: and in what rank was Dioscorus constituted at that time? But, to start from the last point, Dioscorus, when he accused the Antiochenes of the crime of treason, had recently succeeded to the place of Cyril, who died on the 28th of January in the year 444. He objected, indeed, because Domnus, having been admonished by the synodical letters of Proclus, had reviewed the judged cause of Athanasius of Perrha: by which deed it could appear that the primacy conceded to Proclus, since even as it is the duty of a friend to warn in private letters, so it is [the duty] of a superior in synodical ones. But now, since the Alexandrian see has been second after the Roman, and the Antiochene third after the Alexandrian, and that has been observed from the very first times of the Church: if the Constantinopolitan, recently constituted, holds the second place, and its right in this part is acknowledged; it is necessary that both other patriarchal sees be diminished.

CHAPTER VIII.

From the year of Christ 440 to 447. I. As the year of Christ four hundred and forty was declining, or rather as the one that follows was beginning, John concluded his final day, after he had presided over the Antiochene Church for thirteen full years from the death of Theodorus. Succeeding the deceased was Domnus, his sister’s nephew, a man of, as it were, doubtful faith, so of imprudent counsel, and of varied fortune and unhappy lot. For since he did not most holily keep the peace composed by his uncle (it is uncertain whether of his own accord or at the instigation of Theodoret), and seemed to neglect the friendship of Cyril, he incurred the offense of the Alexandrians, by which, after it flared into open hatred, he was deposed from his see together with Theodoret at the Robber Council of Ephesus, and perished, consumed by grief.

The hidden cause of the deed is what it is; yet the prophecy of Saint Euthymius regarding this matter is patent. To him, Domnus, having long since deserted the monastery, when he was seeking Antioch led by ambition, foretold that it would come to pass that his uncle who...

was in possession of the see would be removed, but that they themselves would again take it away from him, being wicked men and tricksters, after he had previously been seduced by them through ignorance.

II. Nearly four years had passed since the death of John, when on the ninth day of June Cyril migrated to the heavens, after having ruled the Alexandrian Church for thirty-two years. Egypt mourned for her prelate, the Church for her doctor, the world for a pillar of the constant faith, a man of great spirit, of extraordinary learning, of invincible piety toward Christ, and of singular devotion toward the Theotokos; the man, in short, who could confidently and truly say, with heaven as his witness, echoing the Apostle: "I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

III. As soon as the news of his death reached the East, Theodoret could not restrain himself from immediately testifying to the sentiment of his mind in writing. He therefore gave a letter to Domnus, the bishop of Antioch, which I would prefer to attribute to him and to the general council, rather than to disclaim it along with Baronius, or to hold it in suspicion for vain reasons like others. For that letter, being full of bile collected over a long time, shows openly how far one can be carried away, or rather driven to rage, by an illusion of religion; for it possesses the power to create the horror of impotence, with which a blind zeal sometimes seizes men who are indeed of great spirit, but agitated.

IV. Nor was he content merely to have written; but, restless in spirit, he flew immediately to Antioch, and with Domnus presiding, he held a sermon in the church equivalent to his letter. "No one," he said, "now compels anyone to blaspheme; where are those who say that it is God who was crucified? It is not God who was crucified, but man who was crucified, Jesus Christ. But God raised up His temple from David, just as the same David predicted beforehand; man begets man; in nature, indeed, the Son of God is God the Word, but Christ is the son of David; yet the Son of God is not the temple. There is no longer any contention: the East and Egypt have come together under one yoke, envy is dead, and the heresy is buried with it: now those who preach that God has suffered are at rest," etc. ^A

V. That letter, which 175 is commonly published, as well as the sermon which was delivered to an immense multitude as usual, caused Theodoret to fall under suspicion of being in agreement with Nestorius, as if he divided Christ into two sons, one of whom was crucified and the other of whom raised the dead. It also caused him to be accused of impiety and sedition before the emperor. ^B For many who loved faith and peace were vexed by his desire, either in the synods which he was frequently convening by his own counsel, to stir up old troubles, or even by his eloquence and authority to raise up a heresy that had been laid low.

VI. Wherefore, after a year's full patience, the emperor ordered the turbulent man to keep away from Antioch and to remain confined to his own parishes as if in an honorable prison. Theodoret himself narrates the event in a letter to Eusebius, bishop of Ancyra: "Those," he says, "who in our own time revive the heresy of Marcion and Valentinus and Manes and others, being aggrieved that their heresy is openly refuted by me, have attempted to deceive the ears of the emperor, calling us heretics and slandering us by saying that we divide our one Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate God the Word, into two sons. But they did not persuade him with their words, as they had hoped; wherefore a 'Commonitorium' was sent to the most magnificent and glorious master of the soldiers and consul, containing no accusation of heresy, but certain other causes, and those false ones. For they claimed that I was frequently convening synods at Antioch, and that some were offended by that fact; and that therefore I ought to keep quiet and govern the churches committed to me. When this 'Commonitorium' was shown to me, I seized upon the decree as if it were a fountain of blessings." ^C He testifies that the 'Commonitorium' was written by the emperor's own hand, a matter of such importance; wherefore, marveling at the insolence of the affair, he inquired by letter to the patrician Anatolius whether his suspicion of fraud was empty. "I have indicated to your Excellency," he says, "that the most magnificent Count Rufus showed us the 'Commonitorium' written by the imperial hand, in which he commanded the most valiant master of the soldiers that he should prudently and skillfully arrange for us to dwell at Cyrus, and not to travel to other cities, as one who was frequently convening synods at Antioch and disturbing the orthodox. Now I declare that I obeyed the royal letters and came to Cyrus, and after six or seven days had passed, having sent the most devout Euphronius, a master of offices, to me, he demanded that I confirm in writing that the royal letters had been presented to me. This I indeed did, and I promised that I would remain at Cyrus and in this region, and would cling to the flock committed to me. I ask your magnificence, therefore, to inquire accurately whether these things were truly ordered in this way, and for what reason." ^D

176 What that document was, and in what words it was written, one may read in the letter to Eutrechius the prefect. "We have been relegated and circumscribed at Cyrus, if the 'Commonitorium' is true, which they say was written by the hand of the victor, the Emperor himself, and it stands as follows:"

^A Since he, as bishop of that city, assiduously gathers synods and by this means disturbs the orthodox, take pains with appropriate moderation and prudence that he remain within Cyrus and does not proceed to any other city.

VII. Into that domestic exile, as he himself puts it, he was cast in the year 445, the year in which Nomus held the consulate. Although he put on a show of steadfastness of mind in this calamity, he nevertheless invoked everyone from whom he might hope for help: for he complained lamentably to Anatolius the patrician, to Eutrechius the prefect, and to Nomus the consul, that he had been condemned without a hearing, whereas not even incendiaries and grave-robbers—indeed, not even parricides—are condemned before they have responded to the crime charged against them. Moreover, he demanded that a synod of bishops be convoked, but one of those who might be able to pass judgment on doctrine, and in which the magistrates might pronounce which of the disputants' doctrine was more conformable to the apostolic. To these he proclaimed his own innocence, and his labors on behalf of the faith, and his effective zeal in converting heretics, as well as the integrity of the life he had led from the beginning; finally, he sustained the fortitude of a spirit unbroken by evils through the expectation of divine judgment, to which he confidently cited his adversaries—whether those who were accusing, or those who were condemning, or even those who were allowing him to be condemned.

VIII. In order to soothe his afflicted mind, he composed a work to which he gave the name *Eranistes* or *Polymorphus*. In this, he concealed his purpose with a certain wondrous art: for although he imagined himself to be disputing against the Apollinarians through a dialogue, he was in reality attacking Cyril and the Catholics; or rather, he was striving to confirm the doctrine of Nestorius by the demonstration, as he himself terms it, of his own argument. He does indeed praise Cyril in the second dialogue, but with a malicious praise. For, knowing him to be regarded by all as a defender of "one hypostasis"—that is, as was vulgarly understood, "one nature"—he proclaimed him as an enemy of the "no-confusion" doctrine; for he judged that, by the verdict of prudent men, he could be shown to have acted like Proteus—that is, either that he had once defended errors and later recanted them, or that he had spoken contrary things at the same time. And perhaps this was also the reason why the work was titled *Polymorphus*, although there could have been another reason: that it might be called not merely a book for or against an adversary, but a "free" [or flexible] one, because like a striped image it presents various forms according to the different viewpoints of the observer. But ^B this matter is treated more lengthily in the review of the book.

^C 177 IX. Not only was complaint made about Theodoret to the emperor himself and to Proclus, the bishop of the royal city, but also to Dioscorus of Alexandria; to whom some clerics from Osrhoene, having been struck by a sentence of anathema from Domnus, had approached, charging that Theodoret, a singular friend of Domnus, had delivered a sermon on the death of Cyril regarding a nefarious crime, and had spread abroad the Nestorian error that was lurking in Cilicia. To refute this crime, he sent a letter to Dioscorus in these words: "I have been compelled to write these things, having read the letter of your holiness addressed to the God-beloved and most holy archbishop, our lord Domnus. For in it, among other things, it was contained that certain persons had come to the greatest city, which is governed by your holiness, and had accused us of dividing our one Lord Jesus Christ into two sons; and this, while we were discoursing at Antioch, where many myriads of auditors had gathered for the sermon. As for me, I indeed deplored those who dared to weave a manifest calumny; but I grieved, and forgive me, Lord, for pain finds a voice, that this perfection of yours—which, according to God, I held entire—did not keep my other ear for me, but gave credence to those things which were falsely said of them by those men."

The Alexandrian did indeed the more easily give credence to the clerics, the worse he was disposed in his mind toward Theodoret; for he knew him to be everywhere abused by Cyril, to hold sway almost over the minds of the prelates of the entire Eastern diocese, and to have drawn to his side all the most holy monks—partly by the holiness of his life and the fame of his doctrine, partly by his eloquence in sermons and a sort of flattery of praise in the *Philotheus* history. In addition to this, he knew that it was he who had been the author of the Antiochenes' recognition—granted to the Constantino-politan see by the second synod—of the prerogative of the second see after the Roman; he also knew that there existed an opportune occasion to cause harm to a man whom the anger of the offended emperor was pursuing, and whose edict held him enclosed as if in a prison, and thus precluded him from defending himself. Wherefore, having given letters to Domnus and his synod, he complained gravely about the bishops of Cilicia, and specifically about Theodoret by name, from whom, when he had received a letter—full of high spirit and defiant of the calumny—he was so exacerbated that he dared to strike him with an anathema in the Alexandrian church, although he was a prelate of another diocese: not that he exercised a judgment over Theodoret, which would have been an intolerable contempt of the canons, but he cunningly introduced into the church the monks who had come from the East accusing him; and through their 178 artifice he so stirred up the people that they tumultuously clamored for anathema against Theodoret. The prelate, indeed, not only did not repress the tumult, but standing on his throne he praised the faith of those crying out; and not content with this, he dispatched a bishop to Constantinople to make complaint concerning the Orientals and render an account of the deed done against Theodoret.

X. While these things are being transacted ^D, or a little before, Proclus departed this life, a man preeminently Catholic; Flavianus succeeded to the see of the royal city, the martyr's...

s fame, succeeded him. To this man ^A Theodoret, whom Proclus had hoped would be favorable to him, sent letters, first of congratulation, soon after of supplication, in which he implored aid, and requested that the bishop sent to the royal city by Dioscorus—who was even setting forth the charges of the aforementioned anathema from Alexandria against Theodoret and was pressing the Emperor more severely—might not be heard. "Dioscorus," he says, "lending his ears to those who were slandering, began an affair which could in no way be believed unless it had the Church as a witness. For he took those who were saying 'anathema' to us, and rising up and shouting, he confirmed their voices: in addition to this, as we have learned, he sent some from the God-beloved bishops to the royal city, hoping to incite greater tumults against us."

XI. On the same subject he wrote to the patricians Taurus and Florentius, to Lupicinus the Master of the Offices, to the prefect Eutrechius, and to the patrician Anatolius. He wrote to the same effect to many others also, whether magnates, or bishops, or even two illustrious deaconesses, that he might not seem to have neglected his reputation, which he thought it in the interest of the Church to preserve intact. Furthermore, at his own urging, Domnus of Antioch sent bishops from his own diocese, who might at once take up the defense of Theodoret, clear away the calumny of the Nestorian heresy brought against the Orientals, and with all the strength of their resources oppose the attempts of Dioscorus, who was encroaching upon the rights of a diocese not his own.

CHAPTER IX

I. Synod at Constantinople against Eutyches. II. His error. III. He is condemned despite the opposition of the eunuch Chrysaphius. IV. Theodoret labors on account of the ordination of Irenæus, who had been married twice. V. The second synod of Ephesus is convened. VI. The Emperor forbids Theodoret to be present. VII. Concerning the metropolitans of Egypt. VIII. Theodoret bears the indictment with difficulty. IX, X. He is condemned along with others in a synod where everything is done by force. XI, XII. Saint Leo rescinds the acts, who writes to Theodosius about the annulment of the synod. XIII. Theodoret appeals to the Apostolic See, and sends legates. XIV. He requests permission to be given to him ^B to go to Rome, or to a monastery. XV. The Emperor rejects the petition of Saint Leo. XVI. Pulcheria does not oppose her brother. XVII. Theodoret consoles himself and his fellow-sufferers. XVIII. He writes his Ecclesiastical History. From the year of Christ 449 to 451.

I. Meanwhile, a synod was convened at Constantinople under Flavian, which is recorded in the consulship of Zeno and Postumianus, on the 4th of the Ides of November. It was perhaps not an ordinary one, but, as the acts have it, [Greek: ἐνδημοῦσα] (indictional), comprised, that is to say, of those bishops who were found to be at court. As usual, there were many of them. The occasion for convening it was a question that had arisen between Florentius, the prelate of Sardis, and two bishops of his province, John and Cossinius. Once this was easily settled, the proceedings commenced, upon the accusation of Eusebius, bishop of Dorylæum, concerning Eutyches the presbyter, who had frequently been warned in a friendly manner by Eusebius to abjure his error, but having scorned this admonition, had obstinately persisted in it.

II. Eutyches was archimandrite of a certain very famous monastery in the royal city, who had formerly expended no small effort with Saint Dalmatius in extirpating the Nestorian heresy. Those two monks shared the influence of the court; and as much as Dalmatius was esteemed by the Emperor on account of his reputation for sanctity, so much was Eutyches esteemed by Chrysaphius, the administrator of the empire, and his own godson in baptism, on account of their spiritual kinship. Both, however, were most addicted to Cyril: for that most prudent man, besides the fact that he was fighting keenly for the faith, which was an incentive to love for good men, by his letters he had won over the Fathers of the monks of the royal city—whom he knew could do anything in the religious court—to his side in his plans and his struggle. However, as the zeal for the faith and the love of learned men, if it ever happens to fall upon very good men, renders them easily deceived by wily people who feign piety; so the propensity of Eutyches toward Cyril, and his hatred of Nestorius, compelled him to lend his ears and give credence to the Armenian monks who almost adored Cyril and execrated Nestorius as the plague of the world, but who were themselves affected by the disease of Apollinaris.

Therefore, on account of some of Cyril's statements that were poorly understood, he created a heresy akin to a dream, or rather he gave a name to one already created by the Armenian monks. He said, as they report, that there were indeed two natures before the union, but from the union one remained in Christ; that His flesh was not consubstantial with ours, but had descended from heaven, and had passed through the womb of the Virgin as if through a channel, and thus had come into the light: which was the reason that he was said by Leo the Great ^C to have erred regarding the true maternity of the Virgin, just as Nestorius had. But this opinion of a man who was foolish from his age, and ignorant by himself, and deluded by the Armenian deceivers, and credulous toward his two monks, Constantine and Eleusius, was neither one nor constant, but changeable, according as some contrary thing was either objected or even said.

III. He was condemned by the synod of Flavian, the eunuch Chrysaphius availing nothing, whom the hatred of Flavian goaded more than the love of Eutyches. The tumults followed the condemnation, on account of which the synod of Ephesus was at first called "robber-synod" by Theodosius, then the ecumenical synod of Chalcedon was convened by Marcian, and finally the second general synod of Constantinople was convened by Justinian a long time after.

IV. Meanwhile, Theodoret was ill-spoken of at Constantinople, not only on account of the doctrine and the disturbances which he was stirring up, but also on account of the ordination of Irenæus, who had been married twice. Irenæus was that count, whose ^D

^A perfidy had made him hateful to the emperor; he had been stripped of his comital dignity, ejected from the court, and had retreated to the East among the friends of his faction. He was ordained bishop of Tyre by Theodoret, though he was unworthy to govern any church, let alone Tyre, which is noble by metropolitan right, not so much on account of his second marriage as on account of his suspected faith and his stubborn zeal for Nestorius: wherefore, by order of the emperor, he was reduced to his former rank and restricted to his native soil.

This matter caused Theodoret to waver in his mind, uncertain what he should do after the deposition of Irenæus: whether to go to Tyre and ordain another, or to remain at Cyrus, as he had been ordered, and leave the widowed Church of Tyre. He saw that the situation was difficult on both sides, since neither party was free from envy, and yet his heart inclined toward Irenæus, a former helper in his councils.

V. Meanwhile, by the arts of the eunuch Chrysaphius and the hatred of Queen Eudoxia—a womanly hatred toward Flavian for favoring Pulcheria—it was brought about that Theodosius, with uxorious facility, wished Eutyches’s case to be reconsidered, and at the same time for there to be a judgment against Flavian. He claimed that this was done, under this pretense, so that the Ephesian faith might be confirmed; wherefore he finally resumed the plan for convening an ecumenical council, which he had long since undertaken but had set aside for grave reasons, and he announced the council to be held at Ephesus on the Kalends of August, with Dioscorus presiding.

An ^B evocative decree was sent to the prelates of all the great sees, that is, to the holy Leo of Rome, Dioscorus of Alexandria, Flavian of Constantinople, Domnus of Antioch, and Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem: sent, I say, partly uniform, if one considers the principal business; but partly different, if one considers certain special instructions and commands. This is understood from the acts of the council. The same is demonstrated by the fact that after one of the decrees had been read, Constantinus, the secretary of the council, said that it had been written in the same tenor to the other most reverend bishops, that they might gather for the council. He shows the difference in that it is read beforehand that they had in hand τὰ θεῖα Γράμματα τὰ διαφόρως ἀποσταλέντα, that is, the divine Letters sent with differences.

VI. The emperor forbade Theodoret to be admitted into the assembly until he should be judged admissible by the unanimous sentence of the whole council. But it is to be noted that this command is contained in the individual decrees: it is contained in that one, certainly, which was written to Dioscorus, and those to Juvenal and Thalassius regarding the presidency; and there is no doubt it was in the other two, to Leo and Flavian.

The emperor commanded ^C therefore to Dioscorus that, having taken with him ten most reverend metropolitan bishops, ten holy bishops adorned in speech and life, who in doctrine and the knowledge of the right and immaculate faith were eminent among all, he should hasten to gather at Ephesus by the approaching Kalends of August. Since it was written in the same tenor to other bishops, it is to be understood without doubt in the sense that it could refer to each one, namely, that he who had metropolitans properly so called, like the Antiochene, should bring them; he who lacked them should come with the prelates of the chief cities accompanying him.

VII. This interpretation of the evocative decree overturns the foundation by which they build up their opinion who write that there were some metropolitans properly so called in the Egyptian diocese in these times. Metropolitans are not called those who hold the bishopric of the chief cities, but those who have the right of summoning the council of their province and of exercising judgment over the subject bishops. For though I know that it is called into controversy among the learned whether the Alexandrian had the right alone—which has been stated—and whether all other prelates of the whole Egyptian diocese were in some measure equal; and I know likewise that two men, extremely learned, have battled in writing over this matter: I shall say, however, by what reasons I am led to defend the negative side.

I have observed first that in the previous four ecumenical councils, at which very many Egyptians were present, there is no mention of Egyptian metropolitans, where it is most customary, namely in the subscriptions; likewise none in the Ephesian Robber Council; none in the provincial councils held in Egypt; none in the letters of Athanasius or Cyril to the bishops of their province; and furthermore that those who are mentioned by writers of a later age were not instituted before the times of the Emperor Justinian. Nay, what pertains to the present matter, by no one of the more recent writers are they called ten metropolitans, but either three—Egypt, Pentapolis, and Libya—or eight, or at most nine. But enough of these things.

VIII. Upon hearing of the ^D indictment of the council, Theodoret was struck with horror: for he had believed that the emperor had entirely abandoned the plan for the indictment, since he had been reconciled with Flavian and had been alienated because of the indicated machination of Pulcheria—that she was to be ordained a deaconess and removed from public affairs by this art; wherefore, as if an augur of things to come, or moved rather by the instinct of conscience, he wrote a letter to Domnus in which he reveals both the history of the matter and the anguish of his own soul regarding Cyril and his successor. "We hoped," he said, "that the sad things had ceased, when some had indicated to us that the anger of the victorious emperor had been extinguished, and that a reconciliation had been made between him and the bishop most dear to God; and indeed that the convocation of the council had been..."

^Acried as the execrable and nefarious deed of Dioscorus, by which he had slipped into such a degree of madness as to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against Leo himself, three days after the synod—as if, having crushed all the patriarchs, he alone wished to rule—was something he had seen with his own eyes; but it was also heard of through letters, and that the peace of the Churches had returned. But the things which have been written just now by your Holiness have saddened us heavily; for it is not permitted to expect any good from the bandied-about synod, unless the merciful Lord, using His accustomed providence, destroys the contrivances of the turbulent demons. Then, having inserted some remarks concerning the unhappy outcome of many synods: "Contemplating these things and foreseeing others like them, my unhappy soul sighs and mourns, expecting no good; for they who are of other dioceses do not know the poison implanted in the twelve chapters; but, attending to the clarity of him who wrote them, they suspect nothing sinister, and he who succeeded to his see, I think, is moving everything so that he might confirm those things in another synod: for if he who wrote these things recently for the empire, and declared anathema upon those who were unwilling to acquiesce to them, what will he not do, presiding over the council? But know, my lord, that no one of those who know the heresy implanted in these things will be led to accept them, even if twice as many should decree them." He proceeds later to raise his spirit against the chapters. Now, since this occurred at the beginning of the year 449, it matters a great deal to have observed it, for the sake of discerning the mind of Theodoret, and his constancy—or rather, his obstinacy—in his opinion concerning the chapters.

XII. Therefore, the Supreme Pontiff, in the synod which had then convened as was customary on the 11th of the Kalends of October, rescinded the Ephesine acts; he condemned Eutyches along with Dioscorus, received back into his communion all those who had suffered for the faith, and with apostolic vigor restored the afflicted cause of the Church; and he sent letters from the synod, on the Ides of October, to the Emperor, to Pulcheria, to Flavian, to the Constantinopolitan clergy, and to the archimandrites. Furthermore, he forbade the acts to be published until there should be a rescript from Theodosius. For in his letters he had earnestly requested that an ecumenical council be convened within the borders of Italy, so that he himself, having recognized and judged the cause of the disturbances, might grant peace to all the Churches. But he received a rejection from Theodosius and no response from Pulcheria; for the pious Augusta was lamenting in the Hebdomon, and, as the times were, she was following the calamities of the Church with pious, yet vain, tears.

Scarcely a month had elapsed since the letters were written, when Emperor Valentinian, accompanied by his mother Placidia and his wife Eudoxia, came to Rome from Ravenna for the sake of embracing religion. For the anniversary of the dedication of the basilica of Saint Peter was looming, at which time frequent gatherings were held in the City. The most religious princes wished, indeed, to show their presence in the temples of the saints, esteeming it a sacrilege if they should deny the order of the solemnities.

IX. Therefore, the prelates gathered to Ephesus from all sides with the three legates of the apostolic see: the bishop Julian, the presbyter Renatus, and the deacon Hilarus; four bishops of the greater sees were present: Dioscorus of Alexandria, Domnus of Antioch, Juvenalis of Jerusalem, and Flavian of Constantinople; but the latter only as a defendant, since his acts against Eutyches, and indeed the faith itself, were to be called to examination. Eutyches was present with other monks, whose leader was Barsumas; Dioscorus, Thalassius, and Juvenalis presided. What more? The council was given its beginning on the tenth day of August, and an end was imposed on the twelfth; those acts which Flavian had completed at Constantinople were read through over three days; Eutyches was absolved; Flavian was condemned and driven into exile; the bishops, with swords brandished at their throats, were forced to subscribe upon a blank sheet of paper; Domnus was cast down from his throne, along with Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Sabinianus of Perrha, Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus; Evagrius was set up in place of those cast down, and Aquilinus in place of Byblus; Eusebius was cast into prison; Flavian was handed over to the hand of soldiers to be deported; everything was conducted as if in a bandit-like tumult, from which the synod also acquired its infamous name.

X. Hilarus, one of the legates, when he had resisted Dioscorus for a long time in vain, fled to inform the Supreme Pontiff Leo; it is uncertain what effort Julian contributed; but Renatus certainly resisted the president of the malignant synod with the utmost confidence, and from that he merited praise from the Supreme Pontiff.

XI. Hilarus did not only, when he had arrived in Rome, report to the holy Leo concerning the whole matter ^B as he had usurped it with his eyes; but it was also decreed by letters that the execrable and nefarious deed of Dioscorus, by which he had indeed slipped into such a degree of madness as to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against Leo himself, three days after the synod—as if, having crushed all the patriarchs, he alone wished to rule—was to be preserved by the emperors for the blessed Peter. "Inasmuch as the most blessed bishop of the Roman city, to whom antiquity has conferred the primacy of the priesthood over all, has a place and the power to judge concerning the faith and the priests," he proceeds: "For the sake of this matter, according to the solemnity of the councils, the bishop of Constantinople has appealed to him, on account of the contention which has arisen concerning the faith. To him, therefore, requesting and adjuring our common salvation, I have not refused to agree, in order that I might present my petition to your gentleness, so that the aforementioned priest…

^A might receive a remedy from him to whom it is proper to hold the first place in all things. 2. Since he complained that he had been condemned and deposed by injustice, he asked that the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome might use his apostolic power and command the petitioner to fly to his council. 3. He requested that a judgment be constituted on the basis of written documents. 4. He sent three legates to act on behalf of the absent party. 5. A judgment was instituted which the Council of Chalcedon, although some were initially resistant, subsequently followed. 6. The see was restored to the man whom the council had deposed. But if this is not appealing to a judge, what then is it?

Placidia narrates with inquisitiveness the meeting of the pontiff with the emperor and those with him: "When, at the very entry into the ancient city, we had this concern, that we might restore worship to the most blessed apostle Peter, at the very altar of the martyr which we were praying at, the most reverend Bishop Leo, lingering for a little while after prayer, wept before us on account of the Catholic faith, setting forth as witness the very chief of the apostles himself, whom we had just approached, surrounded by a multitude of bishops, whom he had gathered from the innumerable cities of Italy for the sake of the primacy ^B of his own see or out of dignity, and blending tears with his words, he provoked our own groans to join in his lamentation," etc.

Theodosius yielded nothing to such prayers, so much was he deceived by the arts of Chrysaphius; indeed, he gave no other response than one by which he might burden the troubled Church with the hatred against Flavian, and wished it to be believed that he was rightfully deposed. The most holy defender of the faith had not yet closed his day with a glorious end; but he was in exile in the city of Hypaipa in Lydia, where, after six months from his deposition, he died, whether by a death that supervened or one that was induced.

XIII. While these things are being done, Theodoret, after he learned that he had been deposed, decided to send to the apostolic see—that is, the primacy of the Churches that are in the whole world—to those who might plead his case before the just tribunal of Saint Leo. Two chorepiscopi performed this legation, Abramius and Hypatius, along with Alypius, the exarch of the monks of Euphratesia. They brought letters ^C by which Theodoret had recourse to the apostolic see, "because it holds," he says, "the primacy of the Churches that are in the whole world, for many reasons, and before all else, because it has remained immune from heretical contagion; nor has anyone sitting in it thought otherwise, but it has preserved the apostolic grace intact."

Two theologians, both noble in their own works, have recently debated regarding the recourse of Theodoret to the apostolic see: one wishes to make it appear that he fled only as if to a place of protection; the other, that he appealed as to a judge. Both have their own arguments, by which the former might seem to wish to restrict the apostolic power, the latter to extend it.

To resolve the controversy, as things stand, is neither in our interest nor is it our intention. Certainly it is evident that Theodoret, if we listen to him, ^D ran to the apostolic see so that he might apply remedies to the wounds of the Churches from him to whom it is proper to hold the primacy in all things.

XIV. At about the same time, Theodoret wrote to the patrician Anatolius, whom he used as his greatest patron, beseeching him earnestly that he might obtain from the emperor the opportunity to go either to Rome for the judgment of the supreme pontiff, or to be received into a monastery, which was one hundred and twenty thousand [paces] from Cyrus, seventy-five from Antioch, and three from Apamea.

There are those who think that he obtained neither, with Chrysaphius hardening the emperor’s mind: however, it is more probable that he withdrew into a monastery with the emperor’s permission, and there lived his life far from tumult and business; for he himself, if he does not declare it openly, certainly implies it in his letters written to Andiberis and Apellus after the Robber Council, in which he speaks of his own departure from the city and the departure of others who were his associates. He implies it also in a letter to the oeconomi of his Church and the presbyter Theodotus, 186 to whom, while absent, he writes these things: "I also weep for the prevailing calamity, and I certainly congratulate myself, who have escaped from the tumults, and enjoy the pleasant tranquility," etc. Not dissimilar are the things which he wrote to Longinus, the archimandrite of Doliche: "You have shared in our sufferings, both by sending consoling letters and by sending the most reverend and most religious deacons Matthew and Isaac; and you will hear, I know, from the just Judge: 'I was in prison, and you came to me,' etc."

XV. However that may be, Leo certainly suffered a refusal from Theodosius regarding the business of convening a council in Italy, together with the Emperor Valentinian and the two Augustas: for he denied that there was any need for any synod, nor that anything had been done at Ephesus by injustice, but that concord and truth reigned in the Church with worthier bishops substituted in the place of the unworthy. It is worth the trouble to show the letter by which he responds to Valentinian; for it reveals how far he had been led into error by the arts of the eunuchs: having prefaced, therefore, what is customary for such humanity: "We desire nothing else," he says, "than that the paternal mysteries be preserved through the succession—"

and that poverty be preferred to riches full of cares."

His spirit, already tamed by evils and in large part corrected from his former error, he sustained with these and other things. For although, by his scholarly profession in the letters written to Bishop Timotheus, he indeed revoked his error, he did not wish to appear to have revoked it; so difficult is it for great-souled men to confess repentance.

^B To dispel the mists of error, the epistle of St. Leo to Flavianus on the incarnation contributed much light: for when Theodoret read it more attentively, and observed the distinction of the two natures in which Christ consists being openly preached, he congratulated himself on his agreement with the teacher of the Christian world, and brought it about, I believe, as it is certain he did at some point: he subjoined to the epistle of the supreme pontiff not only his own subscription—which seemed too little—but moreover those testimonies which he had collected four years earlier from the Fathers of the West and the East, and which he had inserted into his own dialogue, inscribed *Inconfusus*, against the confusion of ignorant monks, so that he might bring along with him, as subscribers, the most excellent teachers of the Church.

This same epistle he sent to his most certain patron, Anatolius, at Constantinople: not, of course, bare, just as it had come—for what would have been the need, when it was being worn out in the hands of everyone in the royal city?—but fortified, as I have said, with the testimonies of the Fathers, so that he might show his faith more openly. "The Lord," he says, "the ruler and moderator of all things, has revealed both the truth of our apostolic dogmas and the falsity of the calumny cast upon us. For those things which were written by the most dear to God and most holy archbishop of great Rome, Lord Leo, to the holy memory of Flavianus and others gathered at Ephesus, are in complete agreement with those things which we have either written or perpetually taught in the Churches. Wherefore, as soon as I read those letters, I praised the kind Lord, because He has not entirely deserted the Churches, but has preserved a spark of right doctrine—or rather, not a spark, but a great torch which can kindle and illuminate the whole world." Then, after praising the doctrine of the apostolic epistle as being in harmony with the Fathers: "I have joined these letters of mine to it, so that when your magnificence reads it, you may remember those things which have been said by us frequently in the Church, and may acknowledge the agreement of the dogmas." He also sent the same back to St. Leo by way of legates—that is, to the supreme judge whose tribunal he was appealing to—strengthened by the same testimonies, as an inescapable instrument and most weighty momentum of his cause. For what more powerful and serious evidence could anyone bring to bear on behalf of his own faith?

^C XVII. Meanwhile, Theodoret was consoling Sabinianus and Ibas, and himself, with letters, and as it were enjoying the anger of his adversaries; in these, indeed, he displayed a great zeal for the faith and a great disregard for honor and his see; yet he betrayed his character and the grief hidden in his soul. Wherefore he reproves Sabinianus kindly, because out of love for the see he had cast himself down to a place where it would be unbecoming for a great-souled man. "I sang the praises of your holiness," he says, "when you abandoned the invidious chair; for that which was once venerable has now become ridiculous, for we made it venal. I was amazed, however, after I learned that you had run to those who cast you out. For it was your duty to do the opposite: that while asked to retain the helm, you should have refused the governance, as if those who are in the same ship had become enemies." And afterwards concerning himself: "I have received the injury done to me as a divine benefit, not indeed having any gratitude toward the authors of the injury (for in what way could I, when they have embraced the part of fratricides and Cain?), but praising my Lord, who has deemed me worthy of the lot of those who suffer injury." But addressing Ibas more generously than Sabinianus: "Let us yield," he says, "to the killers the honors and delights, and the prerogative of the see and its unhappy glory; only let us cling to the evangelical dogmas, and with them, if there be need, let us endure anything harsh, ^D preferring poverty to riches full of cares."

^A to prove his purity, which agreement he had ordered to be maintained with the most holy and learned Fathers of the East and West—those before whom, as if gathered in a synod, Christ’s vicar presides? Who would stray from the Catholic truth, having followed such leaders as Hilary, Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophilus, Nazianzen, Basil, Cyril, and Leo the Great? The words of Augustine, arguing against Julian, could be brought forward here: "If a synod of bishops were gathered from the whole world, it would be a wonder if so many learned, grave, holy men, and such keen defenders of the truth, could easily sit there."

XVIII. During this time, he devoted himself to either compiling or, as I rather believe, at least finishing his *Ecclesiastical History*. It, as he himself confesses, covers a period of one hundred and five years, beginning from the madness of Arius and ending at the death of Theodorus and Theodotus—that is, from the seventeenth year of Constantine the Great (A.D. 322) to the twentieth year of Theodosius the Younger (A.D. 427). He labored at this task while enclosed in the monastery of Apamea; whether to beguile his troubles with mental exertion, or to console his patience with the example of saints vexed by the Arians, or to cast against his own age, by means of a certain ingenious allegory, a reflection of the past, in which the Arians raged against the defenders of the faith and brought forth offspring that, as it seemed to him, then resisted sound dogmas—but concerning this matter, there is more in the review of his Works, where the mystery of the allegory is explained.

189

CAPUT X.

I. The legates of Theodoret, Abramius, Hypatius, and Alypius, undertook the immense journey to Rome from Cyrus by an overland route: for by what other way could they have traveled at that season, with the sea closed and winter upon them? Therefore, they do not seem to have reached Rome before that February. With what kindness they were received, ^D and with what joy by the supreme pontiff, in what assembly of bishops they were heard, by what instruments and what patronage, and with what outcome they finally accomplished the cause for which they had come—although no ancient writer has committed this to memory, yet one may understand it, partly from the surrounding circumstances of the business and the custom of the times, and partly from the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, where there are few words indeed on the matter, but very full indications of the proceedings.

Long before this, Saint Leo had reviewed the acts of the Ephesine "robber synod," and by his supreme authority had declared them void; and having granted communion to all who had been struck with anathema by Dioscorus, in order that they might be more firmly established, and that a more solemn investigation might be held concerning Dioscorus himself, he had requested of Emperor Theodosius that a council of the whole world be convened in Italy, over which the head of the Church himself might preside. Frustrated of this hope, he did not draw back; but, unbroken by these evils, he attempted to see if there were any way to restore to their duty the bishops who had been seduced by the violence and tyranny of Dioscorus.

II. In the midst of this, the legates of Theodoret arrived in good time, to testify that the affairs of the faith in the East were so troubled that they could not be restored by anything other than the West: that a spark of evangelical truth scarcely remained, and that the extinguished light could not be rekindled except by the lamp of the Roman Church; that the tribunal of the apostolic see was implored as the sole refuge for the troubled piety. He argued that there was need for a council, such as Leo had in mind, that at least those men whom the synod of one hundred and thirty bishops had wrongfully called guilty should be summoned to judgment by apostolic authority; and in the meantime, judgment should be exercised concerning Theodoret, who, although forbidden by the emperor’s command to leave his place of exile, nevertheless presented himself through his legates, prepared to undergo a grave judgment and to prove his innocence at the risk of his own life.

Nothing was more desirable or opportune for this occasion; wherefore the legates were not only received kindly—which was a matter of humanity—but were also heard, which was a matter of justice, and indeed in a council, which was a matter of custom. For one of the greater causes was being handled, of a sort that was not debated in that age, even by the supreme pontiffs themselves, unless in a gathering of bishops. Indeed, that this cause was among the major ones is most evident from the fact that a question was being held regarding the faith of a most renowned bishop, deposed by a synod in which all the patriarchs of the whole world had been present.

III. The legates, beyond certain general arguments against the "robber synod" of Dioscorus, set forth these three points proper to defending the faith of Theodoret, which they first expounded in writing and then by word of mouth. First, that he had not only received the epistle of Saint Leo by subscription, but had also persuaded everyone it should be received, adding the testimonies of the Fathers praised throughout the world. For thus he demonstrated that he felt in a Catholic way, and proposed to others a certain rule of a correct and indubitable faith. For what is more Catholic, or what is more certain in the faith, than to consent to the teachers of both Churches and to the supreme pontiff himself, the doctor of the whole world? Second, that they might show that Theodoret had constantly adhered to the truth of dogmas during his whole life, and had not only come to his senses after the condemnation, they brought forward from books published at least twelve years earlier many passages in which the orthodox faith concerning the two natures in Christ, indivisibly joined, seemed to be contained. Third, they amplified this by saying that

Theodoret had written in his letters to Saint Leo how much he had labored in the Lord's field, and that he had irrigated it not only with sweat, but also with blood; how often he had suffered stoning from heretics; how often he had been sought for death, and had not escaped except by a miracle; how often, with divine help and the prayers of the saints, he had stood victorious against demons and the band of the impious who conspired against him; how many myriads of men he had brought back from error to the truth; how much, in short, and how dire were the things he had endured from the attackers of the two natures; and especially from Dioscorus, whom he found to be a common enemy with Saint Leo, as one who had been deposed by him, by whom the prelate of the first see, the supreme pontiff, the vicar of Christ, and head of the Church, had been subjected to anathema. ^A When these and other things were said by men of conspicuous sanctity about the old man, who from his infancy had led an ascetic life with admirable religion; about the bishop who for fully thirty years had tirelessly ruled eight hundred parishes; about the man most learned in all the East, who, having been ejected from his see, driven from his city, and forbidden water and fire, had been forced to flee outside the province to a monastery, and there, despoiled of his goods, to hide patiently—these things, I say, when they were said by the saints who were privy to everything, were heard with favorable minds, which two eyewitnesses—Renatus the priest 191 and Hilary the archdeacon—moved even by the moment of their own authority; both were legates of the apostolic see, and both were appealed to by Theodoret in supplicant letters.

IV. The matter having been debated, the pontiff delivered a judicial 16 sentence, in which he declared that Theodoret had, in the first place, been unjustly judged; secondly, that he had never been deprived of apostolic communion; and finally, that he was to be restored to the see from which he had been expelled by an injury. ^B To the interlocution followed the acclamation of the bishops: "Theodoret is worthy of the see, divine Leo has judged." Then the legates of the apostolic see said: "The most holy archbishop of the universal Church, Leo, long ago received Theodoret into communion, as the letters directed by him to our humility testify. If, therefore, he shows the Catholic faith, just as he promises, and as he directed the subscription according to the blessed bishop in his own book, and furthermore showed it to our humility in another given book 21," etc. Thus, indeed, the old interpreter, Julian of Cos, adhering more simply to the words; others, like the Venetian editor, Crabb, etc., somewhat better: "Since, therefore, he promises the Catholic faith, just as he also directed the subscription according to the aforesaid blessed bishop in his own book, and furthermore made it manifest by another book given to our humility, and since he has pronounced anathema against Nestorius and Eutyches, not only in writing, but also with his own mouth, before the entire assembly," etc. The judgment, therefore, concerning Theodoret was exercised by Saint Leo, not by right alone, because of his apostolic power, but also in a synod, according to custom.

^C A full testimony of this sentence, and an undoubted monument, is contained in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon 17. For when the first action was beginning, the judges appointed by the emperor ordered Theodoret to be brought in. "For the most holy archbishop Leo," they said, "restored the episcopate to him." And later: "Theodoret, who received his own place from the most holy bishop of the renowned city of Rome," etc. When it came to the eighth action, in which Theodoret's case was to be treated, and when he himself had pronounced anathema against Nestorius, the judges spoke to this effect: "All doubt concerning Theodoret is now resolved: for he has both anathematized Nestorius before you, and has been received by the most holy archbishop of the elder city of Rome, Leo, and he has willingly accepted the definition of the faith put forward by your religiousness, and ^D furthermore the epistolary memory of the most holy archbishop Leo, subscribed by the most holy archbishop Leo 19. It remains that the sentence be pronounced by your reverence, that he may receive his Church, just as the most holy archbishop Leo has judged 19."

192 It is, however, obscure what kind of synod this was, whether it was the ordinary one which was held twice a year, or an extraordinary one, such as those that were convened according to the needs of the situation by many of the bishops who were then present and the city clergy. I believe it was extraordinary; for it was not held at the usual times: for how could it have been before Lent, since the legates of Theodoret had not yet arrived? Likewise, how could it have been around October, when another very well-known one was collected in the month of July, from which two bishops, together with two priests as well, were sent by Saint Leo to Constantinople?

V. But this was the reason why the pontiff decreed legates to Theodosius: Anatolius 22, who had been substituted into the see of Saint Flavian, as he had been made bishop of Constantinople from being an apocrisiarius of Dioscorus, was laboring under no small suspicion of agreement with Dioscorus and Eutyches, whose favor he was enjoying. Therefore, the pontiff, intending to prove the faith of Anatolius, and at the same time to destroy, as much as perhaps was permitted, the robber synod of Ephesus, by recalling to the right faith the bishops whom fear had once led astray, sent legates with mandates to reconcile them to the Church, for whom there might be penance for the crime perpetrated at Ephesus. But before he sent them, in the month of July he convened a famous synod of all Italy. In this the legation to the East was decreed: he was made head of the legation, by the constitution of all Italy, and by the election of the dispensation

^A of Pope Leo, Abundius, a man excelling in wisdom and energetic in various languages; his companions added were the bishop Asterius and two presbyters, Basil and Senator. A formula of faith was delivered—namely, the epistle of Leo to Flavian, along with the testimonies of the Fathers appended by Theodoret—and a mandate was given at the same time to grant Anatolius the option of choosing whose epistle—the one written by Leo to Flavian, or the one written by Cyril to Nestorius—he wished to demonstrate his faith with by his subscription. Moreover, it was commanded that Leo's epistle be sent to Maximus, who had succeeded Domnus in the see of Antioch, to be subscribed as a testimony of the faith. For he himself was also suspected of being in agreement with Dioscorus, by whom he had been substituted for Domnus, who was lethally ill at the time of his deposition. Finally, it was prescribed that he should treat more insistently with the Emperor concerning the holding of a council in the regions of the West.

VI. Abundius discharged the legation with his companions in such a way that the outcome surpassed the high pontiff's hope and expectation. For Anatolius and Maximus not only received the epistle of Leo (which was presented at the same time) as a rule of faith, but also took care that it should be received by the bishops of their own respective dioceses, who had been summoned to the council.

Regarding Anatolius, we have a reliable witness in the person who wrote the Life of Saint Abundius: "Anatolius," he says, "bishop of the city ^B of Constantinople, New Rome, convened a council of all the bishops, archimandrites, presbyters, and deacons; and before the gaze of all, the epistle of Saint Leo was read, which Blessed Abundius presented before everyone, with the testimonies of the Roman and Argolic Fathers in agreement. Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, consented to this epistle of Saint Leo the Pope, which contains the truth of the Catholic faith, which also the testimonies of the Fathers sent from the same apostolic see confirmed, and he subscribed it with full devotion, saying anathema to Eutyches and Nestorius, and to their dogma or followers: then the other Fathers, a considerable number, subscribed in the same manner."

From both at once, Saint Leo writes: "You should know that the whole Constantinopolitan Church, with all its monasteries and many bishops, has given its consent, and by their subscriptions has anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches with their dogmas. Know also this: recently I received an epistle from the bishop of Constantinople, which reports that the Antiochene bishop, having sent pastoral letters ^C through his provinces, had gathered all the bishops, and they had provided their consent to my epistle, and had condemned Nestorius and Eutyches with an equal subscription."

Such devotion, of which mention was just made—if indeed it was devotion, and not rather a readiness for ^D solicitude—arose from four causes in particular: from the turn of events, which shall soon be narrated; from the contrary state of the empire, with Pulcheria now reigning at her own discretion; from the fear of both prelates, who were afraid of being driven from the see to which they had been elevated by vice; and finally, from the industry of the legates, who used their time to promote the cause of the faith.

At that time, Theodoret was staying in the Apamean monastery with Ibas of Edessa and Aquilinus, formerly of Byblos. They had betaken themselves there either for the sake of visiting friends, or, as it were, to a common port, cast there by the same storm.

VII. In that place, the epistle of Saint Leo was brought, whether through the care of Maximus—which I hardly believe—or by the help of friends who sympathized with the afflicted exiles. Theodoret ^A exposed to his companions the epistle which had long since been known to him, and, fortified with the common subscription of the three of them, he sent it to Constantinople to Abundius with a letter. In this, after he praised Abundius's zeal in helping the Eastern Church and the uncorrupted faith of the Westerners, he then professes his own faith to be in accordance with the apostolic letters; and he soon adds: "To these letters I also have agreed, and I have attached to this epistle of mine a copy of them, to which I have also subscribed, and by this I have proven that I follow the apostolic rules—that is, the true dogmas—and even today I remain in them, and for this reason I suffer war. My lord Ibas and my lord Aquilinus have likewise agreed, against whom the powers of the emperors have armed the inventors of the new heresy."

CAPUT XI.

Anno 450 and 451.

I. Before Abundius could reach the royal city with his companions, Theodosius departed from this life on the 29th of July in the year 450, having lived forty-nine years and having reigned forty-two years and almost three months.

II. With the life of Theodosius, the power of Chrysaphius was removed: for Pulcheria resumed the reins of the empire after she, a fifty-year-old virgin, gave Marcian the name of husband; and in order to consecrate the first fruits of her reign to God and justice, having rescinded what had thus far been done by force and contrary to divine law, she thought of giving peace to the Churches and of convening a synod.

III. Such a change of affairs came about that, with the help of Vincomalus, master of offices, and the consul Avienus,

and the patrician Anatolius, men ^A of most deserved power, Theodoret was recalled from exile, as the infamous synod had not sufficed for his see, and he was restored to his city. He gave singular thanks by letter to each of the three for the benefit received, and requested that the princes be addressed in his name, but at the same time, that prayers be offered for the convening of a synod. For he hoped, relying on the help of his patrons, that he would prove his innocence to the whole world, and repay Dioscorus in turn.

IV. Truly it is wonderful with what art he addresses those illustrious men. It is pleasant to cull something from individual letters, from which the light of history may shine forth, and at the same time, it may be manifest how eloquently a spirit exulting in joy triumphs. Thus, therefore, to Anatolius: "We indeed, when we attained quiet, embraced it gladly, and we perceive its useful and most sweet fruits. But our Christ-loving emperor, having attained the empire as the fruit of piety, offered the first fruits of his empire to the Giver of the empire—the tranquility of the Churches which were tossed, the triumph of the oppressed faith, the victory of evangelical 195 dogmas. To these, indeed, he added the remedy for the injury brought upon us. For who has ever heard of such and so great an iniquity? Who, while absent, was condemned as a murderer? Who, while absent, was convicted as a plotter against a marriage? Who, while absent, was condemned as a housebreaker, or a grave-robber, or a poisoner, or an expiator of sacred things, or anyone who committed anything else forbidden by the laws, and who was prohibited from coming to judgment when he wished, and, far away, was condemned by the sentence of judges?" And at the end: "But it becomes you, who have been educated in piety and possess the riches of virtue, to resume this zeal; and to make the most pious emperor himself, and the Christ-loving Augusta, already eager, more ready through your exhortations, so that by their praiseworthy zeal they may strengthen their most glorious empire."

To Vincomalus, moreover: "I am greatly astonished, when I learned of your magnificence, that though you were completely ignorant of our affairs, and had learned only of the injury which was done to us, you undertook our patronage and moved everything to overthrow the engines prepared against us; but the munificent Lord will repay your magnificence with a truly worthy compensation." And after setting forth the indignities he had suffered: "Furthermore, I entreat your magnificence that you may give thanks in my words to the Christ-loving and victorious emperor, and to the religious and God-beloved Augusta, because by their pious reign they have given a firm root to piety, and that you may entreat their power so that it may effect firm peace for the Churches, and order a synod to be convened, not of men acting in tumult who would disturb the assembly, but of those loving the truth, who would stabilize the apostolic doctrine and exterminate this new and adulterous heresy." ^B

To the same effect he wrote to the consul: "It was fitting, he says, that this also should be added to the other illustrious actions of your fortitude, so that our most religious and Christ-loving emperor, whom divine grace established for the good of his subjects, might be made more certain through your magnificence of the indignity of the injury done to us, and might rescind an unjust law by a just law." And afterwards: "The most serene emperor has removed all these things through the zeal of your magnificence; I, however, thinking that I would err if I remained silent and did not give thanks, have been led to write these things, by which I beseech your greatness to convey favorable voices for us, both to the victorious and Christ-loving emperor, and to God-beloved and most religious Augusta, for whom I invoke the good Lord, that He may preserve for them a firm empire, which may mercifully profit their subjects and strike terror into their enemies, and procure a stable peace for all. To this end, also, may your greatness allow itself to be moved to ask of them that they may impose a perfect end to the tempest of the Church, and order that a synod 196 be convened, not again of those who, accustomed to tumult, disturb the council, but of those who, having been taught divine things, may confirm the apostolic dogmas and reject those which are spurious and alien to the truth."

V. Whether Theodoret himself gave thanks to the Augusti is uncertain; it is nonetheless certain that he offered a petition. For in the Council of Chalcedon, when he was speaking for himself: "I offered," he says, "prayers to the most sacred, and most pious, and most Christian lords of the world, and I set forth the wounds that were inflicted upon me, and I pray that these be read." ^C

VI. What he so greatly desired was accomplished at the request of the supreme pontiff: for by imperial sanction, a general synod was indicted at Nicaea in Bithynia for the Kalends of September of the year 451. But the city did not please the legates of the apostolic see: wherefore they obtained from the emperor that the location be changed, partly so that from a closer place certain messengers could be sent more quickly to the city, and partly so that the proximity of the prince might contain the impotence of the counts, and suppress the seditions of those who were creating a tumult. ^D

VII. Therefore, six hundred and thirty Fathers gathered at Chalcedon: Theodoret himself also arrived, summoned by name, since he had been restored to his see by pontifical and royal authority. And when the Fathers had first sat together on the 8th of October, he himself was also admitted into the assembly. Facundus recounts how the matter was done from the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, refuting those who thought that Theodoret was only admitted at the eighth session. "And how it is reported," he says, "in the acts of that same synod, that in the very first session Theodoret sat among the other bishops, in the consulship of Marcian Augustus, on the 8th of the Ides of October. Does it not contain there[...]?

these words? The most glorious judges and the most ample senate said: Let the most reverend bishop Theodoret enter, that he may be a participant in the synod, because both the most holy archbishop has restored his episcopate to him, and the most sacred and most pious emperor has decreed that he be present at the holy synod. The most reverend bishop Theodoret, passing into the middle, said: I have offered prayers to the most sacred and most Christian masters of the world, and I have recounted the injuries that have been done to me, and I pray that these be read. And after this presentation by the same most reverend Theodoret, as the most glorious judges and the senate were again discussing, because Theodoret had also received his own proper place from the most holy bishop of the renowned city of Rome, and had the testimony of Maximus, bishop of Antioch, that he was of the Catholic faith, as is written there, he sat in the middle; and, in his presence and as he sat among the other bishops, those things were read which had been done at Ephesus under Dioscorus, etc.

VIII. The Egyptians, along with the Illyrians and Palestinians, long resisted tumultuously, shouting that Cyril was being rejected, that the teacher of Nestorius was being rejected, that a Jew, an opponent of God, an accuser of Cyril was being received, a man who had done injury to Christ, whom God had abhorred, to whom the entire synod had said anathema. The tumult ceased when the princes spoke, and Theodoret held his place, and that by a rightful claim, until the lawsuit was adjudicated in the eighth session.

IX. The treatment of Theodoret was more benign than that of Eusebius of Dorylaeum, even though the condition of both was equal: for the Roman council had restored both to their seats after the cause was adjudicated following their appeal. The reason for this singular favor was that, out of the nineteen illustrious men who were present at the synod on behalf of the emperor, ten favored Theodoret: three from the princes—Anatolius, Vincomalus, and Sporacius; seven from the senate—Florentius, Senator, Nomus, Protogenes, Theodorus, Apollonius, and Constantius. Although a special consideration also favored Theodoret, because, as no one had been substituted in his place—in contrast to others who were deposed at Ephesus—he could more easily be admitted into the assembly without prejudice or opposition from another.

When, in the second session, the synodical letter of Leo the Great to Flavian was read, and its three sentences seemed doubtful to the Illyrians and Palestinians, Aetius the deacon showed that the first two, and Theodoret the third, were in harmony with Cyril.

How welcome this outcome was to Leo is shown by the letter written to Theodoret after the return of the legates, in which he expresses gratitude for his zeal in defending the letters of the Apostolic See.

X. The cause of Theodoret occupied almost the entire eighth session, the manner of which in the Acts is judged useful to be brought in here. For those things, whether incidental, or in the words themselves, will be observed, more easily and not without gain, since from this many questions usually raised by the learned are solved without great effort. Thus, therefore, the Acts stand:

^A Resident bishops shouted before the rails of the most holy altar: Let Theodoret anathematize Nestorius now.

The most reverend bishop Theodoret, passing into the middle, said: I have offered prayers to the most divine and most pious emperor, and I have offered letters to the most reverend bishops acting in the place of the most reverend archbishop Leo; and, if it pleases you, let them be read before you, so that you may know how I think.

The most reverend bishops shouted: We do not wish to read anything; simply anathematize Nestorius.

The most reverend bishop Theodoret said: By the grace of God, I was nurtured by the orthodox, and I was taught orthodoxly, and I have preached 198 orthodoxly; and not only Nestorius and Eutyches, but every man who does not rightly understand, I abhor and consider alien.

And while he was saying these things, the most reverend bishops shouted: Say clearly anathema to Nestorius and his dogmas; anathema to Nestorius and those who love him.

The most reverend bishop Theodoret said: Truly, I do not say anything except how I know to please God. I first satisfy you, because I am not thinking of the city, nor do I have need of honor, nor did I come for this; but because I have suffered calumny, I came to satisfy, that I am orthodox, and ^B every heretic who does not wish to convert I anathematize, and Nestorius and Eutyches, and every man saying or thinking two sons, I anathematize.

And when he said this, the most reverend bishops shouted: Say openly anathema to Nestorius, and to those who think the things that are his.

The most reverend bishop Theodoret said: Unless I set forth how I believe, I do not speak; I do believe, however.

And when he said this, the most reverend bishops shouted: He is a heretic, he is a Nestorian; cast the heretic out.

The most reverend bishop Theodoret said: Anathema to Nestorius and to him who does not call the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, and who divides the one only-begotten Son into two sons. But I have subscribed to the definition of faith, and to the letter of the most holy and God-beloved archbishop lord Leo, and I so think. And after all these things he said: Fare you well.

^C The most glorious judges said: Every doubt concerning the most reverend bishop Theodoret is now resolved: for he has both anathematized Nestorius before you, and he has been accepted by Leo, the most holy and God-beloved [bishop] of the elder city of Rome, and he has willingly accepted the definition of faith set forth by your religiosity, and ^D

moreover has subscribed to the letters of the aforementioned most holy Archbishop Leo. It remains, therefore, for judgement to be pronounced by your Reverence, that he may receive his Church, just as the most holy Bishop Leo has judged. ^A All the most reverend bishops cried out: Theodoret is worthy of the see; may the Church receive its pastor; may the Church receive an orthodox teacher; Theodoret is worthy of the see! Many years to Archbishop Leo! After God, Leo has judged. May the people receive an orthodox [pastor] worthy of his see. To Theodoret, the catholic teacher, let the Church be restored.

^B Paschasinus and Lucentius, most reverend bishops, and Boniface, most reverend presbyter, and in addition also Julian, most reverend Bishop of Cos, having the place of the Apostolic See, said: The most holy and venerable bishop, Theodoret, has long since been received into communion by the most holy and most blessed Leo, bishop of the city of Rome, head of the universal Church; just as the letters directed from him to our humility bear witness. If, therefore, he [subscribes] to the catholic faith, as he promises, and [subscribes] according to the aforementioned blessed bishop, and has directed the subscription in his own book, and furthermore has shown to our humility by another given book, that he has anathematized both Nestorius and Eutyches not only in writing, but also in the presence of the entire assembly with his own mouth, by this judgement the most holy and most venerable synod, and moreover our humility, has determined that his own Church be restored to him.

^C XI. The Fathers interpreting this final word of Theodoret as he was calling out, "Farewell" (salvete), in the conference with the Catholics, [took it] exactly as if it were the indignation of a man forced against his will to change his expressed opinion, and that he had thus made a retraction in what he said; for they claimed that he had departed from the assembly with that remark. They brought this forward to condemn the holy synod, as having rashly received a man whose faith was doubtful and even feigned, or for his agreement with the supporters of Nestorius and the enemies of Cyril, whom he had received.

^D As to what they say, that Theodoret departed with that remark, it is far from the truth; it is also far from the truth that they accuse him of having made a dissembling profession: for that he did not immediately depart from the assembly is concluded from the fact that he subscribed to the fourteenth action; that he made a sincere profession is evidenced by the fact that he wrote afterward that which demonstrates the purest faith in the Incarnation. He wrote not a few things in his retirement, far from affairs; for he does not appear to have returned to the episcopate, content to have recovered his dignity, which he could have relinquished of his own accord.

CAPUT XII.

I. What he did after the council was dissolved does not, perhaps, lie in as much obscurity as Baronius and Sirmond judged: for he wrote two works, equal to the best of his previous ones; he gave and received letters that stand as witnesses to his faith; and he entered upon a manner of life by which he could wipe away the stains of the previous time, and show himself worthy to have been deemed deservedly to have had an end to his beginnings that was entirely admirable. Immediately, therefore, after the synod was concluded, he rushed away from Chalcedon, whether weary of the disturbances, which it was permitted to flee by rumor, or whether suffering what humans are subject to, towards those of noble spirit, for whom nothing is more intolerable than the sight of men as witnesses of their own penance.

II. As he was departing, Sporacius, one of the most illustrious judges and a singular protection for Theodoret, gave the command to explain the difference of the heretical fables, as many as have existed from the birth of the Church, and against each to oppose the truth of the catholic doctrines. The excellent man, truly and in few things a catholic, requested this, not so much because he desired, as Theodoret writes, to know what paths had been innovated on either side outside the straight way, the end of which is the abyss of perdition, as that he might give to Theodoret the occasion and even the necessity of proving his faith with as many arguments as he would refute by exposing the heresies.

III. This work, no less laborious than it is artful, is comprised of five books; Theodoret himself worked it out in the year 452, but published it only in the following. For the working-out happened after the council, but the publication after the consulship of Sporacius. The council, however, was finished on the first day of November in the year 451; the consulship of Sporacius began on the Kalends of January in the year 452.

I have called the work laborious and artful: how much labor had to be expended in unfolding the writers who up to that day had defended the cause of the catholic faith against the heresies? But of what art was it, and how cunningly [devised], to write of each [point] in such a way that the reader would, gradually and without awareness, by himself overwhelm with the odium of agreement with the heretics the defenders of the one nature of the incarnate Word, [and] liberate the proponents of the two [natures]; that is, as the times were, or certainly as was the opinion of the vulgar, to accuse Cyril [and] absolve Nestorius! It is truly a marvel that the distinction by which the catholic truth is distinguished from the two extreme errors, though it was neither very thin nor very obscure, nevertheless escaped the eyes of Theodoret; but...

had stripped away all that poison with incredible subtlety, which the love of glory and the proud reverence of men not infrequently instill: this, which still clung to him, he shook off by his retreat into the monastery, away from the conversations of men; yet not all at once, but little by little, in parts: so deeply had the desire for glory taken root in the mind of Theodoret, through which he wished it to be believed that he could have compelled Cyril, the excellent prelate of the Oriental Church, from the heresy of Apollinaris to the Catholic faith. ^A And this was the reason why, from the moment he first began, he never ceased to attack the *Capitula*: for he hoped that by this perpetual assault, he would bring it about that all would acknowledge his own constancy in doctrine, the inconstancy of Cyril, and the victory of the one over the other. Nor did his hope deceive him; for he persuaded both his own followers and many of the Catholics, even the most saintly among them, that the *Capitula* were suspect; and from this it came about that there was no discussion of them during the reconciliation of the Churches, nor at the Council of Chalcedon, nor ^B at the Fifth Synod, except by way of occasion.

IV. What the solitude of his retreat was like, he himself relates to John the Economus: "To me," he says, "rest is pleasant, and a life free from cares; for this reason, indeed, I have blocked the gate to the atrium of the monastery, and I avoid the gatherings of friends." Furthermore, he had decided to abstain from writing letters and publishing treatises to the public, so that nothing might distract his soul, which wished to enjoy itself and was eager to satisfy its thirst for divine things: yet he did not therefore lay aside all care for his flock; but as the monastery was near Cyrus, he was free to attend to individual matters—at least the more important ones—that could not be handled by the two chorepiscopi, Hypatius and Abramius.

V. Yet let no one rashly suppose that Theodoret, having abdicated his episcopate, substituted one or the other of the two—Hypatius, to wit—in his place, and gave himself over entirely to writing books, or rather to reclaiming the religious exercises of his former life. This opinion is discouraged first by the fact that he often testified that he was held by a weariness of the episcopate, or at least that he was not very much drawn to it by zeal; and that affection of the mind must have been more vehement and effective at that time, when the times were turbulent. ^C Add to this that he could not easily cultivate the friendship of Maximus, the Patriarch of Antioch, whom Dioscorus, his enemy, had installed. Why mention that it was not to be desired that a man, against whom a serious accusation had been built up from whence—and to whom, because of an opinion gathered over a long time, there would be attributed, should anything be done in those [synods] that was unpleasant either to the Empire or to the Church, whatever he might do—should be present at the provincial synods, from which bishops were not permitted to be absent when they were summoned by *tractoria*? Especially since it was easy for more, with minds still agitated by recent contention, to occur. It seems also that he ^D had left the invidious cathedra, which once he had congratulated Sabinianus upon, when he had relinquished it. Finally, he himself hints at this not obscurely, when he prefaces his later commentaries on the Octateuch; for he addresses Hypatius, the instigator of this undertaking, as "son," because of his age, in such a way that he appears to revere his authority because of his dignity.

VI. In this retreat, he received letters from holy Leo, in which the pontiff shows love in his congratulation, paternal affection in his exhortation, and authority in the giving of commands. He congratulates him on three things: first, the victory over the Nestorian impiety, the Eutychian madness, and his enemy Dioscorus; second, the restoration of his dignity, confirmed by the judgment of the council; third, the defense or exposition of his own letter against the dissenters.

He exhorts him with vehement speech to profess the faith more openly and willingly in the future than he had done heretofore, while the love of Nestorius was not yet rooted out from its foundation. Nor was the pontiff ignorant of how great Theodoret's weakness was in this regard, and how much he needed to be strengthened; wherefore, to persuade him of what he was advising, he adduces the example of Dioscorus, whom the love of his Eutyches had driven to the precipice. "Although," he says, "your fraternity, sustained by solid food, may seem to need these things not at all; yet, that we may fulfill what is of our office concerning the voice of the Apostle: *Besides those things which are without, my daily instance, the solicitude of all the churches; who is weak, and I am not weak? who is scandalized, and I am not on fire?* We believe that on this present occasion, dearest brother, we must particularly advise you that, as often as by divine grace, we either submerge or cleanse those who are outside in the fountain of doctrine, we must not in any way recede from the rules of faith which the divinity of the Holy Spirit brought forth at the Council of Chalcedon; but we must weigh our speech with all caution between both enemies of this new perfidy: not now—God forbid!—as if we were debating doubtful things, but asserting with supreme authority what has been well defined."

The Pontiff's suspicion of Theodoret's weakness appears again more manifest from these things: "Whence it is also worthy for us to provide against these enemies of the Church, that we leave them no opportunity of slander as far as we are concerned; nor, when acting against the Nestorians or the Eutychians, may we ever seem to have turned our backs on the others: but let us avoid and condemn both enemies of Christ with an equal balance; so that, as often as the profit of the hearers demands it, we may most promptly and evidently strike them with a worthy anathema along with their dogmas, lest, if this should seem to be done by us either too obscurely or too slowly, it be thought to be done against our will. Which, although the matter itself is sufficient to admonish your prudence, now however, experiments have also taught it. But blessed be..."

our God, whose invincible truth has demonstrated you—according to the judgments of the Apostolic See—to be free from every stain of heresy, and to whom He will render a reward worthy of so many labors, if you preserve yourself, such as we have deemed and do deem you, for the defense of the universal Church. ^A

Furthermore, so that the remedy of so great and so loving a physician might be more effective, he added a mandate by which he ordered Theodoret to report again and again to the Apostolic See as to the state of the Church's affairs, and how much effort he himself was expending in the eradication of the remnants of the Nestorians and Eutychians. For they were lurking in the monasteries, and would break forth from time to time, with monks preaching to the people, whom Leo orders to be silent so long as they have not been elevated to the order of the presbyterate. ^B

VII. This exhortation of the holy pontiff caused Theodoret, who had thought to bury the question concerning the incarnation in silence, to handle it more diligently, given the occasion provided by Aetius, and to publish a public document of his faith. For at the time when he was busying himself with the composition of the five books of *Heretical Fables*, or had recently completed the work, the archdeacon Aetius, as the rumor went among men, dared to bring forward something new in the city; and thinking that the proposal of silence was, as it were, injurious to Christ, Theodoret saw fit to deflect his purpose for a time in order to refute this. He relates the matter himself: "After I learned that new contentions were being stirred up against the evangelical faith, I do not believe that silence is free from danger. For if peril hangs over those who, while a mortal king is being affected with injury by certain individuals, do not repel the injurious persons, not only those who committed the injury, but also those who were present at the time, what punishment will they not deservedly incur who do not hesitate to hold in contempt the blasphemies brought against God and our Savior? This fear compelled me to write at the present time, and to demonstrate what I have learned is being innovated by some. ^C For many, as some affirm, are boasting in the city that the most wise archdeacon has commanded that one ought not to say 'Christ,' but to glorify the 'Only-Begotten,' while certain presbyters are praying and applying the customary end to their prayer, some saying: 'For to Thee is due glory, and to Thy Christ, and to Thy holy Spirit,' but others saying: 'By the grace and kindness of Thy Christ, with whom glory is due to Thee, with Thy holy Spirit.' This, if it is true, surpasses every measure of impiety."

He refutes such impiety with many points, beginning thus: "Either he is dividing our one Lord Jesus Christ into two Sons, and thinks the Only-Begotten is the legitimate and natural Son, but that Christ is indeed adoptive and a bastard, and therefore unworthy of glorification; or else he is trying to establish a burgeoning heresy." And indeed, if a dire storm were looming, perhaps someone might suspect that ^D he had been deterred by the power of the authors of the heresy from granting indulgence to the occasion for blasphemy. But after He who is blasphemed rebuked the winds and the sea, and gave peace back to the churches, and the preaching of the apostles is promulgated everywhere by land and sea, what room remains for blasphemy? For not even they who perversely insert one nature of flesh and divinity into ecclesiastical dogmas now dare to forbid Christ the Lord from being praised; and this is easy to know from those who have returned from there; however, it was necessary that he who presides over the ecclesiastical order should know Divine Scripture, etc.

*The rumor of men regarding Aetius, a man of the Catholic faith, was false, as holy Leo speaks. For he, on account of his holiness and the integrity of his faith, was first enrolled into the clergy by the holy Sisinius, then made a deacon by the holy Proclus, and afterward appointed by the martyr Flavian as one of the notaries in the case of Eutyches. Soon, in the Council of Chalcedon, when he was the primicerius of the notaries, he studiously promoted the cause of the Catholic faith against Dioscorus, and not only defended the letter of St. Leo to the doubtful, but also defended it against its impugners. Finally, he consistently opposed both the Nestorians and the Eutychians at the same time; but especially the Eutychians, whom he perceived to be laying snares for the Constantinopolitan Church; and this was the cause why he was hated by Anatolius, who was Catholic on the outside but Eutychian on the inside; and why, under the appearance of an honor, he was not so much created a presbyter as he was cast down from his rank of archdeacon; and why, having had the administration of the entire Constantinopolitan Church taken away, he received only the procuration of the cemetery; and why, finally, the dispensation of the whole cause and of the ecclesiastical charge was suddenly transferred to Andrew the Eutychianist. Pope Leo complains of this to the Emperor Marcian and the Empress Pulcheria in letters written on that matter in the consulship of Opilio.*

VIII. But however the case of Aetius may have finally stood, it certainly opened the occasion for Theodoret to testify to his faith concerning the incarnation of the Word and to publish a book (would that it had reached us in its entirety!), in which, having followed the mandates of the Supreme Pontiff, he so avoided Nestorian impiety and Eutychian madness that, walking the middle—that is, the Catholic—path, he taught by example that no one errs who follows Christ as He spoke through the mouth of Peter. "No one," he says, "should foolishly think Christ to be any other than the Only-Begotten Son; nor should we deem ourselves wiser from the grace of the Spirit, but let us listen to the great Peter crying out: *Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God* (Matt. xvi. 16). Let us listen also to Christ the Lord confirming this confession: *Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it* (ibid. 18). Therefore the most wise Paul," etc. He had said just before, whence it might appear

to be understood, nor that he died immediately after the Council of Chalcedon, which seemed to Sirmond so, nor that he survived after the beginning of the reign of Emperor Leo, as it has pleased others. That Theodoret was still alive on the 10th of June, 453, at which time Saint Leo sent a letter to him, also makes against Sirmond; it makes against others that there is no mention of Theodoret after the beginning of the reign of Leo, who began to reign in the year 457; whence it may be inferred to retract things which he had formerly poured forth rather bitterly regarding the tenth chapter of Cyril: Christ was called, as if anointed by the Holy Spirit according to His humanity, and made our pontiff and apostle, 205 and prophet, and king. For the divine Moses cried out long before: The Lord God will raise up a prophet for you from your brothers, as me 9. And the divine David shouted, saying: The Lord swore and will not repent: You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek. And the divine Apostle confirms the prophecy, and says again: Having therefore a great high priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

IX. Another took up this labor, at the request of Hypatius and other familiar friends, who feared that with Theodoret’s body weakened and broken by years and infirmities, the excellent learning which he possessed in the elucidation of the abstruse passages of Scripture would perish. He wrote therefore an explanation (the words are Photius’s 50) on the Octateuch, which earned an inscription congruent to the work, on the obscure and abstruse places of Scripture: in which there are also [explanations] on the books of Kings, and on Chronicles. But this work is most useful in the first place, etc. ^B II. I confess that Marcellinus Comes mentions Theodoret at the year of Christ 466, when Leo Senior was consul, indiction IV: "Theodoret," he says, "holy bishop of the city of Cyrrhus, wrote on the incarnation of the Lord against Eutyches and Dioscorus, bishop of the Alexandrian Church, who deny the human flesh in Christ." But the error of Marcellinus concerning the time is clear: for when he transcribed the words of Gennadius, who relates that Theodoret wrote against Eutyches and Dioscorus and died under Leo Senior, he interpreted the indefinite note of time as concerning the middle part of Leo’s reign, in which he hallucinates wonderfully; forasmuch as the *Eranistes*, which is said by Gennadius to have been written against Eutyches and Dioscorus, came to light before the year 446, as is proved by a clear account in the review of his Works 53.

III. Theodorus Lector in his *Collectanea* 54 has these things: "Theodoret prepared an urn for the great Jacob for his burial; but it happened that Theodoret died first: yet in the same [urn] the great Jacob himself was also interred." From this can be gathered not obscurely the time when Theodoret departed. For that wonder-working Jacob was still living in the second year of the Emperor Leo, which is 458 of Christ, if there is any faith in Evagrius: ^C But let one marvel how a man older than seventy, with an infirm body and broken strength, could have completed such a work with such force of mind in so little time. But it is even more miraculous, and worthy that the Church should render praise to the immense benignity of God for enjoying the labors of Theodoret, that he brought the end of his writing and his life to pass amidst the praises of the incredible mercy by which God compelled Manasseh to a better fruit through castigation; and that in Manasseh he seems to have shadowed forth his own lot, and to have expressed the sincere feeling of his soul. For thus he writes: "Manasseh paid the penalties of impiety: for he was delivered to the king of the Assyrians and led in chains to Babylon; but to him, however, the abyss of goodness imparted the fountains of mercy. For after, he says, Manasseh was pressed, he prayed to the Lord his God, and was humbled greatly before the God of his fathers, and besought Him, and He heard his voice, and led him back to Jerusalem to his kingdom, and Manasseh knew that the Lord Himself was God; to such a degree does castigation benefit those who will: for what he did not have while reigning, this he obtained while serving."

CHAPTER XIII

Anno Christi 458. 206 I. At what time Theodoret died, no one hands down definitely. Gennadius says he died under Leo, ^D nor could he have been a survivor for long, since at that time he was quite old, and at least a nonagenarian, or even older; for he was already of great name on account of his prodigious rule of life, when the Isaurian robbers depopulated many places of the Orient 56, which happened in the year 404. For if he is supposed to have been 35 years old at that time—which age, however, is hardly equal to such a name—he must be said to have exceeded his ninetieth year at the time when he was asked by Emperor Leo for his opinion in a letter regarding the Tome of Chalcedon. But who would believe that he survived even for a few years, when he was older than others who were already quite advanced in age, whose lives Theodoret later wrote; and he held to that rule of life which Theodoret, although an eyewitness, hardly dared to relate on account of its 207 incredibility; and [when] he was subject to illnesses of the physical habit, and the thirteenth septenary of his life, which is of all the most deadly, had fallen in his ninety-first year?

IV. If, however, all these things are correct and probable, they show that Theodoret, who

^A led the way to the tomb, had closed his final day in the year that Leo, who is called the Elder, assumed the empire, or rather in the following year, which was 458 of Christ.

V. That he departed from this life in the peace of the Church is proven by the most ample praises heaped upon him after his death by ancient and holy writers. Certainly, the supreme pontiffs Vigilius, Pelagius I, Pelagius II, Gregory the Great, and others call him venerable and orthodox, and testify that he died in the communion of the universal Church.

The Fifth Synod itself, although gravely hostile—as was to be expected—to the errors of Theodoret, nevertheless detracted nothing from his person; nay, it openly hinted that he did not persist until death in those things which it deemed worthy of condemnation.

There are also other very weighty testimonies to this matter, which, because they occur frequently during reading, there is no need to pursue one by one: yet the eulogy of John of Euchaita should not be silenced. He lived under Constantine Monomachus, and wrote encomia of ecclesiastical writers in iambic verse. When he came to Theodoret, he sang these lines, which have been rendered from the Greek by Sirmond:

While I pursue the learned masters with my pen, Justly must Theodoret be counted among them. As a divine man and an excellent teacher, Like an immovable column of the orthodox faith: But if he was moved a little by some chance, He was a man; you who are a man, take care not to impute it as a crime.

VI. And indeed, the kindness of God, which is generous toward everyone, was almost just toward Theodoret: for by what reason, if it is permitted so to speak, would He have allowed a man gifted with so many miracles for the Church, who suffered so much for the faith from heretics, who was distinguished by so many virtues, who was so disdainful of human affairs, and who performed the office of bishop so laudably—a man whom all the most holy ^B people not only cherished but also loved with singular friendship—a man who was, in a word, an excellent light not only of the East, but of the entire Church, to rush into eternal ruin? Hardly could I believe that God spurned the prayers which, beyond doubt, those admirable monks—whose lives he transcribed and whose prayers he sought as a reward, or by whose petition he was born and reared and advanced to an age fit for divine services, or whose aid he reports to have used to tame heretics and whose association moved him to a holier life—offered with ardent zeal for Theodoret.

Among these exceptional friends of God and of Theodoret, two stood out, of whom no prudent person could doubt that they rendered every aid to Theodoret: Jacob, of whom mention has been made, and Simeon, the great miracle of the world, both of stupendous holiness, both wonder-workers, and of singular grace before God. He ^C at the tomb wished to be buried in the same urn as the one in which Theodoret was buried. The converts from the Gentiles, Jews, and heretics, whom he converted to the faith, he sent to Theodoret to be confirmed by his blessing and doctrine.

Beyond doubt, Jacob, that outstanding defender of the Catholic faith—who, because of his doctrine joined with holiness, having been asked by the emperor through letters regarding the retention of the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon, gave his opinion along with almost all the bishops of the world—would not have wished his ashes to be mixed with the ashes of heretics; nor would that mortal angel, Simeon, have wished to pollute the faith which he promoted everywhere in the world with communion with a heretic. Both knew Theodoret to be of sincere faith, or obtained from God that he might be so before his death, which he preceded in both cases: certainly, when he was held by the weariness of life and the desire to depart, he besought the prayers of both with the most full words of repentance.

Of such a kind are those things which close the eulogy of Jacob: «May the judge of the athletes of piety grant an end worthy of these struggles, that what remains of the course may be consistent with what went before, and that, as a victor, he may finally arrive at the finish line, and may strengthen our weakness with his prayers, that, being strengthened, we may repair our many disasters, and depart from this life as victors.»

There are also these things in the eulogy of Simeon: «But while he is occupied in these things, and performs all these tasks, he does not neglect the foresight of the holy Churches, now fighting against the impiety of the Gentiles, now breaking the contumacy of the Jews, now putting to flight the throngs of heretics, and sometimes sending letters about these things to the emperor, sometimes rousing the governors to divine zeal, sometimes even admonishing the pastors of the Churches themselves that they should take greater care of their flocks.» And later: «I, for my part, desire that he himself, helped by my own prayers, may persevere in these good works, and I pray to God that my own life may be corrected and directed to the evangelical norm.»

To such patrons can be added John the Baptist, the holy apostles, and the illustrious martyrs for whom he built memorials, and who gave singular aid to him, who labored while he struggled for the faith.

To these can be added the immense multitude of the poor, whom he fed with his own goods and those of the Church when he himself became poor. For how would a man so profusely merciful not have obtained mercy from ^D God? Especially since he was able to usurp the words of the Apostle: «I was a blasphemer (against Christ), a persecutor (of the holy synod), and injurious (against Cyril), but I did it ignorantly in unbelief,» with zeal for fervor moving his mind. «But the grace of our Lord superabounded with faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus.»

VII. Allow me, Reader, that in place of a eulogy for the deceased

I should once again depict for you the image of the writing I have conceived concerning Theodoret, or rather of the life he lived. It seems to me, as I said at the beginning, not unlike a theatrical story in which some unhappy and wretched virtue is introduced, rendered almost mindless by the arts of error, as if by Circe, to don a foreign form, and within it to play a role unworthy of itself for a long time, until, under the striking of the divine rod, it returns to itself, and fleeing to the column of divine truth displayed before it, it not only does not blush at the deceits of error, but even execrates them. ^B For he who had been born among miracles and in the bosom of piety; who had grown up from infancy in a monastery among prodigious examples of virtues; who had not known worldly things before he despised them; who had devoted himself to the divine Scriptures with equal study and vigor of talent; who had chosen as his teacher him who was then held to be the master of the whole Church; who imprudently, or rather unhappily, learned error from the very source whence he hoped for truth—and did not merely learn it, but, with the fame of Theodorus, which made the whole world resound, bewitching his incautious mind, unable to distinguish the heresy of Nestorius and the faith of Cyril, he favored the disciple of Theodorus and followed after the teacher of the Church. But after he had wandered for a long time, tossed by various accidents and calamities, when, as though he were an enemy of Christ and a teacher of impiety, he had been cast down from his see after twenty-nine years of his episcopate, excluded from the city, and interdicted from fire and water, and compelled to lie hidden in a monastery of Palestine; finally, after the help of the powerful had been implored in vain, and every other hope despaired of, God touching the heart of the man, he returned to his senses, and invoked the judgment of the apostolic see, which pours forth the rays of the right faith (these are the words of one imploring its patronage), which holds the primacy of the Churches of the whole world, and which has always been immune from every heretical depravity. ^C

Then truly, having been first taught the truth, and subsequently absolved from the iniquitous sentence of Dioscorus by a better judgment, and finally, by the assent of the general council, restored to his former place, he cultivated true piety, leaning upon the true faith, and he himself accomplished that which he had written concerning the Prophet exclaiming to God: 210 *Bonum, quia humiliasti me, ut discam justificationes tuas* (It is good for me that you have humbled me, that I may learn your statutes): he rendered, to be sure, thanks, "recognizing the health that proceeded ^D from the severe remedies of the physician."* From then on, I believe, he lived holily, making amends for the losses of his former time, and perhaps even earned being called saintly, through the supreme mercy of God.

CHAPTER XIV.

1. *He is attacked after his death by the adversaries of the Council of Chalcedon and by the Eutychians.* II. *And indeed for 60 years, during which there were great commotions.* III. *What they muttered against the council by the Eutychians.* IV. *What they openly boasted.* V. *They were aided by the testimony of Theodoret.* VI. *They led many into error.* VII. *Theodoret is condemned with the Chalcedonian synod at Constantinople.* VIII. *And at Sidon.* IX. *The arts of the Eutychians for deceiving men.* X. *The Council of Jerusalem.*

From the year 458 to 518.

I. Although Theodoret rested in peace and in the communion of the Church, his fame and his name were nevertheless vexed after his death: although he laboured—which was honorable—not among the Catholics but among the lovers of dissension; and not by his own envy alone, but by that of the apostolic see, by which he had been received, nay rather of the whole Church, which, having followed the judgment of the head, absolved him who had been unjustly condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon. For it was at that time truly glorious for anyone to have the same enemies, and to experience the same lot as the apostolic see and the universal Church, and it was impossible to accuse him without the greatest part of the accusation redounding upon the oecumenical council: for, just as each person was disposed in spirit toward the synod, so he felt about Theodoret; those who leaned toward Eutyches, hated both, while those who followed the party of the Church, pursued both with common zeal.

II. Thus for almost a century the cause of Theodoret sustained itself, partly by the arts of the partisans, partly by the judgments of the Church: although the zeal of six emperors succeeding each other, according to how varied they were, alternated the condition of affairs and the very fortune of Theodoret, until at length, by the cause of one man, or certainly three, when it had escaped the common and great business of the whole world, it was necessary that, with the combined forces of the Church and the empire, it be finished by the judgment of the fifth general council, if indeed it was even thus finished; for the definition of the synod was not received immediately by all the Churches at once, but gradually and as if by parts, so that it happened in the world at that time as often happens in the sea, when after it is stirred up by a horrible tempest, the sky being silent, the waves still roar and 211 as if with difficulty are calmed. To explain by what reason this happened, and by what great conversions of affairs, by what arts of men, or rather by what great providence of the Divine it was accomplished, is of no consequence at all to the plan, nor indeed is it worth the labor, since many are the writers most worthy of faith who have looked to this alone and have been diligently occupied in setting them forth, such as Felix, defender of the Roman Church, Liberatus, deacon of Carthage, Leontius Byzantinus, Evagrius, and others.

Having therefore passed over many things, such as the internal duel of the Alexandrian Church of nearly a hundred years; the departure of the whole Oriental Church from the Roman, on account of the wickedness of Acacius; the tyranny of Basiliscus, which feigned religion; the Henoticon of Zeno...

an incentive to discords; ^A several patriarchs deposed in rapid succession at the whim of princes; three women, Ariadna, Zeno’s wife, and Theodora, acting like Furies inciting their uxorious emperors; the unrest of the Origenist monks in Palestine, etc.: these, I say, being passed over, it is necessary to pursue the matters that pertain to Theodoret, and first of all that which was stated before, how closely his cause and that of the holy synod were popularly believed to be joined.

III. Those who followed the party of Eutyches brought many accusations against the Council of Chalcedon, but two especially—one secretly, the other openly; both, in themselves, very light, yet of grave consequence among a populace occupied with false opinions. They whispered in secret that it had not been convened by the will of God, but solely by the impotence of a single woman seeking vengeance: that Marcian had become a servant to the Empress his wife in order to repay the benefit of the conferred empire; that Pulcheria, taking vengeance in womanly wrath for the injuries to her friend Flavian, and having repaid the betrayal of the imperial secret regarding the ordination of the deaconess, was showing off her recovered power of command, and by her commands had rescinded the commands of her brother, and by her deeds had undone his deeds. Theodosius, they said, had declared the council free from his sister's servitude; and behold, Pulcheria, barely after her brother was dead, summoned another, by which the former was proscribed as a mere brigandage. Theodosius had sent two delegates to the council, whose loyalty he had tested, Elpidius the count and Eulogius the tribune; Pulcheria immediately reduced them to the ranks and expelled them from the court. Chrysaphius had promoted the matter of the council, nay, even the public affair; he paid the debt to the shade of Theodosius with his own blood. Theodosius had commanded Dioscorus, with Juvenal and Thalassius, to preside over the judgment of Flavian, having spurned the legates of the Roman Church; Pulcheria wished the legates of the Apostolic See to preside over the judgment which she ordered to be instituted against Dioscorus, Juvenal, and Thalassius. Theodosius had confirmed the sentence of his council with edicts; Pulcheria abrogated those edicts with ^B contrary edicts. Eutyches had been absolved at Ephesus; he is condemned at Chalcedon. Flavian, at Ephesus, had suffered a sentence of condemnation from Dioscorus on account of an iniquitous judgment and heresy; Dioscorus suffers the same at Chalcedon for the same reasons. The condemnation of Flavian had been followed by deposition, deportation, and death; Dioscorus is deposed, he is snatched away into exile to Gangra, and the execrable Eutyches is cast out to a place known to no one. Chrysaphius had earned the love of the emperor by his subservience; he is executed at the nod of Pulcheria. Theodoret had been forbidden to attend the Ephesine synod on account of his books written against Cyril and the faith; he was ordered to attend the Chalcedonian, and to sit among the Fathers even before the cause was judged, and even without the retraction of the books which to have kept silent about was to have approved. Theodosius had granted the rights of a metropolis to the Church of Berytus; Pulcheria abrogated this through her own synod.

IV. These and other things were murmured in secret, but three things they complained of openly. First, that not only had Theodoret and Ibas, the accusers of Cyril, been restored by the synod, but even the writings by which the holy defender of the faith was accused of heresy were approved, partly in silence, partly openly. Second, that the opinion of Eutyches had been condemned and the faith of the Orientals praised, although the former differed not from the twelve chapters, nor the latter from the opinion of Nestorius. Lastly, that Cyril, although addressed by honorable titles in the synod, was in reality rejected, and the Catholic piety in him proscribed; insofar as the champions of the two natures of Christ were being restored, and the defenders of the one were being cast out.

V. However great this complaint may have been, it held no less slander than envy; it nevertheless relied upon the opinion of Theodoret. He ^C asserted that the confession of the Orientals was the same as that of Nestorius; and equally that the faith of Cyril, when peace was established, was the same as that of the Orientals, and thus he boasted that Cyril, when he accepted the faith of the Orientals, had revoked what he had previously taught in the chapters. He added that he himself had never taught anything in the chapters other than what either Apollinaris had formerly, or Eutyches did then. This complaint also relied upon the common opinion of those who were knowledgeable, that the *Eranistes* dialogues had been handed to the flames by mandate of the emperor, because they labored to show the agreement of Cyril and Eutyches, albeit with the names kept silent, yet by certain arguments.

VI. When these things were importunately pushed by the Eutychians at whatever time and in whatever place, it came to pass through the habit of hearing them, that what Facundus records came to be popularly believed, namely that between the doctrine of Nestorius and that of Eutyches—that is, between the confession of the two natures and the one—there was no middle ground; and thus that in this contention everyone must follow either the Nestorian side or the Eutychian. This opinion adhered incredibly to the minds of the people, whether caused by an error of the mind or an affection of the will; and thence a great commotion of the whole world took its origin, which was scarcely ever fully quieted.

VII. While those mournful tragedies which we have outlined were being enacted, and while the Western Church was, moreover, abstaining from communion with the Orient, which was addicted to Acacius, the name of Theodoret was either not heard ^D because of the tumult of the world, or if it was heard—which is more credible—no one has handed down to memory what became of him. Yet one can conjecture to some extent from the ancient monuments which survive, and especially from two of the councils which the Emperor Anastasius is said to have convened, partly at Constantinople, partly at Sidon in Palestine: Victor of Tonnouna makes mention of the one, Evagrius of the other. Of the former, Victor speaks thus: "In the consulship of Gibbus, V. C."

and Messala, the Emperor Anastasius ordered there to be held at the city of Sidon a synod, with nearly eighty bishops of perverse views assembled, against the orthodox bishops. Flavian, the catholic patriarch of Antioch, and John, the pontiff of the town of the Palteni, because they refuted this gathering of sacrilegious men, were sent into exile to a fortress called Petra. There Flavian, the confessor of Christ, rested in the Lord: John was recalled by Justin Augustus, who soon became emperor." ›

Emperor Anastasius, with Flavian of Antioch and Philoxenus of Hierapolis as leaders, ^A gathered a council at Constantinople and persuaded it to issue anathemas against Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, with their writings, Theodoret of Cyrus, Ibas of Edessa, Andrew, Eutherius, Cyrus, and John, the bishops, and others who preached two natures and two forms in Christ, and who would not confess that one of the Trinity was crucified, in union with Leo, the Roman bishop, his Tome, and the Council of Chalcedon. ›

Of those eight bishops, the first six are well known; the latter two become known partly from the letters of Theodoret and partly from the acts of the Council of Ephesus; for in the acts, Cyrus is called the bishop of Marcopolis, and John the bishop of Germanicia. Theodoret wrote letters to both: to Cyrus the thirteenth, and to John the one hundred and twenty-fifth and one hundred and twenty-fourth.

There may be someone to warn that one should not pass over without notice what is written about Andrew and Eutherius, for from that we receive light on what is handed down, both from Theophanes in his *Chronography*, where Andrew of Samosata is said to have been deposed by Dioscorus at Ephesus, and from the monks of Palestine in their letter to Alcyson regarding the number of bishops whom the Eutychians wished to strike with anathema. But Victor is mistaken in his usual way, nor should Theophanes be heard, nor faith lightly reposed in the monks; for neither he nor they knew well the history of the men whom they recount: obviously they had already departed this life, or at least from their episcopate, before the Robber Synod; for Rusticus, the successor of Andrew, is counted among the bishops of the Robber Synod, ^B and Anthimus the presbyter acted as a substitute for Patricius, the prelate of the Tyanians, at that same Council. 214〗 Hence, those who read "Eucherius" or "Eleutherius" in place of "Eutherius," and "Quirus" or "Cyrillus" in place of "Cyrus," are similarly corrected.

Why, however, Theodore is joined to Diodorus, Theodoret and Ibas to Theodore, Andrew and Eutherius to both, and Cyrus and John to everyone, the reason is ready: for Diodorus taught Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas defended both, and Andrew and Eutherius published virulent writings against Cyril. Cyrus and John are reported to have most fiercely championed the cause of Theodoret: indeed, John laboured under the suspicion of being in communion with Nestorius, and for that reason, at the Council of Chalcedon, he was ordered to pronounce anathema upon Nestorius 73.

^D But the monks of Palestine, in their letter to Alcyson, relate the matter more explicitly, if indeed those things which they recount concerning Xenaias and Flavian the bishop of Antioch pertain to it, as some believe. Xenaias, they say 76, for I know not what plan, nor for what cause, exercising hostilities undertaken against Flavian, but under the pretext of faith, as most relate, began to be moved against him and to slander him as a Nestorian. But when he had at once anathematized Nestorius and his opinion, Xenaias, leaving Nestorius, passed on to Diodorus, and to Theodore and Theodoret, Ibas and Cyrus, and Eutherius and John, and others I know not whom, nor from where they were collected, of whom some truly had followed the dogma of Nestorius, while others, when they had come under suspicion of that matter, had afterwards condemned the same dogma with their own anathema and had finished their final day in the communion of the Church. "All these," he says, "unless you anathematize them as assertors of the Nestorian dogma, you are a Nestorian, even if you anathematize Nestorius a thousand times over with his doctrine." By writings [*] and letters to the supporters of Dioscorus and Eutyches, he stirred them up, persuading them that they should be a protection to him against Flavian, 215〗 and that they should demand of him, not that he anathematize the synod itself, but only those persons whom I named above: to which, when Flavian the bishop had resisted for a long time and at length, and others had risen up against him again with Xenaias—namely, a certain Eleusinus, bishop of Cappadocia Secunda, Nicias of Laodicea, which is in Syria, and others from other places, the causes of whose hatred against Flavian it is not for us to set forth, but for others—at length, assuming that they would be quiet by this act, he yielded to their contention; and when he had anathematized the aforementioned persons in writing, he sent his document to the emperor: for they had also stirred him up against Flavian as a proponent of the Nestorian dogma. But not even content with this matter, Xenaias demanded again of Flavian that he should subject to anathema both the synod itself and those who had preached two natures in Christ, one of flesh, the other of divinity. ›

VIII. Concerning the other council, or rather the Robber Synod, in which we wrote that mention was made of Theodoret, and which we read to have been gathered by Anastasius at Sidon in Palestine in the year of Christ 512, the 22nd of Anastasius, in the consulship of Paulus and Musianus, this is what Marcellinus hands down 75: "Red..."

IX. There was need of such a lengthy testimony, partly because it sets forth a history that is obscure from elsewhere, and partly to understand by what way the Eutychians were accustomed...

^A to drag those they wished to force from the faith, into the condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon. They first commanded them to declare anathema upon Nestorius, then upon the supporters of Nestorius, soon after upon those who received those supporters, and finally upon the Council of Chalcedon and the defenders of the two natures: for once Nestorius had been condemned, which no Catholic denied, it was easy to condemn likewise those who had either taught the Nestorian error, as Diodorus and Theodore did, or who had nonetheless praised the erring, as did Theodoret and Ibas, Cyrus, Eutherius, and John of Germanicia. But after the anathema had been struck against them, it could not justly be withheld from the holy synod itself, seeing that it had gifted with its communion, as if they were Catholics, men worthy of anathema on account of their association with heresy.

As the memory of this synod is indeed very obscure, so its details are gathered with difficulty from the records of the ancients. Theodorus Lector reports that about eighty bishops assembled; he indicates that Cothericius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Xenaias—or Philoxenus—the prelate of Hierapolis, presided, or at least arrogated the primacy to themselves, which is contrary to the reason of the times: they assert that both were the most wicked of men, suitable ministers of an ungodly emperor, the standard-bearers of the Acephali, enemies of the faith, executioners of the holy, and almost murderers: they assert likewise that confessionals were forged against the orthodox, and that everything was done sometimes by force, and sometimes by deceit. What more is there to say? It is reported that Catholic prelates were driven from their sees by this synod, and suffering the miseries of exile, were partly afflicted and partly consumed, so that one ought to marvel at the secret counsels of divine providence, which was even then plotting the condemnation of the Three Chapters.

216 X. Theodorus Lector 77 relates that the Emperor Anastasius commanded Elias, Bishop of Jerusalem, to gather a synod of the bishops who were under him and to condemn the fourth synod; but that Elias did not assemble a synod, but only gave letters to the emperor, in which he condemned Nestorius and Eutyches, and likewise Diodorus and Theodore (and there is no doubt that he included the aforementioned others), and the Council of Chalcedon itself. Baronius opines that this document was sent by Elias through an error of Theodore; but by his arguments he does not succeed in making everyone agree with him.

CAPUT XV.

I. Thus far it had been honorable for the name of Theodoret to be vexed by those whose impiety was known: it had also been glorious to suffer in common with the holy synod ^B calumnies, and to be defended by those by whom the apostolic faith of Saint Leo, or the definition of the Catholic Church, was defended by miracles. But, since minds, once they have been moved more vehemently, scarcely keep themselves within the bounds of reason, but are wont to be carried off by impulse further than is lawful: it happened that the clergy and people of Cyrrhus were split into factions, with some, I think, following, and others fleeing Bishop Sergius, whom Severus of Antioch, that most lost of Eutychians and author of a sect of his own name, had ordained. It happened also that the greater part imprudently joined themselves to certain Nestorians, both monks and clergy.

They were spurred on by two things that seemed honest to the unwary multitude: zeal for Theodoret, whom the inhabitants of Cyrrhus almost adored, and hatred of the Severians, at whose hands the defenders of the two natures had recently suffered dire things. ^C The communion of both affections easily suggested that this society, by which a sacred war was being waged and common enemies were being crushed, was free of wickedness, so that the heresy of the two natures might be eradicated.

II. Therefore, two clerics of the church of Cyrrhus, Andronicus the presbyter and defender, and George the deacon, were the authors to the multitude, that they should attempt a deed full of the utmost audacity. The condition of the times helped them to dare this. For Severus, having been ejected from Antioch by the Emperor Justin, had fled to Alexandria; Paul, a defender of the two natures, had succeeded to the place of the fugitive 217; hence the Eutychian faction was indeed afflicted, yet not prostrate; for they were keeping the spirit of their cause, which had lately been puffed up as if by tyranny, rather than laying it aside.

III. In order that they might insult the afflicted, the clerics whom I mentioned brought the image of Theodoret, placed upon a chariot, into the city after the manner of a triumph; the people surrounded them applauding, and with an epinikion ringing out, the procession moved to the temple, and Theodoret was restored to his throne; a sacred synaxis was celebrated in honor of Theodoret, Diodorus, and Theodore; indeed, a commemoration of Nestorius ^D the martyr was also made; and Sergius the bishop himself performed the sacred rites, which the sanction of Justin seems to intend. For what will not popular madness dare, when fury feigns religion?

IV. The novelty of such extreme audacity and such impiety moved with good reason not only Cyrrhus, in whose eyes the matter was being transacted, but also, as the rumor spread, the whole of Euphratesia, of which province Cyrrhus is a part, and indeed even Antioch itself, the first see of the Eastern diocese, and even Constantinople, the head of the empire.

Those who inhabited Cyrrhus, both Eutychians and Catholics, took care to have the acts drawn up by the defender, to be sent to the governor of the province. The Eutychians reported the whole matter individually to the primate of Hierapolis. He was Xenaias, or Philoxenus, the most wicked of the Acephali. There were also completed

SCHULZ'S NOTES.

whose proceedings at Antioch, once the soldiers of the third rank of the Stabilisiani who were at Cyrus were heard while the affair was being conducted, were to be written to the Prefect of the East by an imperial rescript. ^A Both this and that were carried to the royal city: the petition of the bishops of the province of Euphratesia and of Sergius himself, by which Nestorius might be condemned and the faith of the four councils might be approved, was added.

V. After all these had been read, the emperor gave a mandate of inquiry to the Prefect of the East, and that indeed in words, as was appropriate, kindled with a zeal for the faith: "Let not your eminence merely fear our indignation, but also the wrath of God; we are not ashamed to impose an oath upon him in the name of the Lord and Savior Christ our God, to whom such things pertain, that you may search out the very truth from every side. And if indeed the soldiers are found to have said false things throughout, and to have spoken neither for an image nor for a collection, let not only those things which are brought forward against Nestorius, but also those which are brought forward against Theodoret and Theodore and Diodore, be forthwith cast out, with the company in which they are known to serve, and let their bodies be tortured with all torments. But if they have told the truth in their depositions, whether for an image or for the collection of Nestorius or of the other three, report to us about all things, that we may be able to know those who have sinned against the true and immaculate faith, which we also worship. And that nothing of these things which have been read by us may escape your greatness, we have commanded that the same acts, which were completed at Cyrus and reported to us, and also their rescripts of those things which were completed at Antioch, be transmitted to you, so that after all things which we have commanded are completed, the very acts which were completed at Cyrus may be sent back to us again: for this reason we have designated Thomas, our most devoted agent in public affairs, and the subadjutant. Given on the 8th of the Ides of August, at Constantinople, in the consulship of the most illustrious Rusticus." ^B

VI. What followed, or what sentence Justin delivered when the proceedings were reported to him, is unknown: it is credible, however, that the case was either settled by political art, so that no person might be found guilty by the inquiry whose innocence it was in the interest of the state to maintain, or that the inquiry did not sufficiently agree with the proceedings: for neither would the Emperor Justinian, out of his hatred for the three chapters, have neglected to transmit it to the Fathers of the synod, if anything more bitter had been indicated, together with the letter written by Justin, which he extracted from the archives with diligent study.

VII. Furthermore, this tragedy, or fable, of the acts of Cyrus took place at the end of the year of Christ 519, which is more credible, or at the beginning of the following year, in which year Rusticus held the consulship: for the case, furnished with so many proceedings and so many petitions and libels, could not have been concluded in a short time, either by coming to Constantinople from Cyrus, which is so far distant, or by being recognized in the palace, impeded as it was by the faction and death of the consul Vitalian, which occurred in the month of July, so that on the 8th of the Ides of August, Rusticus ^C

VIII. It will not, I think, be alien to the place to disclose whence the devotion of the Eastern monks toward Nestorius arose, by which that most wicked enemy of Christ was once honored as a martyr of the faith, and is even now honored by the Church to which he gave his name.

From the time that the seat of the empire was transferred from Antioch to Byzantium, the prelate of the royal city brought it about by his arts that he should take precedence over the Antiochene: thence was born a competition full of envy between the Asians and the Orientals; thence a frequent schism of the bishops even in councils, and of the holy monks themselves; thence the impatience of the Asians, whenever someone from the Orientals, especially a monk, was raised to the throne of Constantinople: thence was no small cause why Chrysostom suffered many indignities, both from his own clergy and from the monks of the city. Nestorius was an Antiochene; in the monastery of Euprepius he had gathered a reputation for sanctity; he was flourishing in the Church of Antioch when he was made prefect of Constantinople. Neither the monks nor the clergy of the royal city endured this with a calm mind, as if it had been done in contempt of them; yet it had to be dissimulated on account of the will of the prince, and jealousy had to be suppressed until an occasion for vengeance should offer itself. But as soon as Nestorius betrayed heresy, the affection of the monks no longer contained itself, ^D but moved by a divine instinct, it erupted into open dissension. Nestorius raged against his adversaries: by a formal petition they sought from the emperor that a council be summoned, by which the heresy might be condemned: Dalmatius, the exarch of the monks of the city, promoted the matter, and even brought it to completion; on the contrary, the monks of the East who had gathered at Ephesus, when the Fathers assembled, rioted on behalf of their Nestorius, and in such a way that the comites were hardly equal to suppressing them with the soldiers. They brought the deposed Nestorius back to the monastery of Euprepius: in this he spent four whole years, from there inciting the monasteries of the East and even drawing them to his side. His art of deception was, either one or the most efficacious, an affected appearance of piety, patience, contempt for human affairs, and penitence.

...deported from the monastery to the Oasis, he endured what the most generous martyrs scarcely ever endured: he set forth his miserable condition lamentably in the document, in which he excelled in the art of speaking; he gave miserable letters to the Emperor Theodosius, and to the prefect of the Thebaid, which he also took care to have scattered by the ministry of friends through the lauras of the East; he complained that he was suffering things harder than exile, being first carried off into captivity by the Blemmyes when the Oasis was devastated, then dismissed by fear of the Nomads to Panopolis, from thence dragged to Elephantine by the soldiers, then led back to Panopolis, afterwards thrust into a place near Panopolis, and finally cast into a fourth exile, having been condemned with one other. By such a great endurance of miseries, so lamentably by

^A exposed by the most eloquent to the wretched, amplified by the most powerful supporters, praised by men appearing holy, he at length bent the mind of the emperor. Thus, he permitted the man to return from exile: but, undone by old age, calamities, and hardships on the way, he died, while God condemned the irreligious mercy of Theodosius.

While Nestorius was enduring these things in the Oasis, he was being heralded by Theodoret in the East as the most holy defender of the faith, who had known and taught nothing beyond sound doctrine, who was innocent in comparison with Cyril, and yet was being betrayed to death, whom brother pastors had struck down with their pens, and to injure whom would be nothing else than to violate piety itself.

Such praises were being exaggerated by a man most eloquent throughout the entire East, both openly in assemblies and in private meetings with every one of the holiest monks. Cyril, on the other hand, was being spoken of as one who had burst forth with blasphemous and impious utterances, who had revived the long-extinct, empty, and impious doctrine of Apollinaris, who had bought the favor of courtiers through the promise of gifts, who had acted through force by means of Memnon's aid in the council, and who had dragged some bishops to condemn Nestorius by gold and others by fear.

^B These and other things being cunningly spread were easily believed, especially by those who looked up to Theodoret as second to none in doctrine and the holiness of his morals. And those eminent anchorites, upon whose nod the will of the monks and the judgments of the people depended, did indeed look up to him. Such an opinion was gathered for Theodoret by the frequent greeting of such holy men, an admiration for the life they led, full of a certain pious envy, their intense and almost burning conversations about divine things, the seeking of their prayers, and, as concerns even those on high, the written history of the living themselves, ^C and indeed of such a kind that it illustrated and almost equaled the clearest examples of exaggerated virtue with the splendor of its words.

Hence arose the inclination of the Oriental monks toward Nestorius, and an opinion so great that some even searched for the relics of the departed for the purpose of veneration. Indeed, there were those of their number who, tumultuously, once and again in the Council of Chalcedon, in the presence of the Emperor Marcian and the Augusta Pulcheria, while the Fathers were crying out anathema upon Nestorius, protested that a most holy man was being destroyed by an anathema. This is testified to by Evagrius, writing that Eustathius, bishop of Berytus, in the letters he wrote to John the bishop and to another, John the priest, about the matters done in the synod, said: "Confronting us," he said, "again, those who were demanding the relics of Nestorius cried out against the synod: 'For what cause are holy men condemned by anathema?'" So much so that the emperor, moved by indignation, ordered his guards to drive them far away.

^D So deeply, furthermore, had this opinion about the holiness of Nestorius settled into the minds of certain people that it did not pass away in the lapse of twelve centuries; nay, even more, many whom Hebed-Jesu enumerates in his *Catalogue* wrote in Syriac in his defense: certainly one of the Oriental Churches, even in our own times, glories in his name and follows his doctrine, though tempered to some extent.

CHAPTER XVI

1. The state of affairs under the emperor Justinian. II. Saint Sabbas discharges an embassy. III. What he did with the Augusta Theodora. IV. The origin of the question of the Three Chapters. V. The conference between the Catholics and the Severians, where Theodoret was discussed. VI. Theodora favors the Severians and plots to lead the whole Church into error. VII. What she was. VIII. And how she ruled the world. IX. She wishes to impose her own [candidates] upon all the major thrones. X. She places Anthimus over the Church of Constantinople. XI. Agapetus abdicates him. XII. She attempts to place Vigilius, corrupted by gold, upon the apostolic see. XIII. Therefore she orders Silverius to be cast out, who finally dies consumed by miseries. XIV. Vigilius, from an intruder, becomes a legitimate pontiff. XV. Catholics rule other major 221 Churches. XVI. Paul of Alexandria is deposed. XVII. Returning from his deposition, Pelagius brings monks who are about to complain of the Origenists and of Theodore of Cappadocia, the rival of Pelagius. XVIII. Pelagius incites the emperor against the Origenists. XIX. They are condemned, while Theodore remains silent but meditates vengeance.

From the year of Christ 527 to 541.

I. Justin had long held the empire, but as soon as he handed it over to Justinian, it became suddenly turbulent; and spirits were moved the more vehemently, the more bitterness they had accumulated while repressed, and the more opportune the change of rulers appeared for uprisings. For Justinian had long since been heard as a most fervent defender of the Council of Chalcedon and of those whom the synod had received, whence he had either received the name of "Synodite" from the people, or, if we believe Evagrius, had affected it.

II. At that time, therefore, those who followed the party of Theodoret and those who followed Nestorius regained their strength: for at that time the same things were believed; since a certain foolish credulity had prevailed, whether of the times or of the peoples, that both were suffering from a common envy; and that was the cause why Saint Sabbas, when he was discharging an embassy of the Jerusalem prelate to Justinian, after he obtained the cause of the Christians for which he had come, and turned the emperor's anger away from the Samaritans, immediately asked that the sects of Arius, Nestorius, and Origen be suppressed by a certain ineluctable power of prayers: for he had bargained by divine instinct that if Justinian achieved this, he would receive Sicily, Rome, and Carthage as his reward.

III. But in this embassy, something happened which, because it pertains to the noble assailant of the Three Chapters, it is not alien to the place to relate. While Sabbas was in the palace, the Augusta Theodora earnestly requested that the saint, by his prayers, might obtain for her from God the offspring which she had hitherto desired in vain.

to do so, lest (as he privately revealed, importuned by his friends) if God allowed any fruit to come from it, he himself might taste the doctrines of Severus, and the Church might be disturbed by tumults worse than those under Anastasius. ^A IV. The Augusta was, of course, fostering the sect of the Acephali and was an enemy of the synod, whether because she truly held those views, as events proved, or because it seemed politically expedient at the time to have divided the whole religious leadership with her husband, so that she might be the leader of the Acephali, and Justinian the leader of the Synodites, and thus both, by exchanging counsel, might alternate their influence according to time and place.

I cannot remain silent about what the monk Cyril, the author of the legation, relates when he investigates the reasons why ^B 222 Sabbas mentioned Nestorius and Origen before the emperor: for it serves to shed light on history. He says, "Many monks were suffering from the disease of the heresy of Nestorius and Origen, and it was to be feared that they would draw others into the society of their evils: for when some monks recently arrived in Byzantium, some were seen to hold the doctrines of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and others those of Origen. Leontius, who was himself also a monk, a Byzantine by birth, one of those who had entered the New Laura with Nonnus, whom the great Sabbas, when he learned of them, immediately expelled from the company of his own," etc.

From this it is evident that even from the times of Justin, disputes had been stirred up in Constantinople between the followers of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Origen: it is also evident that the origins of the movements had been led up to that point, so that it is no wonder that hatred and fighting later flared up between their defenders.

What we have told so far about the legation of Sabbas occurred in the 4th year of Justinian, 530 of Christ, when Sabbas was more than ninety years old, and yet the monks had begun to quarrel some years before the legation.

V. Two or nearly three years later, a conference between the Catholics and the Severians was held in Constantinople, in which there was some inquiry about Theodoret: this in particular, how he said "anathema to Nestorius" at Chalcedon, whether sincerely, or dissemblingly, and only in words. ^C

The matter was managed in this way. By Justinian's order, six bishops from each side met; the leader of the Catholics was Hypatius of Ephesus, and of the Severians, Sergius, bishop of Cyrus. With Hypatius were the bishops Stephen of Seleucia, Anthimus of Trapezus, Demetrius of Philippi, John of the city of Veznia, and Innocent of Maronia, all metropolitans. With Sergius were Thomas of Germanicia, Philoxenus of Doliche, Peter of Theodosiopolis, John of Constantina, and Nonnus of the city of Cures; all of them, if you except John, were bishops of lesser cities, from Euphratesia and Cyprus—for Cyrus, Germanicia, and Doliche pertain to Euphratesia: Constantina, ^D Theodosia, and Curesina to Cyprus. It is truly wonderful that the Euphratesians fought for Severus, whose stubborn love for Theodoret had hitherto been steadfast: but it is not unusual for studies to be changed by the times.

Furthermore, the emperor had summoned six of the twelve listed bishops as Catholics; others had been living in the royal city for a long time, expelled, I believe, by their own people on account of heresy. They implored him for help with the most efficacious prayers of Justinian, a promise having been made, of course, that if they were taught about their questions, they would consent to the holy synod. The condition being accepted, the emperor wished them to be taught, a conference having been held with all the most learned men, though not with great profit for the effort; because the Augusta, who was herself a Severian, secretly kept them wavering, the hope having been created that, with error intact, they would be restored to their sees by the judgment of almost the entire Church. The bold woman was indeed even then trying to attempt anything, by whatever means she might be able to place men of her own faction over the three major sees—the Roman, the Constantinopolitan, and the Alexandrian—serving whom she might incline the affairs of the Church as well as the empire at her own will: and she would certainly have achieved this, had not God, protecting the Church, frustrated the hope of feminine wickedness.

VI. This will then be explained more clearly when it has been made manifest what was the disposition and what the morals of the woman who sought the holy synod of Chalcedon through the side of Theodoret and two others; that is, of the woman causing to the whole Church that famous affair of the three chapters, by which the whole Christian world was hindered, and for the sake of three men fought no less than for the faith of Christ.

VII. Empress Theodora derived her origin from parents of the lowest order, her father being a keeper of bears for the theater, her mother an actress: she lost her father when she was scarcely five years old, and therefore in her mother's house suffered poverty with two sisters, to escape which, as soon as her age permitted, she was brought onto the stage, where among the mimes she learned to spurn modesty. When she had set this aside in the royal city, she went to Egypt, accompanying a prefect of Pentapolis whose lust she served, from where, having returned to Constantinople, she earned a living among the low-comedy dancers.

At that time she pleased Justinian, who was youthfully insane, but at first as a mistress, then as a wife: for Euphemia Augusta, the wife of Justin, had opposed the disgraceful nuptials as long as she lived; but she being dead, the laws were rescinded by which patricians were prohibited from marrying actresses. Thus Theodora, from an actress, became the wife of Caesar, soon Augusta, and finally mistress of the whole world, whom, after she had afflicted it for one and twenty years with wars, slaughters, robberies, and shame, and the very patience of God had at length turned into nemesis, she perished in the year 548, devoured by the plague of cancer, her body defiled by lusts; and the impure woman, the enemy of that holy [synod], met this end. [SCHULZI NOTÆ. 85. Evagrius, Liberatus, Procop. in Hist. Arcan.]

IX. Since such a woman held power, she dared to undermine the whole Church; and since she had long conceived the plan of overthrowing the synod and condemning the three chapters, she finally determined—as the most noble Augusta and most holy virgin Pulcheria had gathered, to impose upon the greatest sees of the Church men of her own faction, so that by their judgment she might afterwards overthrow the defense of the faith established at Chalcedon. ^A

This woman possessed a spirit great in lineage, but rather puffed up than noble, desirous of ruling beyond her lot, incredibly ready to devise and undertake anything, unbroken by evils, and bold in abusing fortune as if it were a slave. Her intellect was equal to her spirit: crafty, manifold, versatile, and entirely inimical by nature. Both were aided by a certain wondrous ease of speech, by which she could persuade anyone of anything. There was also a sort of liberal avarice; for she sought gold so that she might pour it out upon the ministers of her councils. Equally present was the art of putting on the appearance of piety, and of adapting it according to the inclination of events; but to all these things—which were in themselves most powerful—she added an incredible force through the excellence of her form, such as no artist could express with either brush or chisel; certainly, no one, however proud, did not venerate her.

VIII. Instructed by these aids, she first wished to rule her husband, so that she might impose a yoke upon the rest; and as she knew he was a lover of leisure, born for the school rather than for the kingdom, and greedy for gold and a vain name, she averted him from the cares of the kingdom to the handling of sacred matters, and applied him to writing laws by which it was permitted to enter upon rich inheritances, to sell rights, and to invade the assets of private persons. For in this way it abounded enough to be poured out into games, the pensions of barbarians, insane constructions, and military expenses. She surrounded, therefore, this very good man with a retinue of clerics and jurists, who would attribute to the most vain prince the books written by her. ^B

So that she might also serve her husband's affections, she fostered with immense license the amphitheater contests of the Greens and the Blues, in whose pursuit Justinian was insane. So that she might flatter his vanity, she persuaded him to build cities everywhere in the world, and other public works, upon which Justinian would impose his name. Moreover, since he had waged wars successfully throughout the whole world through his ministers, from these he foolishly and slothfully attached to himself most empty titles—Alemanicus, Gothicus, Francicus, Germanicus, Anticus, Alanicus, Vandalicus, Africanus, etc.

X. Therefore, in place of Epiphanius, bishop of the royal city, she substituted Anthimus, a deserter from his own church of Trapezus, supremely learned in courtly arts, the worst of the Acephali, and having only as much piety in appearance for the sake of deceiving as he had wickedness for daring to do anything at all. ^C

XI. Yet her hope deceived the woman: for the supreme pontiff Agapetus, coming to Constantinople on account of Italian affairs, first sent back this adulterer—though Augustus resisted in vain with threats, prayers, and offers of gold—to his own church, then completely deposed him, and, with Justinian himself consenting, substituted Menna, a better man.

XII. But the ruin which she could not bring upon the Constantinopolitan Church, she soon strove to bring upon the Roman Church. For when Agapetus had been translated to the supernal realms while he was in the act of returning to the West, she assailed Vigilius, the apocrisiarius of Agapetus, whom she knew to be set on the apostolic see, with promises. She pledges that he would be created pontiff through the aid of Belisarius, who then held Rome, if he would promise only that, when he had first occupied the apostolic see, he would both withhold force from the synod and confirm by letter the faith of Theodosius, Anthimus, and Severus. She added gifts to her promises—seven hundred pounds of gold. The appearance of gold touched a man who was both greedy and ambitious. Wherefore, having given a promissory note, he binds his faith and flies to his prey. But having arrived at Rome, he finds Silverius already ordained. He warns Theodora of the matter; she orders Belisarius to make a charge of treason against Silverius and to cast him into exile, and upon his ejection to substitute Vigilius. Belisarius did what was commanded, compelled by his wife Antonina, whom Theodora used as a minister, her ministrations having been redeemed by the excuse of their adulteries. ^D

By these arts she deluded Justinian, and at the same time held the empire of the whole world with tyrannical power; for at her own whim she appointed prefects for provinces, generals for armies, and prelates for churches, whom, whenever it pleased her, she would reduce to order, loving to hear herself called the arbitress of fate. He had no general more submissive than Belisarius, who thought that he must serve the woman in order to command the Roman armies; and indeed he was worthy of such a rule and of both military and political glory, had he not married his wife Antonina, the most wicked of women after Theodora.

XIII. Silverius is therefore cast into exile at Patara; but by the warning of the bishop of Patara, a most holy man, the emperor orders him to be brought back from there, so that the cause might be known at Rome. Yet this having been unheard, the supreme pontiff is sold to Vigilius for two hundred pounds of gold, by whose mandate he was deported to the island of Palmaria nearby, and, consumed by hardships or by starvation, he attained the crown of martyrdom.

XIV. It is said that Vigilius meanwhile had given the secret letters which he had promised, as a pledge or rather as an earnest, of faith—which he was to betray when time allowed: in them he condemned by name both Theodorus and Theodoretus, and Leo the Great himself, and even the holy synod.

There are those who believe the letters were forged by the Africans, who were impudently hostile to Vigilius; and the belief of those who believe seems not empty: for they are read in the writings of no author, except two schismatic Africans, Liberius.

Liberatus and Victor of Tunnuna; then they are mentioned nowhere else, except in the books of Facundus of Hermiane, who suffered from the same malady as Liberatus and Victor, or in Anastasius, who was deceived by the lies of the Africans. Finally, how could Justinian, when he was raging against Vigilius for refusing the Three Chapters, not have pressed or defamed the man with his own handwriting? For what reason did Theodora not force him to provide it, as he had promised to do for money received?

But however these things may have been, it was not permitted for the impious woman to enjoy her wickedness for long: for such is the singular providence of God toward the Apostolic See, that immediately upon the death of 226 Silverius, Vigilius, urged by divine secret instincts, voluntarily resigned the episcopate which he had accepted through crime. The Roman clergy, marveling at the act and rightly judging it a manifestation of the "right hand of the Most High," restored to the chair of Peter the legitimate pontiff, whom God had changed from a wolf into a shepherd. Clothed with power from on high and changed into another man, he did what befitted the head of the Church; he defended the faith with apostolic zeal, and stood constant and unterrified for the synod; although, regarding the Three Chapters, he seems to have used that dispensation more than once, just as the Apostle Paul himself did at times: for, for the sake of peace and the preservation of the concord of souls, he relaxed somewhat from the rigor of the laws.

XV. With the affairs of the Roman Church thus constituted, ^B there was hope of a more lasting peace; since it seemed to depend on this one thing, that the defenders of the synod should hold the primary thrones of the Church and those equal to the first. Vigilius held the Roman, Mennas the Constantinopolitan, Paul the Alexandrian, Ephraem the Antiochene, Peter the Hierosolymitan, Hypatius the Ephesian, and Theodorus the Caesarean of Cappadocia; all of them truly Catholic, except for the last, whose faith was either doubtful or perhaps nonexistent; but his stubborn desire to please the princes could serve in place of constancy in defending the synod, since he saw that the princes were addicted to it—Justinian in reality, Theodora deceitfully. ^C

Nor, furthermore, would such a great hope for peace have been frustrated, had not the Augusta, the fury of the Church, intent on every occasion for disturbance, snatched the opportunity offered, and from a spark made a huge conflagration of the whole world. It is worth the effort to trace from a little higher up the matter which was the hinge of everything that followed.

XVI. A certain Paul, from the superior of the Tabennesiote monks, had been substituted in place of Theodosius, whom Theodora, addicted to her own party, had placed over the Church of Alexandria through faithful ministers. He had not yet spent a full year in the episcopate when he was accused before the emperor of the murder of a deacon: for that reason he was ejected from Alexandria by the Augustal prefect and came into exile to Gaza of Palestine: there he was ordered to plead his cause before judges appointed by the emperor, namely Pelagius, the apocrisiarius ^D of Vigilius, and two patriarchs, Ephraem of Antioch and Peter of Jerusalem, and other bishops according to custom. After the case was heard, Paul was removed from his position, and Zoilus was appointed head of the Church of Alexandria.

XVII. The business concluded, Pelagius, while returning from Gaza to Constantinople by land, fell in with Palestinian monks who were carrying petitions to the emperor, intending to ask that the audacity of the tumult-raising Origenists be restrained by the bridle of the laws, and that the very cause of the tumults be removed by the proscription of the dogmas of Origen by royal edict. 227 He learned from them that two questions of Origen in particular were then being contentiously agitated; the one concerning the pre-existence of souls, the other concerning the restitution of things after certain ages: to these, however, because they did not seem pernicious to some Fathers in the past, many others had been added, which brought greater hatred upon their author. He learned also that more bitter disturbances were being stirred up in the monasteries because of these dogmas than were moving in the cities; and that this happened because the works of Evagrius of Pontus and Didymus the priest, in which Origen's poison lay hidden, were being eagerly read by the monks on account of their ascetic discipline. He heard at the same time, what he accepted more eagerly, that the authors of the tumults, especially in the New Laura, had been two nobles, Nonnus and Leontius, whom Saint Sabbas had for that reason expelled from thence; that they had returned to the Laura after the holy man's death, relying on the help of Theodorus and Domitian, before they had attained the episcopate, the former of Caesarea in Cappadocia, the latter of Ancyra in Galatia; that each was a patron of the tumult-makers, each was thoroughly addicted to Origen, each had attempted with his own arts the faith of the monasteries, but especially that of the New Laura, over which they had seen to it that a man of their own faction should be placed; that Theodorus had come to Constantinople some years before, and by his own snares had crept into the favor of the princes and of Mennas himself, and by his power had later ensured that Gelasius, who was to ask for help on behalf of the monasteries, would not have access to Justinian, while he himself had now been made prefect of the Church of Caesarea by error on the part of Mennas and Justinian, but on account of the fellowship of counsels and common hatred of the synod by Theodora: that this was bruited about by fame in Syria, and that all who led a life in the monastery equal to that of the angels bore this with difficulty.

XVIII. At these things Pelagius was eager in spirit, as every rival is wont to be, when an opportunity occurs to create trouble for his adversary: he promises his patronage to the monks, and takes care that they are heard by the emperor at the proper time: the emperor, furiously desiring to appear a theologian, publishes a sanction in the form of a great volume, in which he sets forth, refutes, and proscribes the dogmas of Origen, and, what is more wonderful, establishes canons, strikes those who contradict with anathema, and orders all the patriarchs, even the Roman, both to assent to him and, having convened a diocesan council, to subscribe to his canons: nay, he even forbids anyone anywhere in the world to be ordained a bishop, or to be appointed a father of monasteries, who had not received the edict with his own signature.

XIX. No one protested openly, of whom there was any

authority in the Church. For, as the method of handling the matter ^A suggested, the Acephali could not be so easily defeated as the Origenists, since the latter held sway in the cities, while the former lay hidden in the *lauras* or monasteries; [it suggested] that the Acephali did not abhor the Council of Chalcedon itself, but only those men whom it had received without the sincere abjuration of Nestorius, and [those] by whose reception it could seem to agree in some measure with Nestorius; that by this single form of confession many were offended, who were otherwise Catholics and lovers of a peace that would safeguard the faith; that such Catholics, by taking to themselves the name of Acephali, sufficiently testified that they followed neither Eutyches nor Nestorius, and were thus prepared to assent to the council which condemned both; nay, that they openly and sincerely professed that, if the masters and defenders of the heretics were proscribed, and likewise the calumniators of the holy Council of Ephesus and of Cyril, they would willingly consent to one form of faith: that the case of three men, even good ones, was not of such importance that it could not be set aside for the sake of the peace of the world. That those three, of whom it is a question, were not of untarnished reputation, nor free from crimes; that Theodorus had for long covered with the shadow of his name unspeakable heresies, for which cause he had been censured by Cyril in his written books; that he, while he lived, had been coerced at Antioch to sing a palinode at some time, and after his death had been struck from the sacred diptychs even by his own [followers]. That Theodoret had written a *Pentalogium* against the Ephesian council, had traduced Cyril as a heretic, and had praised Nestorius as a Catholic, even after the peace of the Churches: that he had been a man of factious talent, who should have been restrained by the emperor’s sanction in Cyrus as if in a prison, lest he proceed to disturb [matters]; that he was justly deposed at Ephesus, although by an unjust [judge], and not restored by the Westerns according to the form of the canons: that he had indeed renounced Nestorius at Chalcedon, but only in word; that he had disturbed Syria while he lived, and the world after his death. ^B

CHAPTER XVII.

I. After Justinian had seen the book on Origen approved by all, he meditated a similar thing against the Acephali, by which, once it was likewise approved, the wars of the Church might—as he indeed hoped—be ended, and all might conspire in the opinion of the council. II. When he was entirely occupied with this, and had almost completed the defense of the synod against the Acephali, Theodorus, bishop of Caesarea, having shared his counsels with the Augusta, deemed that the opportunity should be taken to repay Pelagius, the deacon, who was particularly observant of the synod. Therefore, to write to the emperor, burning with... ^C Now, however, [it was said that] he had been requested in two trials regarding crimes, the suspicion of which is [the cause of] infamy; that the case had not been judged, but deceptively settled; that the Nestorian school at Edessa, by which the pestilence was widely spread among the peoples, had been either opened or fostered by him; that injury had been inflicted by him upon the Ephesian council and the holy Cyril; that he, with the same pertinacity as Theodoret, had honored both the authors of the heresy and had despised the defenders of the faith. To these [arguments it was added] that the cause of the Council of Chalcedon could be easily separated from the cause of the three men; that the former is of the faith, the latter of persons; that the faith is kept whole only when the anathema is pronounced not only upon men who have professed heresy, but also upon those merely suspected in the name of heresy. Finally, [they argued] that it would be a singular glory for the emperor, through all subsequent centuries, if he had purged the synod of the stains which it had contracted by the lot of humanity; if he had given to the Church the peace desirable to all good men; if he had united the wills of all into one faith, the dissensions of opinions being removed: that God requires this from the emperor, after [he had recovered] Africa ^D

the whole, and Sicily, and Italy with Rome, under his own dominion; that this single thing could be repaid by the most pious prince, for so many victories granted by the Deity, to give peace to the Church, which is the kingdom of God, which God has given to the world, as He has given the empire to Justinian.

III. The emperor, as he was a man who was very good, suffered himself first to be moved from the work he had undertaken against the Acephali, then afterwards published a book written by the zeal of Theodore, inscribed under his own name: later, he issued an edict, comparable in size to a volume, composed by the Theodorians against the Three Chapters: finally, he ordered that, in every part of the world, a subscription to his edict be made by all. ^A The emperor did this, with the Acephali congratulating themselves on the victory won by this artifice. Mennas, with his bishops, received the edict, yet with this caution: if the supreme pontiff should approve it. The other three patriarchs of the Eastern empire did not dare to resist, for fear of losing their dignity, which had happened to their predecessors, not fearing to offend the mind of the prince.

IV. There remained one, like all of them, the supreme pontiff, whom Theodora thought to persuade to consent, pressing him partly by the power of the uxorious emperor, partly by that of Belisarius, who served her: for so it seemed that the Council of Chalcedon could be uprooted, if that which rested upon the authority of the first see, were shaken by the authority of the same see. But ^B her hope deceived the woman: for Vigilius, having taken the spirit of Leo the Great, rejected the edict; alleging as his cause that of which a holy predecessor had once written, that the synod must be religiously retained in every part: "Because perfection receives neither increase, nor plenitude addition." ^C The Church followed the example of its head: wherever it was not basely serving the prince, that is, in the West and in Africa, but especially in Illyricum, Dalmatia, and the Gauls, and other provinces more remote from Italy: and hence there was a fear that the schism extinguished in the times of Hormisdas would revive: and indeed it was likely to be all the more vehement and persistent, the more honest the cause seemed to be, to defend an ecumenical synod than to condemn Acacius.

V. This commotion happened in the year that Pelagius the deacon returned to Rome. There are some who believe he was recalled by Vigilius, after the edict was published, lest, as he was gracious to the princes, he should concede to their opinion. There are some who conjecture he was sent by Justinian, so that he might bring help to a Rome in peril, which he did do, with the money which he had received as a great sum from the emperor when he departed, having contributed it to relieve the poverty of the besieged. It is far more credible that he returned before the edict against the Three Chapters was brought to light; and that this was done by the command of the supreme pontiff alone, or of the emperor alone, or of both, rather than by the arts of the Augusta ^D Theodora, to which they had subreptitiously resorted: they feared, of course, that if she had power with the emperor, and possessed the spirit she had towards the holy synod, she might dissolve her deceits, and reveal the frauds of Justinian which were being spread for her, and the plan of the unspeakable faction.

Pelagius having therefore been placed far away, and Stephen having been put in his place, a man who was indeed of equal zeal for the faith, but unequal in the court in grace and authority, the edict was displayed at Constantinople, and having been sent to all the bishops of the world, it stirred up that which has been called the commotion of spirits. That this might be stilled, Justinian believed that a synod of the whole Church must be convoked, with the Augusta herself urging it, but with the contrary design. For she seemed to herself secure of victory, and about to triumph more certainly over the Council of Chalcedon, if at any time she had the prelates of the world, gathered into the royal city, in her power.

VI. The synod is therefore convoked at Constantinople; Vigilius himself is summoned in the usual manner by the emperor’s sacred letter, but at the same time a command is given secretly by Theodora to Belisarius, by which he might compel the pontiff to come, even if he were unwilling.

VII. But for a long time the pontiff excused himself, citing the example of his predecessors, who came neither to Nicaea at the summons of Constantine, nor to Ephesus or Chalcedon, although Theodosius the Younger and Marcian were clamoring for them; then he brought forward the inconvenience of the place to which he had been summoned; and the much greater convenience of another, such as Sicily; [and] that from there the Fathers could more easily arrive from all sides, and the West and the East in equal zeal conspire into one sentiment. Nevertheless, with Antonina, the minister of Theodora, exerting herself, Belisarius compelled the pontiff to leave Italy, and almost cast him out by force.

VIII. Rome, therefore, after it was plundered by Totila, Vigilius having departed on the 22nd of November in the year 546, crossed into Sicily, where he held some ordinations in the month of December, and received an embassy from Zoilus of Alexandria, and having been met by Datius of Milan, he learned in what state the affairs of the faith were at Constantinople, and he was asked by the Africans and the Sardinians through legates to see to it that the Council of Chalcedon might suffer no detriment; and he gave letters to the emperor in which he clamored for a council to be held there. But his prayers were in vain: therefore, after the Nativity festivals were completed, he crossed into the continent, and having made his journey through Hellas and Illyricum, he entered Constantinople on the 25th of January in the year 547, when he had been entreated by the Illyrians on the way not to assent to the condemnation of the Three Chapters.

IX. As he was being carried toward this opinion of the Illyrians with his whole inclination of will, so immediately after he came to the royal city, he exercised judgment regarding Mennas, and other prescribing bishops: wherefore he approved the act of Stephen, his apocrisiarius, who had excommunicated the communion of Mennas, [and] the prelate of the royal city...

^A, while the emperor was opposing [it] to no avail, he abstained from the sacred mysteries; Zoilus, primate of Egypt, because he had approved the edict, he gravely rebuked and brought to repentance; and with efforts worthy of the supreme pontiff he strove again that a synod might be convened in Sicily: lest, as indeed happened, the multitude of Orientals, servilely fawning upon the prince, should overwhelm the few Occidentals who were generously resisting him.

X. A whole year passed, while disputes were carried on between the pontiff and the emperor regarding this question: at which time Theodora, when she saw Mennas ill-received by Vigilius, thought of recalling her Anthimus. She therefore attacks Vigilius, by such means as she could, with prayers, promises, and threats; but in vain, since the pontiff preferred to die rather than to yield, so filled was he with apostolic spirit: and, that he might remove all hope from the Augusta, he restored Mennas to favor and released him from the interdict, and in turn received from him, out of gratitude, that the name of the supreme pontiff should first be inscribed in the diptychs of the Constantinopolitan Church 89.

XI. He did not so easily extricate himself from the efforts of Justinian, who was insistingantly urging that he should approve an edict written regarding the three chapters: for he endured such reluctant force, that, if we are to believe Anastasius, he exclaimed at one point: "I have not come summoned by Justinian and Theodora, the most pious princes, but I have fallen into Diocletian and Eleutheria."

XII. That force caused him to hold a council of seventy bishops at his residence, intending to see if by any means it might be lawful to preserve the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and at the same time to remit something regarding the case of the three men, that is, to concede something by a certain benign dispensation, by which the honor of the emperor might be spared, and the mouth of the Acephali might be stopped: for they were ready to complain invidiously, that the way to the Church had been closed to them, though they were most persistently seeking to be admitted. That gathering of Fathers was assembled from those who had never bowed their knees before Belial, but had until then stood generously for the cause of God.

XIII. One of the Fathers was Facundus, Bishop of Hermiana in Africa, that man celebrated as a defender of the three chapters, who would be worthy of enough praise if he had been willing to follow Vigilius, when for the sake of peace he prudently relaxed something of his former rigor, rather than criticizing the supreme pontiff with his Africans beyond the measure of reverence. At the time when Vigilius convened the council, he had long been staying in Constantinople, involved in the affairs of the African Church, and had gathered there and among his own people a great reputation for learning, relying on which he had already confidently abstained, along with Stephen, the apocrisiarius of the Apostolic See, from the communion of Mennas as one who had accepted the edict. 233 The cause of this abstinence, it can be seen, was that [Justinian] had produced twelve books written against the edict. But he had almost absolved these at the time when Vigilius convened the council.

That many acts of the council existed is evident from the fact that in the third [book] Facundus relates that he spoke in a vehement speech before Vigilius on behalf of the epistle of Ibas: "I ask of your justice, that you inquire whether the epistle of Ibas, which has been condemned as Nestorian, was received by the Council of Chalcedon; and while it is established that what the opposing party proposes regarding the person of Theodore does not affect the synod, you may permit those things which they wish to be brought forward to be read again, lest by chance those things which are being done seem to pertain to a retraction of the aforementioned synod. For I frankly confess to your beatitude, not that I have withdrawn myself from the communion of those who condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia; for even if this is not to be approved, yet I think it must be borne, nor do I judge the cause to be so great that we should be separated from the communion of the multitude. But because they have tried to approve the Nestorian epistle of Ibas from the person of Theodore, and from the epistle of Ibas to disapprove the synod by which it was received," etc.

The words of Facundus teach that the cause of Theodore and Theodoret were being defended less spiritedly at that time than the cause of Ibas: for the epistle of Ibas had been read at Chalcedon, but no other writing of either [Theodore or Theodoret] had been; nor was the epistle only read, but it could be seen to have been either approved by the Fathers, or at least not disapproved: it could not, therefore, be brought to examination without offense to the Fathers, without which, however, it was lawful for other things to be examined, which had not even been proposed at Chalcedon, much less approved; indeed, which Cyril had taught to contain error by his impugning of them. The distinction of causes of this kind did not first become known in the council of Vigilius, but had long since been perceived by the learned: for Pelagius at Rome, before the departure of the pontiff, had asked Ferrandus, deacon of the Church of Carthage, celebrated at that time, for a judgment regarding the epistle of Ibas alone: Ferrandus certainly answered regarding that alone, and portrays the Chalcedonian Fathers as complaining about the judgment of that one thing in exaggerated words. "In the final resurrection," he says, "let religious men say: 'Why did you reprobate the epistle, the catholic diction of which we perceived, declared, and confirmed our judgment by subscribing to it? Or was it because the venerable Ibas vituperated the holy pontiff of the Alexandrian Church?' But he himself later signified that he had communicated with the holy Cyril. If he deserved blame for the vituperation of the blessed Cyril, he deserved no small favor for the restored communion. That he blamed the chapters of the holy Cyril, on account of their ambiguity and the obscurity of the language, with the Oriental bishops because he did not sufficiently understand them, was human infirmity: 234 that he might more easily believe one interpreting his own words well, and most willingly [agree]..."

were of priestly charity, without any loss of truth. Why should we condemn the letter, where both matters are narrated as things of the past, in accordance with the faithful interpretations of that holy Cyril? He himself, the holy Cyril himself, did not hasten to remove the scandal of a bad interpretation from one—or even several—Eastern bishops, but by rightly interpreting his own chapters; and should we, on account of the injuries done to him, condemn the letter in the manner of [a piece of] history, which explains what had occurred? If the venerable bishop Ibas is confirmed to have spoken in that letter things contrary to the rules of the true faith, on account of some ambiguous or obscure passages which make it seem so, our judgment ought to be better: because we have been able to investigate the meaning of the words from the mouth of him who dictated the letter. Finally, why should we think the letter favors Nestorius, whose author, in our presence, at our bidding, and hearing us, did not in the least doubt to anathematize Nestorius with a living voice, receiving the Tome of Pope Leo, and confirming the confession of the true faith by signing it with us? Thus, Ferrandus. ^B

XIV. Since the matter was being conducted in the synod of Vigilius more contentiously than usefully, and no hope of concord shone forth, it pleased the pontiff that each should deliver his opinion in writing within seven days, two of which, however, were feast days. Facundus notes this, and by doing so, hints not obscurely at the time the synod was held. For since the pontiff himself gave his written opinion to Justinian, after others had delivered theirs shortly before, and exhibited his own on Holy Saturday, which is to say the eleventh day of April—for Easter in that year fell on the twelfth day of April—it is necessary that the synod began on the sixteenth day of March, which was a Monday, and was prolonged through three or four sessions until the fifth or sixth day [of the week]. For thus, in the seven-day period, two feast days occur: Sunday and the Annunciation, and they would be concluded within a suitable space of time; as Facundus narrates that these things were done. ^C

That which the pontiff handed to the emperor in writing is that famous *Judicatum*, which, when Justinian had published it contrary to the agreements, moved the almost entire Church of the West against Vigilius, as if he were a violator of the Synod of Chalcedon and a deserter of the faith. There was, however, no reason why they should have been moved upon hearing the name of the *Judicatum*—for Vigilius had given this name to the writing contrary to custom, by which he forbade anyone to believe that it was a synodical definition, but solely a private prejudice. ^D

CHAPTER XVIII

I. When three months after the death of Theodora had passed, the whole world, as if inspired by the evil spirit of the dying woman, began to grow insane against Vigilius, having spurned the reverence of the apostolic see. For the emperor threatened dire things unless, having withdrawn the caution, he refashioned the *Judicatum* into the form of an edict.

II. Even the very counts and domestics of Vigilius, their minds having been changed for the moment, soon traduced the *Judicatum*, which a little before they had praised as a prudent remedy for the evil, as an open betrayal of the faith. Two clerics of the Roman Church, Rusticus and Sebastianus, one of whom was the pontiff’s nephew through his brother, perfidiously spread copies of the *Judicatum* and sent them into the West to solicit minds. Thence Africa, Italy, the Gauls, Illyricum, Dalmatia, and other provinces were moved against Vigilius, and they either accuse him of betrayed faith or prosecute him as guilty.

III. What followed after such a commotion, and what the pontiff either did in a spirit of peace, or suffered from Justinian, who had assumed the role of a tyrant; by what reasoning, now repentant of the ineffective dispensation, he returned to the earlier integral defense of the Three Chapters by withdrawing the *Judicatum*; how he was forced to protect himself in the asylum of the temples and by flight and the embrace of the altars; with what ferocity of soldiers he was torn from the holy table; with what firmness of mind he interdicted Theodore of Caesarea and his deacons from the sacred rites, and compelled Mennas and other bishops and Theodore himself to beg for the remission of their guilt; how he dealt with those in Illyricum, Africa, and Gaul who had suffered the offense; by what perjuries of Justinian he was deluded; with what constancy of mind and contempt of life he offered himself to death for religion; finally, how mournful the history of those four years was: the pontiff himself narrates in his letters, in which he partly excommunicates Theodore and the deacons, and partly informs the Church in common, and his friends in private, about his affairs. The clerics also narrate...

to the envoys of King Childebert of the Franks.

IV. It is established by these letters and pamphlets ^A that the bishops of Illyricum, Gaul, and Africa held synods regarding the cause of the Three Chapters; but the Gauls acted with moderation in these, the Illyrians more irascibly, and the Africans according to the temperament of their race. The Illyrians were moved to indignation because Vigilius seemed to have spurned their prayers and the promises he had made to those praying; a report from Facundus and others kindled the Africans, who are fervid by nature—a report not simple and sincere, but written, as is the habit of the angry, with invidious intent. The moderation of the Gauls shines through in the fact that they produced nothing into memory regarding the defenders of the chapters themselves, though they would undoubtedly have done so if anything had been done too harshly.

Concerning the synod of the Gauls, the authors of the time are silent, nor is it permitted to know anything for certain, whether from the letters which Aurelian of Arles, who held the synod, sent via Anastasius to the pontiff, or from the pontiff’s rescript: for Aurelian’s letters have perished, and the pontiff’s response, which is extant, was written according to the prescription of the Greeks, as the clerics of Italy complain. However, it is permissible to conjecture from the response, with the writings sent into Gaul by Rusticus and Sebastian, that Vigilius had been called into suspicion of opposing not only the Council of Chalcedon, but also the Council of Ephesus, and even the epistle of Leo to Flavian: for he is wholly occupied in removing this charge. But that other thing, which wicked men tried to persuade others of with nefarious fraud, when they praised the *Judicatum* sent to the provinces: they alleged that it contained a convicting of the crime in that part where the persons of Theodoret and Ibas were spared; for it was artfully spared, they claimed, because both were believed by Vigilius to have—not without just cause—both commended Theodore and condemned Cyril. ^B

A great part of this miserable assembly, ^D which wished even to judge the head of the universal Church. "After the consulship of Basilius, a most distinguished man, in the tenth year," he says, "the African prelates, having synodically condemned Vigilius, the Roman bishop, for the Three Chapters, excluded him from catholic communion, reserving a place for repentance; and they sent sufficiently suitable letters for the defense of the aforementioned Three Chapters to the prince Justinian via the Master of Offices, Olympius."

After the shadow of false religion and the blindness of the mind drove Africa to that degree of madness, at Constantinople Facundus, under the pretext of answering a certain Mocianus who was blaming the assembly, actually inveighed against Vigilius with bitterness and calumny at the same time, in a written book than which none could be more virulent or impudent. ^C

He strives most of all in it to defend that which held incredible hatred, that the supreme pontiff had not been excluded from communion by the Africans: for he contends that he excluded himself, when in his *Judicatum* he spoke anathema, as he himself interprets it, against the Fathers gathered at Chalcedon, and against the whole catholic Church, and even against the African one.

"After many things, therefore," he says, "uttered impetuously: 'These things would suffice, if our adversaries, whom he himself also blames, did not bring anathema upon the Council of Chalcedon, nor against us all, but acted somewhat against its authority, and were themselves rather condemned by us under anathema: but now, while they act impiously, and anathematize us and our Fathers, and by this anathema segregate themselves from the universal Church of Christ; we who, with God presiding, persist in paternal sentiment and communion; we, I say, established in the Church to which they have spoken anathema, resolve according to the observance of the Christian religion, not to communicate with those segregated from the Church.'"

What more shall I bring forth from a book which alone has stained a reputation for doctrine and even for piety gathered by twelve others? It would have been happier, and even wiser, if, by the impulse of charity, he had followed Vigilius who was studying for peace, and had not, in the manner of the Donatists, preferred Africa to the world.

V. Regarding the convention of the Illyrians, Victor of Tunnuna reports: "After the consulship of Basilius, a most distinguished man, in the ninth year, the Illyrian synod wrote to Augustus Justinian in defense of the Three Chapters, and condemned Benenatus, bishop of Justiniana Prima, as a detractor of these same three chapters." That year, which he calls the ninth according to his custom, and in which he reports the death of Theodore, was in reality the eighth, by the reasoning that others are accustomed to count, and thus the five hundred and forty-eighth year of Christ, the twenty-second of Justinian, from the Kalends of April. The Illyrians, therefore, must have hurried to the synod immediately after hearing the report concerning the mission of the *Judicatum* to Mennas, but, as anger is precipitous and turbulent, they acted tumultuously and injuriously; for both the supreme pontiff suffered indignities from the angry bishops, and Benenatus was condemned by his subordinates, and the emperor was treated badly by the ungrateful.

VI. But in the following year the impotence of the Africans burst forth further, daring that which had been attempted by no one up to that time. Let Victor himself narrate his own crime; for ^D the petition sent via the Master of Offices being heard there, they decided to summon the principal prelates, as if to an ecumenical synod. Two primates came, Reparatus of the Proconsular province, and Firmus of the Numidians; the elders of the remaining provinces sent legates. What they did in Constantinople, with what obstinacy some bore exiles, others prisons, for the three chapters, by what reasoning some, whether by rewards or by desire for sees, withdrew into the party of Justinian, Victor of Tunnuna recounts, nor does he allow himself to be unpraised; if, however, the final part of the Chronicle is his, which I do not think.

VIII. While these things are being done in various parts of the world...

Mopsuestia, which is a city of Cilicia Secunda, convened on June 17, 550, at the summons of Justinian’s letters: the cause of this summoning was none other than to establish by the testimony of the whole province and the elders of the city that Theodore, formerly bishop of Mopsuestia, had long ago been condemned in his own Church, and therefore erased from the sacred diptychs. The emperor was striving for this, partly to satisfy the pontiff, who denied that he could condemn Theodore, whose memory, having died in the peace of the Church, had not been defamed up to that time; ^A partly to defend the form of the edict by which he proscribed Theodore just as he did Origen; and partly for other reasons, which we have discussed in their proper place.

All the bishops of the province were present. John of Anazarbus, or the prelate of Justinianopolis, presided: all the clergy and the elders of the nobility of the city were called: diptychs of three kinds were produced from the Church treasury. It was established, both by the testimony of the elders and by the inspection of the diptychs, that Theodore's name had neither been called upon nor inscribed in the diptychs for sixty years, but in his place Cyril, the prelate of the Alexandrian Church, had been substituted. The whole matter was reported in synodical letters, both to the emperor and to the supreme pontiff: for Justinian had cautioned by explicit words in a *tractoria* [decree] that this be done, by which art, or fraud, that was cautioned, we have exposed elsewhere.

^B It is furthermore a marvel, first, that the elders of the city did not know at what time the name of Theodore may have been erased; next, that no trace of an erasure existed in the diptychs, or if it did, it was not reported in the Acts: finally, that Cyril was substituted for Theodore. It is a marvel, I say, when Theodore was at one time numbered among the co-bishops during the sacred mysteries: he was certainly numbered among them when Theodoret completed his *History* in the year 450, and honored with the highest praises a man celebrated in fame. How, therefore, did no memory of such a great and such an insolent deed remain, when Theodore was heard as the most famous interpreter of the Holy Scripture of almost the entire world? How were the diptychs of the Mopsuestian Church so recent, which in any other churches were held in esteem due to their antiquity? How was one of the patriarchs, and in a foreign diocese, considered among the lesser bishops? ^C 239 How, when the name of Cyril was recited in such an unusual way, did no one hesitate, and inquisitively seek the causes of the fact, which was not very old? These and other things, as they are able to move intense admiration, so also they move some doubt in a man not overly credulous, lest perhaps this, whatever it is, was devised by Justinian while acting fraudulently against the pontiff, and was carried out by obsequious ministers.

But if there is no place for doubt, it must be that the diptychs were changed in that interval of time which elapsed from the death of Theodoret, which occurred in the year 457 or 458, to the year 490, or even 480: for Theodoret, as long as he lived, by the authority he had among the Cilicians, and by the zeal he had for Theodore, had resisted bitterly so injurious an effort against his friend. Therefore, the name of Theodore was not removed from the diptychs before the year 458, nor even after 490; for the presbyter Martyrius, who was legally interrogated, was an octogenarian in the year 550, when he testified in the synodal hearing that he had begun to serve the Mopsuestian Church sixty years prior, and had never heard the name of Theodore called among the sacred diptychs being read, but the name of Cyril; truly, when it must not have been a very recent act—at the time that old man was admitted into the clergy, otherwise he would have heard somewhat of such a great matter—there was need of some time, say a decade, to destroy or at least obscure the memory: and thus nothing more probable can be said than that such an obduction was made before the year 480. But in what year, finally? In no other, I believe, than that in which Basiliscus occupied the tyranny (that is 475), and in which he sent an edict into the provinces, at the persuasion of his wife Zenonis, against the Council of Chalcedon.

If that is true, as it certainly appears, one might rightly wonder that three wicked women fought against Theodore, and the fight initiated by Zenonis, joined by Theodora, and finished out of Vigilius's hatred by Antonina, with the husbands of each—Basiliscus, Justinian, and Belisarius—serving the impotence of their wives. But these things have been explained more fully elsewhere, as I have said.

Chapter XIX.

I. Vigilius consents to the celebration of the council, provided the whole case be permitted to him; which the emperor promises under oath. II. Theodore the Cappadocian is the author to the emperor that he should break his given word. III. An edict against the three chapters is proposed in the Church, and is received. IV. Vigilius takes action against those who receive it. V. Eutychius succeeds Mennas, and gives to Vigilius letters of his faith, asking that a synod be held. VI. Vigilius assents. VII. The synod is announced for the 3rd of the Nones of May [May 5]. VIII. It is held for one whole month. IX. In the fourth session and part of the fifth, the case of Theodore of Mopsuestia is handled. X. In the other part of the fifth, the case of Theodoret. XI. What was objected to him. XII. Vigilius writes the *Constitutum*, in which he defends the person of Theodoret by name, but condemns his doctrine. XIII. Anathema is pronounced by the council against the works of Theodoret, and their defenders. 240 XIV. What works are condemned by the council, whether only the criticisms of the chapters of Cyril, or other works as well.

Ab anno Christi 548 ad 553.

I. After the pontiff and the emperor had contended for almost two whole years, the one with an apostolic spirit, the other with a tyrannical mind, the fifth council was finally celebrated, with Vigilius partly willing and partly unwilling. He had indeed consented from the beginning that it be held, but in Sicily, so that the prelates of both Churches might convene more conveniently; having suffered a refusal, he had consented that it be gathered in the royal city, provided the case of the three chapters remained intact, with everything done thus far regarding that matter rescinded,

SCHULZII NOTAE.

NOTÆ. ^A permitted by the synod. To this the Emperor had bound himself by oath, and he would have stood by his promise, in the hope of attaining his desire, had not Theodore the Cappadocian, that base tool of the palace, been the author of the breaking of the faith.

II. He would say that, having cast aside the reverence due to his priesthood, it was unworthy of the supreme power to rescind acts of his own making at the will of another: that it was not for the Emperor to receive laws, but to give them; that it seemed intolerable that a man who is a captive, and ought to be a servant, should wish to lord it in the royal city: that the supreme majesty after God should not be subject to the judgments of others, however many bishops they were, but should compel all persons of whatsoever rank to obedience; that the authority of the Roman Pontiff might be held in consideration by the people, but could be despised by him whose sanctions are deservedly called divine and holy; that the spirits of the Easterns were prepared to serve, provided they seemed to be compelled: that the most suitable manner of compulsion was if those things were restored which the Pontiff wished to be rescinded, and were proposed in the Church, where the bishops might be compelled to assemble, so that they might offer prayers in common for the Emperor; that everyone would give their assent, except for a few who could be despised without any loss: that such an assent would be a pledge of the obedience to be rendered by all the patriarchs, and ^B as it were, a prejudged verdict on the whole synod; and that it did not befit the master of the world to furnish, by taking precautions, that which he could obtain by command: that this had not been the mind of the divine Theodora when she said that the imperial majesty alone was inferior to the divine: it was to be sacrificed to the hands of the Augusta, toward that which she most desired, the depression of her enemies.

III. Led away by these lies of the courtier bishops from his original purpose, Justinian, spurning his oath, gave the power to restore in its entirety what he had shortly before rescinded. An edict was therefore proposed, whereby everyone was ordered to condemn the three chapters, and indeed in the Church, that it might appear more religious.

IV. The Pontiff, having execrated so perfidious a crime, prohibited anyone from obeying, and strictly so: as for him who does so, he forbids him to enjoy the communion of the apostolic see and the rank of his own order; the prohibition was issued, as it behooved, to the bishops ^C who nevertheless allowed themselves to be drawn by Theodore into obedience, by which, once polluted, they soon approached the holy mysteries with the author of the crime. The war between Vigilius and Justinian grew stronger; Theodore was specifically removed by the Pontiff from his rank, the other bishops were interdicted from sacred things until they should consent; the conflict with the head of the Church was waged spiritedly on both sides, but it was on the side of the Pontiff, as is usual with martyrs, and on the other, as from persecutors.

V. Meanwhile, Mennas died; Eutychius, a holy man, succeeded him, who soon sent to the Pontiff the formula of his faith, according to custom, asking for communion: at the same time, he requested through Vigilius that the power be granted to celebrate a synod, ^D in which, he says, with the Pontiff presiding, under tranquility and gentleness, with the holy Gospels set before them, the chapters might be called to examination by common deliberation and that end might be put to the question which is agreeable to God, and consistent with the definitions of the four holy synods: for, he says, it pertains to the increase of peace and the concord of the Churches that, every dissension being removed from the midst, that which was defined by the aforementioned four holy councils should be kept unshaken, the reverence of the holy synods being guarded in all things.

VI. The letters of Eutychius were received on the very day of the Epiphany: and as they were full of reverence and piety, they swayed the mind of Vigilius, which was broken by evils and weary of the tumultuous Church, toward the parts of clemency, or especially because they contained the common faith of all the patriarchs, and they solemnly swore with their own names subscribed that they embraced the four synods in every part, and wished to attempt nothing at all other than what could be done while preserving their reverence. The Pontiff therefore wrote back to Eutychius on the following day, and having praised his faith, consented that a regular assembly be held regarding the three chapters from which the question arose, and that, with equity preserved and the most holy Gospels in the midst, a collation might be had with the united brethren.

VII. After this concession, a synod was indicted by the Emperor for the fourth month from then, which was May: it was indicted, I say, to be celebrated on the Nones, which was the second feria, after the other *νέα κυριακή* [new Sunday] Dominicam. For it was not permitted to have it sooner: for first, before the fasts, the beginning of which fell in the year 553 on the fifth day of March, the Fathers could not be called and assemble; then, during the time of the fasts, ecclesiastical custom forbade synods to be celebrated, as also on the Paschal feasts, the Sunday of which fell on the 20th of April, and thus the *νέα κυριακή*, on which the feasts are performed, was on the 27th of the same month; finally, at least seven days had to be granted to the Fathers to assemble, and the synod had to be made to begin on the second feria according to custom. Those few days were sufficient for the gathering of the Fathers: for the greatest part was in the city, and the faith of those present was obligated to the Emperor, and the affection of those from abroad, if many more were to approach, could be feared.

242 VIII. The council was therefore begun on the 5th of May, held for almost an entire month: it was concluded on the 1st of June in eight sessions: the first three sessions were spent partly in reading the letters of the Emperor to the synod, of Eutychius to Vigilius, and of Vigilius to Eutychius; partly in various legations to the supreme pontiff, by which he was asked to preside over the council; partly in calling the bishops of Africa and Illyricum who were in the city; and partly, finally, in the profession of faith and the proposition of matters to be transacted.

IX. The case of Theodore of Mopsuestia held the fourth session on the 12th of May, and the fifth on the following day. Those things were produced from various books which favored Nestorius: the arguments of the case were brought forward, from various places, as well from Cyril and Proclus, and also from Theodoret, and others, as well as from ecclesiastical history.

^A And finally, those of the twelfth: "That the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, and also became the first-born from the dead, according to that in which He is life and life-giving, as God." And libels offered to the Armenians by Proclus; the two laws of Theodorus were also read, as if they pertained to Theodorus; an answer to them, whether from those who brought the letters in praise of Theodorus, or those who contended that no one who died in peace could be condemned; finally, the acts of the synod of Mopsuestia were reviewed; and lastly, it was proclaimed by the synod against the Mopsuestian.

X. In the same fifth session, which is said to have been held on the 13th of May, the case of Theodoret was acted upon. The synod ordered to be read those things which had been collected from the writings of Theodoret, set forth against the true faith and against Cyril of holy memory and his twelve chapters, and also ^B for Theodorus and Nestorius and their blasphemies. Now there were read those things which Theodoret had criticized against Saint Cyril, both in the anathematisms and in what he stated in his addresses and wrote in his letters.

XI. Besides the defense of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodorus of Mopsuestia and the attack on the Ephesian synod, these three things, truly most grave, were objected against him: that he had called Cyril contemptuous names; that he had denounced his doctrine as impious and contrary to the faith handed down by the Fathers; and that, while contradicting Cyril, he had proven himself guilty of agreement with Nestorius.

The first was concluded from the fact that by Theodoret, Cyril was called "wretched, worthless, impious, envious, heretic, antichrist, ^C Theomachus, Theopaschite, a disciple of Asterius the Arian, an offspring of Apollinarius, a plague of the Church, an author of turmoil in the world."

From this, the second seemed manifest, that he termed the doctrine of Cyril "the seeds of heretical tares, a scion of Apollinarius, a discipline of Asterius, the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius, the insanity of Valentinus, Manes, and Marcion."

The third consisted in the fact that, since the heresy of Nestorius was contained in these four sentences mostly: "The blessed Virgin did not give birth to God, but a man made by God; ^D the two natures in Christ are joined only by relation (σχέσει); the one is He to whom humble words are attributed, the other He to whom divine ones are; God did not suffer": Theodoret showed himself a professor of all these sentiments, when he argued against Cyril, who was contradicting these individual points, and rebuked the sentences of the contradictory one as false and even heretical. He indeed rebuked these words of the first anathematism: "The holy Virgin gave birth carnally to the divine Word made flesh." These of the second: "The divine Word was united to the flesh according to substance." These also of the fourth: "If any one distributes between two persons or subsistences the expressions which are in the Gospels or apostolic Scriptures, and which are spoken by the saints concerning Christ, or by Himself concerning Himself, and ascribes these indeed to a man, who is understood separately beyond the Word..."

Truly, the things which were objected to Theodoret had all the more invidiousness in that, in those times, the name of Nestorius was execrable, and the authority of Cyril greater among the parties distracting the Church: for the former was held by all in common as being the enemy of Christ and a plague to the whole world; the latter was venerated as a man of extraordinary piety, a master of the Church, and a certain rule for thinking rightly.

Moreover, in this place one might wonder at both the voluntary blindness—if it be lawful to say so—of Theodoret, and the thoughtlessness of the man who culled from the writings of Theodoret those things which were objected. For how could Theodoret, with the strength of intelligence he possessed, not perceive what was the faith of the Church, and how consonant was the sentence of Cyril to the faith, and how discordant the dogma of Nestorius? How likewise could the excerptor bring forward those things from the letters of Theodoret to the monasteries, in which they are erroneously attributed to Cyril, which it was no trouble for anyone to contradict? They are so unspeakable, and at the same time so alien to the mind of Cyril.

XII. Before the sixth session was held, in which the case of Ibas was heard, because Vigilius had been unwilling to participate with the synod, he sent a *Constitutum* to Justinian, in which, having been asked about the three chapters, he gave his answer. The emperor had asked the pontiff what he thought about the proposed questions; he had asked, however, almost in the manner of a torturer: for since he had sent a great volume that was a reminder rather than a notification to a man afflicted with weak health, he granted no more than twenty days' delay for responding.

Vigilius, however, replied in the manner that befitted a prelate of the apostolic see: for, having formally assembled the synod of his own, he first prescribed the rules for inquiring into the three chapters. Then that which was written perversely and preposterously concerning the faith by each of the three whose cause was being handled, but especially by Theodorus and Theodoret, he proscribed with the mark of censure, the people remaining untouched. Finally, he issued a grave edict, threatening excommunication, that no one of the ecclesiastical order should determine anything about the whole matter otherwise than he himself had done.

XIII. As far as Theodoret specifically is concerned, the pontiff replied that he ought to be considered innocent, since the holy synod had received him, and had wished him to retain his seat with his dogmas, after he had abjured Nestorius; nor had the synod done anything imprudently in that, since it had imitated Cyril, who, while peace was being entered into, had pardoned the injuries and insults brought upon him by Theodoret in such a way that he did not ask for what he had written to be abolished. With this response, the pontiff answers sufficiently to the two previous points objected against Theodoret.

SCHULZ'S NOTES

Thirdly, regarding that which contains the agreement with Nestorius, he did what befitted a doctor of the Church: he anathematized in general whatever held even the appearance of the Nestorian heresy; then, in particular, he condemned by five anathemas items extracted from the same number of books by Theodoret.

1. If anyone, preserving the immutability of the divine nature, does not confess that the Word was made flesh and that from the very conception in the womb of the Virgin He united unto Himself the principles of human nature according to subsistence, but rather that God the Word was with an already existing man, so that on account of this the holy Virgin is not truly believed to be the Mother of God, but is called so in name only, let him be anathema.

2. If anyone denies that the union of natures in Christ was made according to subsistence, but maintains that God the Word inhabited an independently existing man as one of the just, and does not thus confess the union of natures according to subsistence, so that God the Word with the assumed flesh remained, and remains, one subsistence or person, let him be anathema.

3. If anyone divides the evangelical and apostolic utterances in the one Christ in such a way that he introduces into Him a division of the natures united also, let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says that the one and the same true Son of God, and the very same true Son of man, had ignorance of future things or of the day of the last judgment, and that he could know as much as the deity, as if inhabiting another person, revealed to him, let him be anathema.

5. If anyone, concerning that text of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which says that He learned obedience from that which He suffered, and with a strong cry and tears offered up prayers and supplications to God, who was able to save Him from death (Heb. V, 7), treats Christ as if He were mere deity, who was perfected by the labors of virtue, so that from this he appears to introduce two Christs or two sons, and does not believe in the one and same Christ, the Son of God and of man, to be confessed and adored in and from two inseparable and indivisible natures, let him be anathema.

245 In the final session, the Fathers, after having set forth the series of proceedings, decreed thirteen canons, the thirteenth of which was written against Theodoret in such a way that it contains his entire cause. "If anyone," they say, "defends the impious writings of Theodoret which he set forth against the right faith, and against the first holy Synod of Ephesus, and against saint Cyril and his twelve chapters, and all that he wrote for the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and for others who held the same opinions as the aforementioned Theodore and Nestorius, defending them and their impiety, and on account of this calls impious those doctors of the Church who confess the unity of the Word according to the subsistence of God, and does not anathematize them and those who have held or hold similar opinions: furthermore, also all who have written against the right faith and saint Cyril and his twelve chapters, and have remained in such impiety until death, such a person is anathema."

XIV. Two works are mentioned besides the letters and allocutions: the *Pentalogium* and the refutation of the anathemas of Cyril. In the former, Theodore and Diodorus are defended against the right faith and the Ephesian Synod. In the latter, Cyril is impugned. In both, the cause of Nestorius is aided; both, along with the letters and allocutions, are struck with anathema; yet the person of Theodoret remains intact, for he, having been deposed by the robber-synod of Ephesus, was restored by Leo the Great, received by the Council of Chalcedon, and called orthodox by the Church; and he was protected by the authority of the apostolic see, by the holiness of the great synod, by the confession of the right faith, by the condemnation of Nestorius, and by a life closed with a holy end.

CAPUT XX.

I. Thus stood the cause of Theodoret in the fifth synod, to which the East soon consented for the most part, but the West dissented, until the judgment of the apostolic see became known.

II. There are some who wish for it to be held that Vigilius resisted constantly, and for that reason was cast into exile, from which he was recalled by the prayers of Narses, and was permitted to return to Rome, but while returning, he succumbed to fate in Sicily. There are others who assert that, broken by evils and weary of the troubles, in the sixth month after the synod, he revoked the *Constitutum* and approved the definition of the synod. The former use the testimony of Anastasius the Librarian and Victor of Tunnuna; the latter bring forward an epistle recently discovered, which is read as having been sent by Vigilius to Eutychius, bishop of the royal city. 246 The former say there exists no trace of the sentence retracted by Vigilius, at least in ancient, indubitable monuments; the latter, relying on the epistle mentioned, affirm that Vigilius did what prudence commanded; with the saving light having spread, when he saw that the East consented to the definition of the synod, and that a schism would follow if the West resisted, he preferred to use prudent dispensation and to bend the rigor of the canons rather than to rend the unity of the Church. In this conflict of opinions concerning Vigilius, it is not easy, as it indeed seems to the common view, to hold firmly to a portion of the truth.

197 DE LIBRIS THEODORETI. 198 qui: for even what is said about the ten-year exile is entirely fictitious, and the letter to Eutychius is not free from the suspicion of being a forgery. Both have been demonstrated by the observations subjoined to the breviary of Liberatus regarding the fifth synod. III. It may, however, be asserted without doubt that Vigilius, when returning to Rome, worn out by pains, died in Sicily in the year 555, and by his death left the apostolic see to Pelagius, his deacon while he lived. IV. Pelagius, however, attempting to recall the Western Church, divided into parts because of the three chapters, to concord, profited very little. Indeed, neither did the two subsequent popes, Benedict and John, until Pelagius II successfully undertook such a great task, which his successor Gregory the Great completed for the most part. V. For since only the Illyrians and the Spaniards had persistently resisted thus far—for the Africans had easily conceded to the side of the synod while Vigilius was still alive, and Gaul had not been much shaken by the movement ^A, which had barely reached other provinces of Europe—Gregory wrote to the Illyrians and the Iberians; but he wrote to the Illyrians while he was still a deacon and in the name of Pelagius II, while he became pope to the Iberians; I say he wrote letters after the manner of books, by which he both defended the fifth synod and condemned the three chapters, saving the persons of Theodoret and Ibas, and prescribed the manner of entering into peace. VI. It is helpful to transfer here from the former letter what it contains concerning Theodoret: for it is opportune in the place where we are, nor can the history which we have written be brought to a better end elsewhere. "Who," he says, "does not see with how much rashness it is filled, to defend by pride the writings of Theodoret, which it is certain he himself, after professing rightly, condemned? While however we receive his person, and reject acts which have long lain hidden, the wicked writings, we do not deviate in anything from the action of the holy synod: because by rejecting only his heretical writings, we both still follow Nestorium with the synod, and with the synod we venerate Theodoret who professes rightly." ^B

DISSERTATION II. ON THE BOOKS OF THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRRHUS

PREFACE.

CHAPTER FIRST.

^A And he lays down the same complaints by mandate to the prefect Eutrechius, before whom at that same time: "The pontiff, who has governed the episcopate for twenty-five years, and who led his previous time in a monastery, who never summoned a judicial court, nor was ever by anyone brought to trial, has been made a mockery of malicious slander," etc.

VII. Indeed, I feel that two things might be objected: first, that the letter was indeed inscribed to a consul, yet not one who was in office at the time it was written, but one who had been ^B before these things; second, that it is uncertain which passage is more true, whether that which was adduced by Baronius or that which is opposed to it; for if Theodoret speaks contradictory things, then from his own testimonies nothing at all certain can deservedly be concluded in either direction.

VIII. But no one who has read Theodoret would object to the first point: for he is accustomed to designate those to whom he inscribes letters by the titles of the offices they were holding at that time. Thus, he writes to Anatolius, yet never once does he call him consul, ^C although he had held the consulship in the year 440. Thus, he does not call Florentius, who was consul in the year 429, and Senator, who was consul in 436, consuls, but only calls both patricians; yet he was writing to both after they had held the consulship. But because he sent letters to Zeno and Avienus in the year they held the consulship, the former in 448 and the latter in 450, he calls both of them consuls. Therefore, he called Nomus consul because in the year he was writing, he was in fact the consul. But when we come to review the letters, we will evidently refute Baronius's ^D emendation, who reads "consular" instead of "consul," and the contradictory statements of the cardinal will be demonstrated.

IX. Now truly, the other point can easily be cleared up: for as often as two passages of one author conflict, especially when the subject is numbers, in which lapses are frequent, that passage must above all be retained which is both more consistent with others regarding its sense, and which ought to be less suspect, and which could not as easily be corrupted. But the two passages just mentioned do conflict: but the one produced from Epistle 81 has these three qualities which I mentioned, while the other does not: that one therefore is to be preferred to this one.

X. That the passage in Epistle 81 possesses these three qualities is evident from the fact that it is, firstly, in agreement with the second epistle to Dioscorus, in which Theodoret reports that he taught at Antioch, when he was already a bishop, for six continuous years under Theodotus, thirteen under John, the successor of Theodotus, and that for Domnus, who succeeded John, it was already the seventh year when he was writing. Since, therefore, Theodotus passed away in the year 427, as Theodoret reports, it is necessary that he began to teach either in the year 420 toward the end, or at the beginning of 421. Therefore he began his episcopate in the year 420 or at the beginning of 421.

XI. Next, that the same passage cannot deservedly

be suspected of corruption, whether the numbers themselves are intact, or only the marks are written: for neither is 5 written as 2, nor 8 as 5 easily changed through the negligence of a copyist. XII. Finally, it is clear that a contradictory passage has a leaning toward a slip by the transcriber in the numbers: for what is more prone to happen than to pervert 0 into 5, or ^A *nine* into *six*? 473, and to have written on Deuteronomy in the year 472, from which it follows that he died in the same year as the Emperor Leo the Elder, and that he held the episcopate for 53 years according to our chronology of the episcopate, or 50 according to Baronius, and thus extended his life to the year 85. He concludes his opinion: first, because Gennadius, Bede, Ado, and Freculphus report that Theodoret died under the Emperor Leo, and extended his history to his times; then, because Marcellinus Comes refers to the year 466 a book on the Incarnation against Eutyches and Dioscorus written by Theodoret; finally, because Theodoret himself, in question 38 on Deuteronomy, teaches that four hundred years had passed, at the time when he was writing, from the dispersion of the Jewish people; and since this happened in the year of Christ 72 according to the chronology of Baronius, namely after Judea had been devastated by the Romans and Jerusalem destroyed, Theodoret must have written this in the year 472.

XIII. But if the episcopate of Theodoret falls in the year 420, it must be that his birth occurred before the year 390; for he was not ordained in contempt of the canons before the thirtieth year of his age, since Theodotus, a most holy and religious man and an observer of the canons, by whom he was ordained, was presiding over the Church of Antioch.

XIV. Indeed, that Theodoret came into the light about the year 386 is not obscurely gathered from the fact that, when he sent letters to Saint Leo, he called himself an old man with grey hair: for anyone is wont to be called an old man when he has reached or even passed his sixty-third year of age. Since, therefore, he sent letters in the year 449, and was then sixty-three years old or more, it is necessary that he began to live about the year 386.

XV. Similar is the conjecture which is drawn from letter 90, written to Lupicinus in the year 447. For Theodoret writes that he had entered the bounds of old age: by which form of speaking is indicated the middle time which exists between the eighth and ninth septenary, and thus about the sixtieth year.

XVI. Add that he visited Zeno the monk when he was younger, and yet a reader, and about twenty-two years of age: he visited him, however, in the year 408, as will be shown in the review of the Philotheus.

XVII. But now we have shown that he died in the year 457, or 458. He lived, therefore, seventy-one or seventy-two years.

XVIII. Cardinal Perron agrees with our chronology, in his book *On the Eucharist*, chapter 17, where he reports that Theodoret was ordained nine or ten years before the death of Augustine; for Augustine, as is the constant opinion of all, departed from this life in the year 430. But there is an enormous error of the printers in that place in Perron concerning the death of Augustine, for instead of 430 they put 390.

XIX. Cardinal Baronius dissents: for he opines that Theodoret died in the year 453, because he is silent about him afterwards; but in that year he received letters from Saint Leo, and published the book *On Heretical Fables*, and afterwards composed questions on the Octateuch, the books of Kings, and Chronicles, as will be shown in the review of the first part of the first volume of his works.

XX. Blondell also dissents in his *Prolegomena* to the book against Turrianus on the *Canonical Epistles*: for he reports that Theodoret lived until the year ^B XXI. But the authority of Marcellinus, Bede, Ado, and Freculphus is no other in this regard than that of Gennadius, whose words they all copied, some simply, others with errors added of their own, as, for example, that he flourished under Leo, whereas Gennadius writes that he died under him; furthermore, the authority of Gennadius is null: for he was deceived in what he committed to writing about the history of Theodoret, as will be shown afterwards. But now Theodoret, in his exposition of Deuteronomy, said "four hundred years" in a whole number, as is the custom, when sixteen or seventeen years were lacking, nor did such accuracy of counting pertain to the matter, as will be seen in its own place.

§ II. By whom Theodoret was ordained.

I. The solution of the question depends on the time when either Theodotus or Alexander, the predecessor of Theodotus, ruled the Church of Antioch. For if Theodotus sat for only four years, which Nicephorus of Constantinople wishes in his Catalogue of the Bishops of Antioch, it must be that Theodoret was ordained by Alexander; if indeed ^D the time of the ordination has been established by us, as it ought to be: but if Theodotus held the see for sixteen years, which Baronius wishes, he was certainly the ordainer of Theodoret. The question, in my opinion, can easily be decided.

II. For it is certain, first, that Alexander succeeded Porphyry, and Theodotus succeeded Alexander; it is also certain that Porphyry died in the year 408, and Theodotus in the year 427: wherefore the space of nineteen years is to be divided between the see of Alexander and that of Theodotus. Since, therefore, Baronius opines that Theodotus sat for sixteen years, he leaves only three for Alexander: on the contrary, however, Nicephorus of Constantinople, while attributing only four years to Theodotus, necessarily assigns thirteen to Alexander.

SCHULZ' NOTES.

^A III. Baronius was led to his opinion by the letters exchanged between Atticus and Cyril, which Nicephorus Callistus reports; for in them mention seems to be made of Alexander as deceased and of Theodotus as living. Since Baronius therefore thinks these letters were written in the year 412, the year in which Cyril began to sit, it is necessary that he claim Theodotus sat for at least one year before Cyril, and consequently presided over the Church of Antioch for sixteen years, and therefore Alexander for only three.

IV. If we listen to Theodoret and Cyril, as it is certainly right to do, we shall first refute Nicephorus of Constantinople, who gives only four years to Theodotus: for Theodoret assigns at least six years to Theodotus, when he reports in a letter to Dioscorus that he taught at Antioch for six years under him. ^B

V. Next, we shall refute Baronius, who opines that the letters between Atticus and Cyril, in which mention is made of Theodotus already sitting in his see, were dated in the year 412, the year in which Cyril was ordained: for the foundation upon which his entire opinion regarding the years of Theodotus rests is ruinous. For Theodoret teaches that Alexander presided over the Church of Antioch at a time when Cyril presided over the Church of Alexandria. At that time, Cyril was bishop of Alexandria, the son of Theophilus’ brother, and successor to his uncle in the chair. John, a praiseworthy man, who had succeeded to Cyril, presided over the Church of Jerusalem. Alexander shepherded the Antiochenes, and his conduct of life was in conformity with the episcopacy. Theodotus, therefore, was not yet bishop in the year 412, otherwise Alexander would not have been the one recorded, but Theodotus: wherefore one or at least two years must be taken away from the sum of Baronius, by which subtraction his reasoning becomes incoherent.

VI. From the same passage it is concluded that a few more years should be subtracted: for Theodotus is not said to have sat at Antioch at the same time as John at Jerusalem: he began to sit, therefore, as soon as possible, in the year 416, which was already well underway. Since John died in that very same year 416, three more years must therefore be subtracted.

VII. But Cyril himself suggests that even more should be subtracted; for when he was writing to Atticus, he wrote that Acacius, bishop of Beroea, had reached extreme old age. “I have received, he says, even I, letters from the most God-beloved Acacius, who has happily reached extreme old age, in which he asserts that the most religious prelate of Antioch was compelled by force by certain persons to celebrate the memory of John.” But if he was writing in the year 412, he could by no means say that a man had reached extreme old age who held the episcopacy for twenty-six years yet to come; for Acacius did indeed hold it, as he died in the year 436. ^C

VIII. Since, therefore, no one is usually said to have reached extreme old age unless he is eighty, or at the very least much older than seventy, it must be that the letters given by Cyril were dated about the year 419, at which time Acacius was nearly eighty years old; for thus we can estimate the length of his life.

IX. He was ordained by Eusebius of Samosata, legate of the Council of Antioch, in the year 378, or rather 379, after he had long exercised himself in the monastic life and had promoted the Catholic cause against the Arians in a distinguished manner alongside men of holiness. He was therefore at least forty years old when he was ordained; for he was a presbyter for a long time before he was a bishop—for what younger age would be equal to such great tasks? Therefore, in the year 419 he was barely less than eighty, and at that time it could be said that he had reached extreme old age. I therefore opine that the letters of Cyril brought forward by Nicephorus Callistus pertain to about the year 420, and that mention is made in them of Theodotus, who was already in his first or second year of the episcopate.

X. This opinion is supported by the authority of Theodoret, who narrates what the most holy monk Zeno did with Alexander, bishop of Antioch, shortly before his death; for this quite plausibly occurred several years after Theodoret visited Zeno; he visited him indeed in the year 408.

XI. Another foundation for this opinion is added from the letters of Atticus to Cyril, from which the same is concluded quite openly: for Atticus reports that when he saw the people of the royal city becoming agitated, and demanding with a tumult that the name of John be inscribed on the sacred diptychs, he approached the emperor in order to learn from him what ought to be done; and that the emperor replied that there was no danger or difficulty if the name of the deceased man were inscribed on the registers for the sake of tranquility, peace, and the harmony of the people. But if the letters had been dated in the first year of Cyril, that is, in the year 412, it would have to be admitted that they were dated when the emperor had barely reached his eleventh year, at which age a boy is neither accustomed to be consulted nor to give a response to such great matters. Theodosius, however, could be consulted and provide a response if he were asked for his opinion in the year 420, since he was then nineteen years old. ^D

XII. Furthermore, Atticus narrates the events regarding the inclusion of Alexander in the royal city, and of Theodotus in the city of Antioch, among the bishops in the ecclesiastical registers on behalf of John Chrysostom, in such a way as to show that a long time had intervened between the actions of both: however, how could time have intervened if Alexander had held the episcopate for few years, and Theodotus had already succeeded by the year 411, and had already performed the acts which Atticus reports?

XIII. Moreover, on the occasion of the letters of Atticus, it must be observed that Acacius had an intellect ready to serve the times: for seeing that his primate Alexander, when seizing the episcopate and sending letters to Rome by custom regarding his faith, favored John, and that he himself testified this to the Supreme Pontiff, he also gave to In-

Innocent letters to the same effect; for he cherished animosity against the deceased [Cyril] in his mind, with which he had openly flared up against him while he was alive.

CHAPTER II. Who among the ancient writers have reviewed the works of Theodoret.

I say the ancients who wrote before our age and that of our fathers: indeed, as far as I know, only five have written: Theodoret himself, Gennadius in the fifth century, Photius in the ninth, Nicephorus Callistus in the fourteenth, and Hebed-Jesu in the fifteenth.

§ I. Theodoret.

1. Theodoret wove a catalog of his books in four places, sometimes more broadly, sometimes more briefly. Those places are Epist. 82, to Eusebius the bishop of Ancyra; Epist. 113, to Saint Leo; Epist. 116, to the presbyter Renatus; and Epist. 145, to the monks of Constantinople.

II. In his letter to Eusebius, after explaining his faith regarding the Incarnation, he has this: "Lest anyone think that I say these things now because I am stricken with fear, it is open to whomever has had the mind to unroll my ancient works, both those which I wrote before the Council of Ephesus, and those which I subsequently wrote again, twelve years ago. For, by the grace of God, I have expounded all the Prophets with commentaries, as well as the Psalter and the Apostle, and I composed books long ago against the Arians and Macedonians, and against the deceptions of Apollinaris and the madness of Marcion; and in individual books the ecclesiastical dogma shines forth by the grace of God. A mystical book has also been written by us, and others on Providence, and another on the questions of the Magi, and Lives of the saints, and besides these many others, lest I recount them one by one. I have, however, enumerated these, not led by a desire for glory, but challenging my accusers and those who wish to judge, that they may examine any of our works they wish; for they will not find that we entertain any other thought, by the grace of God, than that which we have learned from Holy Scripture." ^C

III. Epist. 113, to Saint Leo: "I await the sentence of your Apostolic See, and I pray and beseech your holiness that you bring aid to me imploring your just and right tribunal, and that you command me to come to you and to show that my doctrine adheres to the apostolic footsteps. For there are those I wrote in part twenty years ago, in part eighteen, in part fifteen, in part twelve years ago, some against the Arians and Eunomians, some against the Jews and Gentiles, some against the magi who are in Persia. Others on universal Providence, others again on Theology, and on the divine Incarnation. They were also explained by me through divine grace, as well as the apostolic writings, and prophetic oracles: and it is easy from these to know whether I have kept a stable rule of faith, or whether I have strayed from its rectitude." ^D

IV. Epist. 116, to the presbyter Renatus: "We ask that judgment be constituted from the writings. For I have written more than thirty books against Arius and Eunomius, against Marcion, against Macedonius, against the Gentiles, against the Jews; I have also interpreted divine Scripture: and it is easy, if anyone wishes, to discover that I have followed the apostolic footsteps, by preaching one Son," etc.

V. Epistola 145, to the monks of Constantinople: "Many myriads of listeners, he says, are witnesses that I have handed down the truth of the Evangelical dogmas; the written works are also at hand, so that those who wish may explore them: for we have never ceased to strive, not for two sons, but for the only-begotten Son of God, and against the Greeks, and against the Jews, and against those laboring under the disease of Arius and Eunomius, and against those who follow the madness of Apollinaris, or who have been corrupted by the contagion of Marcion. To the Greeks indeed we persuade that He is the Creator of all things, the coeternal Son of the eternal God: to the Jews, that the prophecies of the prophets concerning Him have been fulfilled: to the heirs of Arius and Eunomius, that He is of the same substance with the Father, and of the same honor and power: to those raging with the fury of Marcion, that He is not only good, but also just, and the savior—not of others, as they themselves fable, but of His own works: and to say it once, striving against any heresy whatsoever, we admonish that one Son is to be adored."

OBSERVATIONS.

I. Of the four epistles, the first was written in the year 445, the rest at the end of the year 449: therefore, those which are reviewed in the first were edited before the year 446.

II. There is no mention anywhere of the condemnation of the twelve Chapters of Cyril; no defense for Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia; nor of the Eranistes, although these had been composed before the year 445, or certainly 449. But they were not conducive to the defense of Theodoret, but rather to the accusation.

III. Likewise, there is no mention of the commentary on the Song of Songs, although it was published in the early times, certainly before the Psalter: the cause lies in obscurity, it will be investigated in its own place.

IV. Similarly, there is no memory of the discourse on Charity, of the commentaries on the Octateuch, and the books of Kings, of the Ecclesiastical History, and of the work

On Heretical Fables*, although in these there are contained many things demonstrating the right faith of the author, but they had not yet been written.

V. The *Philotheus*, that is, the *History of the Saints*, and also the *Mystical Book*, are mentioned only in the epistle to Eusebius; the book *On Theology* and the book *On the Incarnation* are mentioned only in the epistle to Saint Leo.

VI. In the epistle to Eusebius, the works are divided—as they are valued—into two parts: for some are said to have been written before the Synod of Ephesus, that is, before the year 431; others after the synod. But in the epistle to Saint Leo, the distribution is into four parts, for some writings are related to have been written twenty years before, that is, before the year 429; some eighteen years before, that is, before the year 431; some fifteen years before, that is, before the year 434; some ^B twelve years before, that is, before the year 437. Those which are said to have been written twenty years before are the very ones which appeared before the Synod of Ephesus.

VII. It is not easily perceived why Theodoret wished judgment to be exercised from his writings; for his accusers were able to act from them, as was in fact done later at the Fifth Synod: certainly, for this reason, Cyril more than once declared Theodoret guilty of Nestorian association.

VIII. In the epistle to Renatus, more than thirty books are said to have been written against Arius and Eunomius, Marcion and Macedonius, the Gentiles and the Jews: of these, twelve are known against the Gentiles, which are indeed inscribed *On Curing Greek Affections*; others are commonly believed to have perished; perhaps they lie hidden under a foreign name, which must be inquired into later.

§ II. Gennadius.

In the book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, ch. 89, he says: "Theodoret, ^C bishop of the city of Cyrus (for it preserves to this day in Syria the name of the author, Cyrus, having been founded by the king of the Persians), is said to have written many things; yet to my knowledge these are the things which have come down: *On the Incarnation of the Lord*, against the presbyter Eutyches and Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, who deny that there was a human body in Christ, are strong writings, through which he confirms, both by reason and by the testimonies of the Scriptures, that he truly had the flesh of maternal substance, which he took from the Virgin mother: just as also the true deity, which he received by being born, through eternal birth, from God the Father begetting him. There are also books of the same man’s *Ecclesiastical History*, which he wrote by imitating Eusebius of Caesarea; beginning from the end of the books of Eusebius up to his own time, that is, from the vicennalia of Constantine up to the reign of Leo the Elder, under whom he also died."

OBSERVATIONS.

1. Gennadius was writing in the year of Christ 494, which was the thirty-seventh or eighth from the death of Theodoret: at that time, very few of Theodoret’s works, and those not very pure, were known in the West; otherwise they would not have escaped so curious an investigator of books. This happened, I believe, because of the neglect of the Greek language among the Latins, the extent of which can be gathered from letters, both those of Saint Celestine to Nestorius, and those of Pelagius II to the bishops of Istria, and other testimonies of this kind.

II. He seems to have read the works which he mentions in Greek; otherwise that old version, if there were one at some time, would have reached us: for others reached us which were commonly known at the time, such as that which Rufinus translated, and that which Jerome did; then others which are less known, of the same kind as the version of the *Scholia* of Cyril by Marius Mercator; of the homilies of ^D Chrysostom on Matthew; *On the Praises of Paul*, and *To the Neophytes* by Anianus the deacon; *Of the Faith* by Rufinus the Palestinian, by Julian of Eclanum, etc. And truly, at the time when Gennadius was writing, at Massilia, where he was a presbyter, the Greek language was better known than in any other part of the West; not only because of the city’s birth from the Greeks, as is reported, but also because of the fame of Cassian, who had arrived there from the East, to whom Saint Celestine sent the letters of Nestorius to be translated and refuted.

III. Only he, so far as I know, mentions the time when Theodoret departed life, although even he does not do so definitely enough. For he transmits that he died under Leo the Elder, who held the empire for seventeen years and more; we believed that the death of Theodoret should be referred to the beginning of the empire, in the history of his life. We have set forth the reasons for this belief, partly in the place just mentioned, and partly we shall set them forth when treating of the *Ecclesiastical History* of Theodoret.

IV. Many think that those strong writings which he mentions do not differ from the *Eranistes* or *Polymorphus*; nor are they mistaken in the opinion; but Gennadius himself was deceived in his own, not sufficiently understanding at what time, and on what occasion, Theodoret wrote this work. We shall reveal it in the review of the same.

§ III. Photius.

It does not seem worth the effort to transcribe the text of Photius, partly because it is rather long, and does not deal with many works at once, but sparsely with individual ones; partly because it should be cited for individual works. Three items suffice for the present.

OBSERVATIONS.

I. He mentions five of Theodoret’s works in places in his *Bibliotheca*, where he reports that he read the *Ecclesiastical History*; twenty-seven books against heresies, to which he adds the *Eranistes*; five books of *Heretical Fables*; the same number of books on Chrysostom, commentaries on Daniel, on the Octateuch, the Books of Kings, Chronicles, and the twelve minor Prophets.

^A He omits many things which no one, however, calls into doubt, nay, things which Theodoret for the most part expressly acknowledges as his own: he acknowledges them, I say, even in the books mentioned by Photius, such as his expositions on the Psalter, the Canticle of Canticles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the fourteen Epistles of the Apostle, to which one may add his *Religious History*, or *Philotheus*, the oration on Charity, the ten sermons on Providence, as many books on the *Curing of Greek Affections*, and very many letters.

III. He alone attributes to Theodoret the five books in praise of Chrysostom; he also alone attributes the twenty-seven books against heresies, although long before Photius's time, Marius Mercator had mentioned the first five of those twenty-seven. But at the same time, he provided the basis upon which Photius could be accused of error in that he attributed other books, or rather twenty-one sermons, to Theodoret, when they belong to someone else, whom Marius Mercator names specifically.

§ IV. Nicephorus Callistus

In the fourteenth book of his *Ecclesiastical History*, chapter 54, he has this: "Theodoret was a Syrian by birth, but a follower of the great Chrysostom, and he made him his primary model for shaping his own style; for he is highly fluent and copious, easy in his diction, and redolent of Attic grace. The studies composed by him are these: Enarrations on the Old Testament, of which he also gathered the expositions of more obscure passages into a separate book. Another work on the sixteen prophets, another on the Psalter, another book on Providence, another on the Apostle, a volume against all heresies which he entitled *The Distinction between ^B Falsehood and Truth*. A book which he wrote against the twelve 259 Chapters of Cyril, also his *Ecclesiastical History*, and again the *Philotheus*, that is, the *History of the Lovers of God*, in which he follows the course of life of those who passed their lives in holiness in his own age. Three books on divine dogmas written in dialogue form. I have also read his more than five hundred letters composed in a most excellent Greek style."

OBSERVATIONS

I. Nicephorus lived in the fourteenth century, about the year of Christ 1325. Wherefore it is credible that no other works of Theodoret existed at that time, at least in the library of Saint Sophia and among the Acoemetae, than those which he lists. For he writes that he had diligently examined what was there; and it is consonant with reason that the literary treasure of so great a city and so great a Church would not lack the widely known books of such great men. For although that old library, collected from the very times of the patriarchal see, had burned down, it had nevertheless been curiously and diligently restored by emperors and patriarchs alike from books sought out from here and there; wherefore I believe that no works other than those listed existed at that time, which might be inscribed with Theodoret's name, or at least were commonly in circulation.

II. He does not list those which are in our own hands as well: the *Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles*, the ten books on the *Curing of Greek Affections*, and the *Oration on Charity*; although it could be said that he called this oration by the name of *Philotheus*, to which it is appended in many codices: but each of these works was likewise omitted by Photius himself.

III. Likewise, he omits what Theodoret himself mentions: the mystical book *Against the Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, Marcionites and Jews*, the ^C *Response to the Questions of the Magi*, and his *Theology*. This is truly remarkable, on account of the excellence and utility of the works; had such great studies already perished by then, or could they not be easily obtained, even though they were zealously sought? Or had they been falsely attributed to other authors even at that time?

IV. Finally, he omits the *Pentalogium* and the defense of Diodorus and Theodore, from which masters Nestorius drew his heresy, even though Marius Mercator, who was a contemporary of Theodoret and partly a participant in the general synods, attributes both works to Theodoret; and Theodoret himself acknowledges the defense as his own when he writes to Irenaeus.

§ V. Hebed-Jesu, Metropolitan of Soba

In the catalogue of Chaldean books, which was published at Rome in the year 1653 by Abraham Ecchellensis, Hebed-Jesu writes in Syriac concerning the books of Theodoret in these words: "Theodoret of Cyrus composed the book *Philotheus*, and the one which is 260 *Against Origen*, and another also *On Polity*, and a *Commentary on Daniel*, and a most exact *Ecclesiastical History*, an *Apology for our Fathers* in two volumes, *Resolutions of the Chapters of Cyril*, a treatise *Against the Philosophers*, and many letters filled with much erudition."

OBSERVATIONS

I. The interpreter Ecchellensis has this to say about Hebed-Jesu: "He was a Chaldean by birth, a Nestorian by profession, and a bishop by rank; he wrote many works to stabilize and confirm the Nestorian heresy. But eventually, with divine grace shining upon him, he returned to a better frame of mind, and having already reached old age, he set out for Rome under Pope Julius III, where, having abjured his Nestorian errors, he professed the Catholic faith. Before he ceased to be a Nestorian, he had compiled a catalogue of writers, as much of sacred as of profane, whose works he said were read in the Syriac tongue in his own times."

II. That book which he says was written by Theodoret *Against Origen*, I believe is not different from his *Exposition of Genesis*; just as neither is the book...

^A on the polity of the state different from his sermons on the Providence by which God governs the world; nor is the book *Against the Philosophers* any other than either the work *On the Cure of Greek Affections*, or his *Response to the Questions of the Magi*.

III. That which he calls an *Apology for the Fathers* is indeed the *Defense of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia*, fragments of which are cited in the Fifth Session of the Council; Theodoret also mentions it in his letter to Irenaeus. In that place, he refers to Theodore as "father," which is the reason why, among the Nestorians, an apology was said to have been published—not for Nestorius, as Ecchellensis supposed, but for the "Fathers," that is, for Diodore and Theodore, the authors of the whole heresy; for Theodoret does not defend others by name.

B IV. He also mentions, just as Photius does, an *Exposition of Daniel*, but not those on the other major prophets. Since this work seems to have been more highly valued in the East than others, because it demonstrates against the Jews that the prophetic oracles concerning Christ have been fulfilled, this reason compels me to believe that the work *Against the Jews* written by Theodoret is nothing else; and I believe I can gather this from his 145th letter to the monks of Constantinople, as will be explained in its place.

261 § VI. *A Prospectus of the Works of Theodoret edited by Sirmond.* It is superfluous to describe what Baronius and other censors of Theodoret's works, the Centuriators, Sixtus of Siena, Possevinus, and Bellarmine have written, since their books are in everyone’s hands. It is, however, worth presenting the distribution that Sirmond made, since we intend to follow the same order in reviewing the works as that most learned man used in distributing them. Thus it stands:

*The works of Theodoret, which are contained in their respective volumes.* VOLUME I. Questions on the Octateuch. Questions on the Books of Kings. Questions on the Books of Chronicles. Interpretation of all the Psalms. Interpretation of the Song of Songs.

VOLUME II. Epitome of the Interpretation of Isaiah. Interpretation of Jeremiah. Interpretation of Ezekiel. Interpretation of Daniel. Interpretation of the Twelve Minor Prophets.

VOLUME III. Exposition of all the Epistles of the Blessed Paul. Ecclesiastical History, five books. Philotheus, or Religious History. Letters to various persons, 147.

VOLUME IV. Eranistes, or Polymorphus, three dialogues. ^C Books on Heretical Fables, four. Epitome of Divine Decrees. Ten Sermons on the Providence of God. Twelve Books on the Cure of Greek Affections. Appendix.

CHAPTER III.

The first volume is divided into two parts: in the former, the Octateuch, the books of Kings, and Chronicles are elucidated; in the latter, the Psalter and the Song of Songs. A single method of interpretation is not maintained in both parts: for in the former, ambiguous questions are resolved through interrogation and response; in the latter, the customary manner of commenting is retained. The former is viewed as the work of Theodoret the elder, the latter as the work of a beginner—a kind of rudiment. The former was translated from Greek into Latin by Johannes Picus and Gentianus Hervetus; the latter by Antonius Carafa and Franciscus Zinus. Sirmond reviewed both, but with very few changes.

§ I. *On the Interpretation of the Octateuch, the Books of Kings, and Chronicles.* I. Theodoret acknowledges 262 the interpretation of the Octateuch as his own in his preface to the books of Kings: "Since, relying on divine grace, we have interpreted the books of Moses the lawgiver, and of Joshua the prophet, and of Judges, and of Ruth; come, let us receive the splendor of this light, and, praying again, let us explain the histories of the Kings," etc.

II. He similarly acknowledges the interpretation on the books of Kings in the first book of the *Chronicles*: "We have spoken of the difference between musical instruments in the books of Kings."

III. Photius has this to say about all of them together: "I have read the explanation of the same divine man, Theodoret, on the Octateuch, which has obtained an inscription appropriate to the work, *On the obscure and abstruse places of Scripture*, in which are also included [the interpretations] on the books of Kings and Chronicles; this work is especially most useful," etc.

IV. Theodoret composed these works in the final years of his life, for he mentions them in no other work, whereas he calls upon many others in them. In Question 1 on Leviticus, which concerns the reason why God ordered sacrifices to be offered to Him, he says: "We have spoken of these things in many places, both in those which we have written against the Greeks and against the heresies; and in those which are against the magi; besides, in the commentaries on the prophets and in the commentaries on the apostolic Epistles." In Question 43 on the second book of Kings, when he was dealing with the triumphal hymn which David sang to God after the defeat of his enemies and Saul himself, [he says]: "It corresponds with Psalm XVII, or rather it is the same, having few..."

nominum mutationes (changes of names)." I, however, having interpreted this also with the other psalms, considered it superfluous to compose a second interpretation.

V. The books *On Curing Greek Maladies*, the *Heretical Fables*, the *Answers to the Questions of the Magi*, the *Psalms*, the *Prophets*, and the *Apostolic Epistles* are therefore later. They had certainly not yet been composed when Theodoret was writing either to Eusebius of Ancyra in the year 445, or to Saint Leo in the year 449; otherwise he would not have been silent about them, since they were relevant to his subject as much as anything could be.

VI. But regarding his statement in his letters to Renatus that he had interpreted the sacred Scripture—as he expressed it indefinitely—it must be understood just as it is in the letters sent simultaneously to Saint Leo, *De propheticis oraculis* ("On Prophetic Oracles"): by which name are signified, according to custom, the Psalms, the Canticles, and the Prophets, whether major or minor.

VII. A certain reasoning demonstrates that these were composed after the Council of Chalcedon, indeed, after the year 453. For they were elaborated after the five books *On Heresies*, which books were published after the Council of Chalcedon in the year 453, as will be proven by an explicit argument shortly.

VIII.

IX. I believe, therefore, that the author did not long survive such a great work; for it could not have been completed in a short time, but only by long meditation; since it contains, if I may so speak, the marrow of the understanding of the Scriptures; but he approached the work after the year 453, and died in the year 457 or 458.

X. Up to this point it has been said at what time, by what impulse, and for what reason this work was undertaken and even completed: now he brings forward the reason why he used a different form of explanation than in others—because it is more useful, because it is more similar to the example of Christ, [and] because it has less weariness and tedium; he could have added, if modesty had permitted, that it is more fitting for a learned old man.

XI. In Questions 2, 3, and 4 on Genesis, ^A he discusses the angels, and teaches that they are of a created nature and incorporeal, but yet circumscribed; that for individual men, and indeed for nations, their own guardian is assigned; that they are in a place, because they are circumscribed; in time, because they are created; that they were made with the heaven and the earth, although it is not against the word of piety to say they were created before the heaven and the earth.

XII. In Question 19, when interpreting these words: *Let us make man in [our] image*, etc., [Gen. 1, 26] he shows the catholic doctrine concerning the incarnation, as if consigning his faith by a testament. For when he had promiscuously used *πρόσωπον* (person) and *ὑπόστασις* (substance) while discussing the Trinity, and accordingly had shown that he accepted the name *πρόσωπον* in a physical sense, he has these words: "God who foreknows all things, which have not yet been done, just as if they were already done, and who foresaw the incarnation and the humanation of the Only-Begotten, and that from the Virgin He would take upon Himself the same nature, which He would adapt and unite to Himself in such a way that one person of God and man is understood, and one and the ^B same adoration is offered to Him by the whole creation," etc.

From this it becomes evident, against the calumny of the Severians, how sincere was Theodoret’s profession of faith made at Chalcedon, and how from the heart he anathematized the dogmas of Nestorius.

In Question 20, which is on the similarity of man to God, the testimonies of Diodore, Theodore, and Origen are brought forward, which have seemed to some to have been inserted not by Theodoret but by someone else, because after the discussion of the argument and the account of opinions without the authors’ names, they are not very useful. But since the same interpreters are praised in subsequent questions, I think Theodoret had in mind to bring forward the opinions of such great men on notable passages; but, deterred by the magnitude of the labor through which the work—which he had wanted to be brief—would grow, he refrained.

XIII. In Question 38 on Deuteronomy, when interpreting the ^C curses threatened against sinners in chapters XXIX and XXX, and the blessings promised to the penitent, he shows [that] to the Jews, often in the past after they were contrite for their sins, pardon had been given, but it was not so after Christ was slain. "That has happened very often," he says, "as is most clearly evident from the book of Judges and the history of Kings and Chronicles. But afterwards, those who had raved against the Savior were dispersed into all the earth and sea, and when four hundred years had passed, they did not obtain a revocation." He used the four hundred years as a round number, even if 17 years were missing, because an exact computation would make no difference to the matter, since he compares the former servitudes of the Jewish people with the last, which ^D surpasses the duration of any of the others.

II. Interpretation of the One Hundred and Fifty Psalms.

I. Theodoret expressly mentions his interpretation of the Psalter in his Epistle to Eusebius, and also in Question 43 on the second book of Kings.

II. He therefore took on this work before the year 433; for when he wrote to Eusebius in the year 445, he reports that he had completed the books he enumerates twelve years earlier; indeed, he enumerates the exposition of the Psalter in the second place. Although this argument is probable and likely, the statement of Theodoret must be restricted to the earlier books which he reviews: for *Philotheus*, which is named last, can scarcely be said to have been written before the year 445, as will be demonstrated in its proper place.

III. If the matter is thus, this work must have been composed after the Council of Ephesus, when the Nestorian affairs were still in a state of great ferment, and peace had been entered into between the Churches against the wishes of Theodoret. It should also pertain to the books which, in letters given to Saint Leo in the year 449, are said to have been written fifteen years prior. ^A

265 IV. It follows from this that, since an agitated mind is scarcely wont to restrain a perturbation once conceived, there erupts during the interpretation at times not a little of either anger, or complaints, or distress: a thing which the attentive reader will observe more than once.

V. Theodoret may appear to argue that the labor of working through the whole project was not continuous, but interrupted by the writing of other works. For he says: «Those who importuned us for explanations of other sacred volumes did not allow this desire of ours (to explain the Psalter) to reach completion.» I would prefer, however, to agree with Sirmond, who thinks the entire work was composed after the aforementioned books. For the words brought forward earlier suggest this: «For this reason I wanted to explain this first prophecy, and to propose to wise merchants the profit which is in the deep, so that while they sing, and at the same time perceive the meaning of what is sung, they may receive double fruit.» The following words also suggest it: «Since, therefore, God has granted us to bring to an end the commentaries upon these oracles of His; let us also apply ourselves with a willing mind to the explanation of this prophecy.»

VI. He explains clearly with what purpose he approached this labor: «For me, indeed, it was more desirable than other divine oracles to interpret the prophecy of great David; since the alumni of religion, both those who inhabit the cities and those who inhabit the country, all devote special effort to this part; but especially those who lead a monastic life hold the Davidic verses in their mouths day and night, etc.» From this, a cause reveals itself as to why this interpretation was ^B sought by the monks…

VII. He also shows what method he maintains in explaining the Psalms, and for what cause. «Since I had fallen upon various commentaries, which partly went off into allegory with much surfeit, and partly adapted prophecy to certain histories in such a way that the interpretation favored the Jews rather than the alumni of the faith, I thought it proper for a skillful man to escape the immoderation of both the one and the other. Whatever indeed adhered to the ancient histories, these I have accommodated to them even now, but predictions about the Lord Christ, and about the Church formed from the Gentiles, and also about the evangelical commonwealth and the apostolic preachings, I have not ascribed to certain other things, as the Jews are wont to do, who are accustomed to malice and weave excuses for their own incredulity. For the testimony of the things themselves is sufficient to lead to the truth of interpretation those who desire to find it; whence the exposition of the prediction will not be very laborious for us, since the contemplation of these things makes it clear. We shall strive, however, as much as lies in us, to avoid prolixity of speech and to propose profit to those who desire it.» The expositors whom he criticizes for either tedious allegory, or excessive favor toward the Jews, or tiresome prolixity, are Apollinarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Chrysostom. Apollinarius indulged in allegories, Theodore in Jewish expositions, Chrysostom in prolixity. He refrained, however, from naming these authors specifically out of reverence: for he suspected the reputation of Apollinarius, and he revered the other two as masters.

VIII. Yet he followed Chrysostom in this part in such a way that he appears to provide almost nothing else than the contraction of his diffuse oration. He certainly often expressed the same sentiments: but he sometimes transcribed the words. This, while it is made manifest by many examples, becomes most clear if the commentary of both interpreters is read and compared on Psalm 1 at these words: *Behold, I was conceived in iniquities* [b], etc.

IX. Although he sometimes followed Theodore, he nevertheless deserts him for the most part, and for just causes ^D: for Theodore first twists many things in the Psalms said about Christ to something else; then he interpreted David when he was a youth of eighteen years, when he had more boldness than erudition. Afterward, he stirred up against himself the envy of many by such an exposition, as if he favored the Jews; finally, he himself did not greatly approve of his own youthful work, so that he even wished it effectively undone. It must be ingenuously confessed, however, that the fact is: some things are read in the *Catenae* from Theodore on the Psalms that show that, by himself, he safely…

exposited everything, so that it is a marvel in an adolescent that such an understanding of Scripture could exist.

§ III. *Interpretation of the Song of Songs.* I. Theodoret testifies that he himself translated the Song of Songs, once, indeed, but openly, in the Preface to his *Exposition of the Psalms*: "Some have laid upon us [the task] that we should explain the Song of Songs; others, indeed, have desired to know the prophecy of the men of desires; others have demanded that the predictions of divine Ezekiel and the twelve prophets, wrapped in obscurity, be unfolded and declared to them. Since, therefore, God has granted us to bring to an end the commentaries on these, His own oracular utterances, let us proceed confidently to the exposition of this prophecy as well."

II. Furthermore, regarding the interpretation which Sirmond published—both in Greek and in Latin from the version of Zinus—perhaps someone might have doubted whether it belongs to Theodoret or to another.

III. Sirmond attributes it to Theodoret, for which six very weighty arguments serve. First, the judgment of Sirmond himself, a man of most keen and profound learning. Second, the trustworthiness of a double manuscript codex: namely, the Italian one which Franciscus Zinus used, and our own, which Sirmond used. Third, the testimony of Theodoret himself, that he had explained the *Song of Songs* while writing. Fourth, the authority of Pope Pelagius II, or rather, [the authority of] the letter of Gregory the Great written in the name of Pelagius to Elias of Aquileia and the bishops of Istria: "When Theodore," he says, "wished to explain the *Song of Songs*, he claimed that Solomon, through this book, offered flatteries to the Ethiopian queen." Theodoret, refuting this, suppressed the name of Theodore, yet nonetheless exposed his madness; for, describing the commentaries on the same book, he says: "I hear that many belittle the *Song of Songs*, and do not believe that it is a spiritual book, but rather, through madness, compose and weave together certain old wives' tales, and presume to say that the wise Solomon wrote this book for himself and the daughter of Pharaoh." These words exist in the preface of the work edited by Sirmond. Fifth, a certain long passage on Ezekiel, containing the words of God to Jerusalem, whom—like an insane harlot—He reproaches with the unspeakable crime of idolatry in allegorical terms: this is explained here in the very same sense and almost the same words as in the commentaries on that prophet. Sixth, the agreement of those things which are adduced here with the other works, and especially with the *Commentaries on the Psalms* in almost innumerable places. Finally, the consent of learned men, both those who preceded Sirmond and those who followed him.

IV. The arguments which weigh against this are no fewer, nor of less moment; for whoever he is, he behaves just as if he wished to prove himself to be someone other than Theodoret; for he reports first that he undertook this work, ^A although he was distracted by innumerable occupations, both urban and rural, military and civil, and those pertaining both to the Church and to the state. But who was this Theodoret who, while he lived in the monastery until he became a bishop, and after he assumed the episcopacy, was entirely dedicated to handling divine affairs, was distracted by rural, military, or those other aforementioned cares?

V. He then implies that he is writing while Chrysostom is alive. "That brave defender of piety, Diodorus, and John, who even to this day irrigates the entire world with his flowing doctrine, judged this to be a spiritual book." But yet Theodoret wrote on the Canticles when he was already a bishop and had barely touched his twenty-third year of life, when Chrysostom ceased to live: for he completed his fate in the year 407.

VI. Thirdly, he inveighs gravely against Theodore of Mopsuestia, with name indeed tacit, but with the person indicated by his own sufficient characteristics. For what more grave can be said against a man who was most famous at that time than that he tells tales not even worthy of doting old women; that he introduces false and pernicious opinions; that he casts curses and insults upon the Holy Spirit; that he is far inferior to the Fathers in wisdom and spirit, etc.? And yet Theodoret both revered Theodore in his youth as a father and teacher, and, when he was of mature age, defended him in his written books against Cyril as a divine defender of piety; and a little before his death, at the time when he was writing his *Ecclesiastical History*, he honored him with immense praises, “as if he had been a master of the whole Church, a vanquisher of all heretical cohorts, and had supplied the best herb to the divine sheep.”

VII. Fourthly, he hands down that the sacred volumes were partly burned by Manasseh, who surpassed all kings, whether before or after, in wickedness and impiety; and that they partly perished utterly during the time of the captivity, when the temple was burned by the Babylonians. Theodoret writes nothing of this kind concerning Manasseh, neither in the fourth book of Kings nor in the second of Chronicles, although he does inquire into all his wicked deeds with greater curiosity.

VIII. Fifthly, those longer commentaries do not savor of the brevity which Theodoret observes in the *Expositions* of other books of others.

IX. Finally, if the work translated by Zinus is of Theodoret, it is surely a wonder why Theodoret, [being] of error ^{B C D}

^A suspected in name, was not led by that [work] as much as by another solution—they will seem to suffer: for as in order he provoked other books, by which he might prove his own faith concerning the incarnation to be correct. For nowhere has he set forth anything about Christ either more clearly or in greater harmony with the Catholic Church.

X. Add that in the Catenae on the Song of Songs it is cited by no one, though it is customary, and indeed frequently done, for other books of Scripture which he has expounded with commentaries; nay, where it is once mentioned—as far as I recall—it is praised by Neophytus the monk, [where] a fragment is brought forward to the words (11, 9), *He made himself a chariot*, etc., which you might seek in vain in the work of the Sirmondian edition.

In this question, I confess, I have hesitated for a long time, uncertain where to turn: for the arguments of both sides ^B seemed, to one looking at the first appearance, invincible; but to one reflecting upon the mind, they could be to some extent weakened.

For, first, that which was led for the prior side from the authority of the learned can be raised without detriment to the honor owed to such great names: for those who have followed Sirmond have trusted Sirmond religiously; Sirmond [relied on] Zino, and Zino [on] the transcriber of the Greek codex. Yet the transcriber could have been led into error by previous others: nor ought that to be wondered at, since already from the end of the sixth century, at the time when Gregory the Great was writing under the name of Pelagius, a commentary on the Song could have been as easily ascribed to Theodoret as, in the fifth century itself, the five books of history were actually falsely attributed: why would the false attribution of the histories have escaped Gennadius, a Latin writer of the same century as Theodoret; [and] in just that way, the false attribution of the commentaries could have been unknown to Gregory, a Latin of a later, different century?

XI. Add that the passage of Ezekiel ^C could easily have been interpreted in the same sense by two treatisers, since it is explained by everyone in almost the same way, nor does it have a doubtful or multiple understanding of allegory.

XII. Add also that Theodoret could have transferred into his own commentaries on Ezekiel what he had perhaps taken from an older interpreter of the Song: for he is wont to borrow not a few things, which he inserts into his own writings. By which response other arguments are declined, which are taken from the consonance of the interpretation of the Song with the undoubted writings of Theodoret, such as the exposition of the Psalms, the prophets, and the Apostle: that this consonance is not mediocre, I myself willingly confess, and no one, who has been occupied in unfolding the books of Theodoret which I have named, will deny.

But the reasons of the latter part have indeed, in appearance, more weight: but since they strive to tear down an inveterate opinion, therefore they will seem ^D to suffer a move from the final part, from where I shall begin in reverse, which without doubt has much weight, nevertheless, against it, it can be said not improbably that Theodoret did not wish, when he was in danger concerning the faith, for a judgment to be exercised from a book whereby he refuted Theodore of Mopsuestia, his own master, lest he seem to have condemned him whom he had later defended; and so become guilty of levity and inconstancy, at the time when he was most extolling his own constancy.

Someone might raise the fifth [point], arguing first that such an exposition of the Song is not more prolix than that of Daniel; then that both are as it were the early trial-work of Theodoret, which is usually more wordy; finally, that he, when he was writing both works, had not yet learned brevity, as happens, by the habit of writing.

Now truly the fourth, as it is from the authority, as they say, negative, thus appears less firm. For why should Theodoret not have written in one place what he either omitted in another, or the rest of the others had kept silent about? Why [should it not be that] Manasses, when he was raging in the heat of impiety, burned a part of the holy books, [and] the fire of the temple subsequently consumed the rest?

But the third, which pertains to Theodore, and seems to urge much, can, however, be declined from the fact that the author of this interpretation seems to write about him whom he honors, and whose name he wishes to pass over in silence out of reverence: otherwise why would he testify that he is compelled to the work by a zeal for religion and a veneration of the Fathers whom he names—Eusebius, Origen, Cyprian, Basil, both Gregories, Diodorus, and John—whom he would have despised, [namely] the one who is attacking? Theodore is certainly reported to have despised them not a little.

Why would he add these things? Let us consider whether it is just that, with so many and such great men despised, and the Holy Spirit Himself scorned, we follow our own opinions, not listening to Him who said famously: *The thoughts of mortals are fearful, and their providences are uncertain* (Wis. IX, 14); and the blessed Paul speaking thus about some: *They became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened* (Rom. I, 21). We, therefore, let us shout thus with the blessed Peter: *It is necessary to obey God rather than men* (Acts V, 29). Let us say likewise to them: Is it just in the sight of God to listen to you rather than God, judge [ye]; for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard through the Holy Spirit. Add that in the preface of the exposition of the Psalms he castigates Theodore, and indeed even Chrysostom, by tacit names, accusing the former of favor toward the Jews, and the latter of excessive prolixity.

The second is a little more difficult, unless one should except these words of the author about Chrysostom: "Of those by the flow of his teaching even until today [he has watered] all the [index: entries preserved]

^A inhabited world," that it ought to be understood not of John himself, but of John's books; although this explanation is forced and a little too harsh.

As to the first, I confess that I am stuck: since Theodoret, burdened by military cares, is something of a prodigy to me; unless, perhaps, someone might divine that at that time the Cyrestic region had been filled with soldiers—on account of the fear of the Persians—who, as happens, were plundering more than they were protecting. But regarding the assertion that this work on the Song of Solomon is not praised in the Catenae that are commonly held, that is indeed true: but it could have happened from one or both of two causes: for most of the compilers of the Catenae lived in that age when Theodoret was held in low esteem, namely about the sixth or seventh century, or the eighth: or the works of Theodoret, at least some of them, were rarer at the time I mentioned: which was the cause why Photius, otherwise a curious investigator of books edited by the ancients, did not mention this elaboration on the Song of Songs.

Regarding what is brought forward from the Catena of the monk Neophytus, two answers are possible. First, that perhaps a scribe put the name of Theodoret in place of Theodore; in place of Theodore, I say, not that celebrated one of Mopsuestia, but an Heracleote long before him, and himself also a noble interpreter of the Scriptures. Second, that his Neophytus was deceived, and attributed to Theodoret what would be the work of some other expositor of the Songs. These, I confess, are conjectures: but in a doubtful matter, what room is there for demonstration?

I held to these reasons, hindered, when I happened upon a Greek codex, written by the hand of the most learned Sirmond, in which was contained an exposition of the Song of Songs, inscribed with the name of no author. When I read it, I seemed to myself to see some indications of Theodoret, which, the more attentively I read them, the more they drove me toward the side to which I was greatly inclined: namely, that the work on the Canticles which Theodoret mentions having elaborated is not the commentary which Sirmond published, but rather this exposition which I was turning over. For it contains nothing that is at odds with the custom, doctrine, and age of Theodoret; on the contrary, it has many things which wonderfully agree with these: ^D since it is brief, as are all of the genuine expositions of Theodoret; it pursues the mystical sense in such a way that it does not make any reproach against Theodore of Mopsuestia; it abounds in words which Theodoret seems to have affected; and it interprets the places of Scripture which are brought forward just as Theodoret interprets them in other places. The very reading of it demonstrates its brevity and its reverence for Theodore: the other two can be proven without great difficulty.

But lest I adhere firmly to the thought that they are lacking, three things stand in the way. First, the passage brought from the monk Neophytus into his Catena is not found in this work. Second, the style does not seem to savor of the elegance and, so to speak, the limpidity of Theodoret. Last, the possession of so many centuries, confirmed by so many witnesses, and established by such a consensus of scholars, prevents the common commentary on the Song of Songs from being judged away from Theodoret.

272 CHAPTER IV.

The second volume comprises commentaries on all sixteen prophets. Theodoret acknowledges these as his own in epistle 82: "By the grace of God we have interpreted all the Prophets." And in epistle 113: "The oracles have been explained by me." And in the Preface to the Psalms: "Some have requested explanations of various sacred volumes; several have imposed upon us that we should expound the Song of Songs. Others, men of desires, have desired to know the prophecy. Others have requested that the predictions of divine Ezekiel and the twelve prophets, enveloped in obscurity, be unfolded and declared to them: and God has granted to us that we should bring to an end the commentaries on these, His divine utterances."

§ I. Regarding the commentaries on all the prophets generally.

I. In what order of time he wrote upon the individual prophets, he in part explains openly himself, and in part provides arguments for collecting. Therefore, the first labor fell upon Daniel, the second upon Ezekiel, the third upon the twelve minor [prophets], the fourth upon Isaiah, the fifth upon Jeremiah, and the last upon the Lamentations, at the end of which he has this: "We have also added this interpretation to the other prophetic books, so that, by the grace of God, we have left no prophecy devoid of interpretation."

II. In the commentary on chapter xxx of Jeremiah, he makes mention of the commentaries on Ezekiel: "The Lord has said this more clearly through the divine Ezekiel, and we ourselves have interpreted it at greater length." Ezekiel, therefore, he interpreted before Jeremiah.

III. To chapter xxii of the same Jeremiah, he makes mention of the exposition on Isaiah: "Of this," he says, "we have explained the method of speech at greater length in the interpretation of the divine Isaiah." Therefore, he also expounded Isaiah before Jeremiah. What then? Because it is quite credible that the individual commentaries were written in the order in which they are reckoned in the Preface to the Psalms, where Daniel is mentioned first, then Ezekiel, and afterwards the twelve minor prophets.

And indeed in the Preface to Daniel, Theodoret openly teaches that Daniel was the first of all the prophets to be expounded by him, and at the same time [explains] the cause of the act.

We are currently attempting to interpret this prophet, not as though we were scorning others—God forbid! For we all know that they are instruments of the Holy Spirit—but because, in the first place, those close to us have urgently requested his interpretation, and we have deemed it fair not to deny the favor to those who have asked. Furthermore, because of the 273 madness of the Jews, leaving others aside for the present, we are setting out to reveal and disclose his predictions. For they have proceeded to such a pitch of impudence that they separate him from the choir of the prophets and defraud him of the name of prophet 87.

In regard to this testimony, it should be noted that Theodoret also mentions elsewhere that he was educated in the Holy Scriptures from a boy: *Paidothen autois entrapheis* ["Nurtured in them from childhood"].

Regarding his style and method of interpretation, Photius has this to say, which, even though he said it concerning the commentaries on Daniel, certainly pertains more broadly: "We read," he says 88, "the interpretation of Daniel by the blessed Theodoret. A truly learned man, he surpasses not only Hippolytus, but many others as well in the interpretation of prophetic discourses. His diction is, if anyone’s is, most suitable for commentary: for he reveals everything hidden and obscure in pure and significant words, and invites one to his reading with a certain charm, as it were, a soothing and sweet pleasure. Moreover, from the fact that he does not wander into any digressions or meanderings from the proposed argument, he not only brings no satiety, but furthermore teaches his readers with ease and convenience things that are called into question, without any confusion or dissipation. Likewise, his choice of words and his very composition do not shun the origin of Attic elegance, unless, perhaps, something more curious occurs there, which one might call unusual to the ears of many. This is certain: he avoids nothing that contributes to interpretation, and has thus reached the very summit of the best interpreters, so that you would not easily find anyone who better explains obscure things," etc.

§ II. Concerning the commentaries on the prophets in particular.

I. I think a few things should be observed regarding the commentaries on the individual prophets: namely, concerning the time in which they were written; concerning those things which were excerpted from the *Catenae* on Isaiah; and concerning the refutation of Apollinaris' *anakyklōsei* in the exposition of Ezekiel.

II. The time at which he set out to interpret Daniel is revealed in two places, in which he states that from the birth of Christ to the times in which he was writing, there had elapsed four hundred and forty years and more, that is, with a few months: for by this number he indicates the vulgar year of Christ 426, which is demonstrated from book IX, at chapter 9, in this manner.

III. Theodoret, in order to set forth the number of years that make up Daniel's weeks ^A, assumes that the years of which the angel speaks to the Hebrew man were not of the standard or solar kind, which consist of 365 days, but of the Hebrew and lunar ones, as he calls them; or those which fall short of the standard by eleven days, and thus consist of 354 days in total. He states, therefore, that such years had elapsed—four hundred and forty—from Christ to the time in which he was writing. Now, if this sum of years be multiplied by 354 days, there will exist in total 155,760 days; and if this sum of days be divided by 365, as is necessary so that Hebrew years may be reduced to standard ones, there will be 426 years with approximately eleven months. And thus Theodoret wrote on Daniel in the four hundred and fortieth Hebrew year after the birth of Christ, that is, in the four hundred and twenty-sixth vulgar year, towards the end.

IV. From this epoch, three things become known. 1. That the exposition of the Canticles should be referred to the year 425, for it preceded the commentaries on Daniel. 2. That it was written before the turmoils of Nestorius, or at any rate before Theodoret became involved in them: for in commentaries of that kind, nothing is discussed concerning the incarnation which might even slightly touch upon questions later agitated contentiously. 3. That all these lucubrations pertain to the works which are said, in the Epistle to Eusebius, to have been composed before the Council of Ephesus; [and] in the Epistle to Saint Leo, [to have been composed] twenty years earlier.

V. Theodoret mentions his exposition on Isaiah in Question 52 on the Fourth Book of Kings: "Otherwise, I consider it superfluous to say the same things: for in interpreting the prophet Isaiah I have explained this 89." And afterwards: "But he called Armenia 'Ararath': for the prophecy of Isaiah has this interpretation. But as for those things which pertain to the sickness of Hezekiah, since I have sufficiently declared them in the prophecy of the divine Isaiah, I consider it superfluous to make the same interpretation twice." And in Question 22 onto Jeremiah: "And the explanation of this locution we have set forth at greater length in the interpretation of the divine Isaiah 90."

VI. Commentaries of the kind written by Theodoret are not held now, or if they are held, they have not been published: but Sirmondus testifies that he extracted what he translated from Greek *Catenae*: whence it happens that this work is found only in the Sirmondian edition.

VII. I remember once hearing a learned man who conjectured that a certain part of such excerpts should be attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia. ^B 1. That Theodorus interpreted Isaiah, as Hebed-Jesu states. 2. That the abbreviated names of Theodorus and Theodoretus are often confused, both by the compilers and by the readers of the Greek *Catenae*. 3. That the method of interpreting is often similar to the one that Theodorus undoubtedly followed in those places. 4. That in such excerpts there is almost nothing said about the incarnation other than what Theodorus would not be reluctant to use. 5. That what Theodoret says he explained in his commentaries on Isaiah, in those things which Sirmondus brought to light, he either does not mention at all, or at least not [275] in many places exposited...

something which Theodore, however, promises.

VIII. To the final words of the prophet Ezekiel, in which the restoration of the city of Jerusalem is promised, Theodoret disputes at length against the error of Apollinaris concerning the *anakyklōsis* [cyclical revolution], which Andrew of Samosata objected to Cyril when he was attacking the third anathema. It is a wonder, indeed, why Theodoret, in recounting the errors of Apollinaris in book IV of the *Heretical Fables*, did not mention this old wives' tale: but he had seen that not even a semblance of such an absurd delusion could be attributed to Cyril; and therefore, since he was commemorating among the heretics only those things which could create some unpopularity for the defenders of the "hypostatic union" on account of their association with Apollinaris, he felt it sufficient to say those things concerning this heretic which were relevant to his own subject; he omitted the rest, which he would have exposed otherwise.

IX. Furthermore, this dissertation of Theodoret should be noted, for it shows what the mind of Apollinaris was, which many, even men of great name, both ancient and more recent, have either not known or have not refuted: for I know of no one, even among the heresiologists, who has remembered the *anakyklōsis* and the millennium, besides Basil, Nazianzen, Jerome, and Andrew of Samosata. Certainly, Philastrius does not mention it, nor Epiphanius, nor Augustine, nor Primasius, the author of the *Praedestinatus*, nor others of the succeeding age.

Chapter V. Review of the works contained in the third volume of the Sirmond edition.

The third volume is divided into two parts. The former includes the *Commentaries on all the Epistles of the Apostle*, the latter the *Ecclesiastical History*, the *Religious History* or *Philotheus*, and 146 *Letters*.

§ I. On the commentaries on the fourteen Epistles of Paul in general.

I. The entire work, in which the interpretation of the Epistles of Paul is contained, Theodoret calls by the name of *Commentaries* in question 1 on Leviticus. For when he had introduced one asking for what reason God commanded sacrifices to be offered to Him, he responds: "We have spoken of these things in many places: both in those which we wrote against the Greeks, and against the heresies; and in those which we wrote against the magi; furthermore, in the explanations of the Prophets, and in the commentaries on the Apostolic Epistles."

II. He mentions, moreover, epistle 1, 2, 82, 113, but the first and second have no mark of time; the other two 276 have: for both list the commentaries among the works published twelve years previously; but the former was given, as we have often said, in the year 445; the latter in the year 449. From the latter, therefore, it is gathered that the commentaries were composed before the year 437; from the former, that they were also composed before the year 433.

III. It is certain, indeed, that these same commentaries are later than both the dialogues against the Arians and Macedonians, as well as the refutation of the anathemas of Cyril. For the dialogues are mentioned in the fifteenth chapter of the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians; the refutation in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Philippians. Therefore, since the dialogues were completed before the year 429, and the refutation in the year 431, it is necessary that the commentaries on the Epistles of Paul were written in that interval of time which flowed between the Ephesine synod and the year 433: at which time, clearly, Theodoret had withdrawn of his own accord to Cyrus, not only bearing unhappily the peace initiated by John with Cyril, but also not coming to Antioch, unless compelled to participate with the synods.

IV. With what intention he set about writing, he does not reveal; neither, as is wont to happen, in the preface; nor in the first and second letter to the friend by whom he had hoped that what he had written would be read; yet it can be conjectured from the condition of the times: he wished, namely, to enjoy the leisure of his withdrawal, and to call his mind away from the things that were being done, and which seemed to him both ungrateful and burdensome.

V. In the Preface he takes up the accusation of those who were taking ill that something was being handled by someone which two most excellent men, Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, had recently absolved. For he points to both of these with these words: *meta ton deina kai ton deina, tous tes oikoumenes phosteras*, etc. He refutes, however, the accusation with examples taken from Scripture, by which he proves that even lesser men are endowed by God with grace for the knowing of mysteries. Now, however, proposing by what reason he thinks he ought to use in explaining, he shows that he wishes to entice men to read by his own brevity, who would be deterred by the oratorical prolixity of Chrysostom and Theodore.

VI. The first passage, moreover, to the Corinthians, in which there is room for the dialogues against the Arians, stands thus: "Those who feel with Arius and Eunomius have been accustomed to have this passage in their mouth, thinking that they detract from the dignity of the Only-begotten by this reasoning." The passage indeed is: "But when all things have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who subjected all things to himself." After he had explained this passage at length, having mentioned the two natures of Christ, he finally adds: "But we have discoursed copiously on these things in our controversies against them." In Greek: *en tois pros autous agōsi*. The *agōnes* [struggles], however, are the mutual petitions of those conflicting, 277 which are properly dialogues, especially when they exist as polemical ones. Concerning the passage of the Apostle, it will be said in

^A a collection or rather assertion of dialogues of this sort.

VII. In the commentaries on chapter 20 [of the Epistle] to the Philippians, when he had expounded that famous saying of the Apostle: *For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, etc.*, he proceeds with these words: "The divine Apostle indeed overthrew every heresy by these few words—both those who blaspheme the divinity of the Only-Begotten, and those who deny His humanity, and those besides who confuse the hypostases or persons." Afterwards, having refuted Sabellius along with his followers, and also Arius and Eunomius, he argues concerning the form of God and the form of a servant in the same manner as he had done in his refutation of the *Anathematisms*; and at length he concludes: "But we have discoursed copiously on these matters elsewhere."

VIII. Furthermore, it is to be observed that Theodoret, whenever opportunity was given, inveighed against Arius and Eunomius; against Macedonius, who thought wrongly about the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit; against those who claimed that God was passible, and who called Him who died our High Priest, and who confused the persons in Christ, not distinguishing those things which are said concerning Christ in the Scriptures: by which fact he demonstrates the probability of our opinion concerning the time and motive of the undertaken work—namely, after the Ephesian synod and the peace that was initiated, which, as he bore it with difficulty, he used every opportunity to carp at Cyril’s articles.

IX. And indeed, concerning those passages of the Apostle where it seemed to him that he could best press his case in the refutation of the articles, he lingers longer on each of these in his commentaries, and carps—suppressing the name on account of the times—at him whom he had previously openly rebuked. To be read above others are these passages: Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:8; Phil. 2:5; Heb. 1:11; 4:14; 5:1 and 10.

X. Moreover, he inveighs most especially against those heretics to whom he objects, along with Cyril, in the refutation of the articles: Arius and Eunomius, etc. What of the fact that concerning the form of a servant and the High Priest God, he has almost the same things in his commentaries as in the refutation? In both places he explains the incarnation in the same manner, through the donning and indwelling of man by the Word. Why say more? No one could read both works with any attention without recognizing the same spirit and the same doctrine in both.

§ II. — Ecclesiastical History

I. There are those who think that Theodoret never refers to his *Ecclesiastical History*; yet they do not deny that he recognized it as his own, since in it he made mention of the *Philotheus*, as a religious history written by himself.

II. That they say he mentions the *Philotheus* in it, I readily agree; for he remembers it not once, as they say, but more often. But that they deny he made mention of this ^B in other works, I cannot assent, because of the clear words which are read in the fourth book of *Haereticarum Fabularum*, chapter 1. For after Theodoret has narrated much concerning Arius, he presently adds: "But since I wrote these things copiously in the *Ecclesiastical History*, I think it superfluous to say them here." And immediately in chapter 2, where he treats of Eudoxius: "And lest I be long in telling all things; for I have remembered all these in that work." [original-script column: see facsimile]

III. Besides Theodoret, others make mention of it: Gennadius, Cassiodorus, Photius, and Nicephorus Callistus. But Gennadius uses very perplexing words, which will soon be called to examination. Cassiodorus [speaks] with great praise, as one who abridged that [work] which had been translated into Latin by Epiphanius Scholasticus, and wished it to be a part of the history which they call the *Tripartite*. Photius [speaks] critically: "The *Ecclesiastical History* of Theodoret has been read. Of all those whom I have just named (he had named Eusebius, Socrates, Evagrius, Sozomen), he adopts a style more suited to history; for it is clear and grand, and not at all redundant, except that he uses translations sometimes too boldly, and almost ineptly." Nicephorus in one word: "He produced two others also, of which one he calls the *Ecclesiastical History*, the other the *Philotheus*, or religious history."

Therefore, he who denies a work of Theodoret to be so known, so attested, and so manifest must be bold and even impudent, like Coccus and others no better: determined to reject the writings of the ancients, whatever they may be, if they prove inconvenient to their own novelties.

IV. At what time it may have been written, no one has hitherto defined for certain. For no part seems to bear a mark of the time. Not the preface, in which, however, something of this sort is usually put forward: not the end, where the names of the prelates who presided over the greater Churches are recorded: not the sequence of the history, "which embraces a period of one hundred and five years, beginning from the madness of Arius and ending at the death of the illustrious men Theodorus and Theodotus."

V. It would be easy to opine that it was elaborated at the time it ends, that is, in the year of Christ 427; did it not stand in the way that mention is made of the *Philotheus* in the first and fourth books; and in the fifth, of the battles moved to the cause of Nestorius over the faith. For when Theodoret had narrated the heresy of Apollinaris, he says 279: "From this root, it has arisen in the Churches that it is said there is one nature of flesh and divinity, and that the passion is ascribed to the divinity of the Only-Begotten, and other things of this kind, concerning which struggles of the peoples and priests have arisen." Which two

he was accustomed to object to the chapters of Cyril. Yet the disturbances were set in motion in the year 429, and Philotheus was published long after, ^A namely in the year 444 or 445, certainly not after 446.

VI. Some conjecture the time, partly from the fact that it was written in the reign of Theodosius; partly because it is mentioned in no other work; indeed, not even in any of the Epistles, in which, however, the rest are evaluated: for from this they conclude that this elaboration was either the last of all, or one of the last. But what is alleged about the reign of Theodosius will soon be refuted: what is added about the silence is disproven by words from the fourth book of Theodoret's *Haereticarum fabularum*.

VII. Something more certain concerning the year is gathered from book V, chapter 38. For Audas, who is mentioned in that place, suffered in Persia on the 16th of May in the year 420, under King Isdegerdes, with the Magi urging the persecution: yet Audas gave the occasion for the persecution, as is established; and Theodoret states that the persecution, at the time he was writing, had already lasted for thirty years: thus he was writing in the year 450.

VIII. Not concerning the year only, but even a part of the year, something certain can be established: for Theodoret finished the 36th chapter of the fifth book while Theodosius was still alive. For when he was writing of the relics of Chrysostom brought to Constantinople: "This treasure," he says, "he brought into the city, who now possesses the empire, who, keeping the name of his grandfather, also keeps his piety uncorrupted. Fixing his eyes and brow upon the coffin, he poured out prayers for his parents, and for those who had sinned through ignorance, he pleaded that He might forgive." Since, therefore, Theodosius died on the 29th of July in the year 450, and Marcian, having been elected by Pulcheria and the senate, assumed the empire on the 25th of August; it must be that Theodoret either wrote, or certainly finished, the History in the earlier part of the year; clearly not yet having heard in the East the news of the death of Theodosius, which are wont to be very swift in these matters.

IX. Theodoret wrote, as he himself relates, *the remaining parts of the Ecclesiastical History*, which words an erudite man interprets as if he were saying that he, living in the East, was supplementing what was lacking for Socrates and Sozomen, men not very learned in Eastern affairs. But I think nothing else is meant by these words than that Theodoret wished to continue the History of Eusebius. For he says: "Because Eusebius of Palestine, beginning from the holy apostles, wrote the events that occurred in the churches up to the empire of God-beloved Constantine, I shall draw the beginning of my history from where he made an end of writing." Socrates had previously done the same: for he began just where Eusebius had made an end, and drew the history further than Theodoret; for the subject matter encompasses one hundred and forty years.

X. When he writes that he had woven a history of one hundred and five years, seeing that, beginning from the madness of Arius, it ends at the death of the praiseworthy men Theodore and Theodotus: he must have taken the beginning of the history from the year 322. For from there to the death of Theodore and Theodotus the space of 105 years elapsed; since both died in the year 427.

XI. But how does he write that he began from the madness of Arius, when that heretic had made the starting point of his madness as early as the year 315? How, on the other hand, is he to be said to have begun the history from the year 322, when he confesses that he is narrating events that took place after the tyrants Maxentius, Maximinus, and Licinius had been removed? Since Licinius was removed in the year 325. But he began from the time when the madness of Arius no longer confined itself to Egypt, but, with complaints brought to the emperor, so erupted that thought was immediately given to convening the Nicene synod: this indeed happened around the year 322. In which year also Licinius had been so defeated that his tyranny ^B could deservedly be said to be removed.

XII. Photius praises this work not insignificantly, and prefers it to the histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Evagrius: how deservedly, he himself may see; in it, however, he desires propriety of diction. There are those who also desire a more diligent distinction of times and order of events.

XIII. Gregory the Great objects that he lapsed in memory in calling the name, and mentions manifold lying and other enormities: "But the Apostolic See also refuses to accept the History of Sozomen, because he tells many lies, and praises Theodore of Mopsuestia, and claims him to have been a great teacher up to the end of his life. It remains therefore that, if anyone accepts that history, he contradicts the synod held in the times of pious memory of Justinian concerning the three chapters. Whoever, therefore, cannot say things contrary to this, must necessarily reject that history." He said "Sozomen" instead of Theodoret: for the most illustrious writer of the *Annals* has not until now persuaded the learned that Gregory did not lapse in word.

XIV. Certainly the judgment of Gregory the Great concerning the lies of Theodoret, that is, concerning his sins against the account of times and events, Baronius has clearly approved, having produced in volume IV (not to mention III and V) more than fifteen errors, which he had detected in this history. Valesius produced certain others in his notes: yet he did not recount them all, as for instance, that Zosimus is said to have succeeded Boniface in the supreme pontificate, when Zosimus on the contrary died before Boniface, etc. The cause of such frequent lapsing will be brought forward soon.

XV. He applied himself to this labor at the request of his friends,

not because they believed that the work needed to be done, which Socrates and Sozomen had already performed, but in order to divert the mind of the writer from the contemplation of his calamity by this occupation.

XVI. Indeed, Theodoret must have been driven to this task with wonderful zeal, in that he wove so laborious a history in the space of six months. Wherefore one might believe that he had begun the work at his leisure beforehand and was now completing it, had he not maintained a method of weaving history which did not demand a long time from a man who was knowledgeable in the subject matter and ready to write: for the middle part of the whole, and indeed the greater part, is full of synodal letters and inserted testimonies, which are connected by brief narratives.

XVII. But if Theodoret was swept away into writing by the heat of a fervent grief, abusing his genius to take vengeance on his adversaries, ^B he will forfeit much of the admiration due to the briefness of the time: for it is known what an angry eloquence can do, and how rapid its movements are when it is either taking revenge or defending itself, especially if it defends itself in such a way that it can artfully throw the charge back upon its adversaries.

XVIII. And this cause is not improbable, from which so many historical hallucinations took their origin; since a rash and turbulent mind is accustomed to attend to itself more than to others; and while it is carried away by its own motion, it cannot linger to examine the circumstances of things.

XIX. Now, truly, that Theodoret set himself to writing in order to alleviate his soul's distress is easily proven by the condition of the times, the talent of Theodoret, and even by the history itself, if it is considered a little more attentively. For it is not incredible that there lies hidden in it a degree of mystery, nor that for a reason sought out more cunningly, the beginning is taken from the rise of the Arian heresy, and the end is placed at the death of Theodotus and Theodorus—that is, at the time when Nestorius succeeded Sisinnius to the see of the royal city. For since there existed two parts of the Arian heresy: the one which denied that Christ was perfect God, and the other which denied that He was perfect man, Theodoret may be seen to have wished to compose a history of both parts in one work; but having done so regarding the former in reality, and the latter as if in an image and ^C enigmatically. It may also be seen that, while he describes the Arian heresy, he is indicating the offshoots of it which he thought were creeping about in his own time—that is, demonstrating in Arius, Eunomius, Apollinaris, and Macedonius, as if in their parents, the defenders of the substantial union, namely Cyril and the Catholics, whom he was traducing as if they were the children or grandchildren of such pests. What— ^A did he then more frequently object to Cyril, than that he might receive his own doctrine from these masters of errors, whether concerning the union of the natures or the procession of the Holy Spirit?

XX. I opine, therefore, first, that this work of Theodoret is nothing other than a history of the Arian heresy, whether in itself or in its offspring. Secondly, that it was written with the design that the sources might be shown from which, in Theodoret's view, the errors which he attributed to the Catholics had arisen. Thirdly, that in the Arians, the defenders of the hypostatic union were shadowed forth; in Eusebius of Nicomedia, Cyril; in Athanasius and also in Chrysostom, Nestorius; and other friends of Nestorius in others. Finally, fourthly, that Cyril and Proclus are tacitly refuted in those who, by their writings and actions, had brought Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia forward as heretics, at the time when both are introduced as defenders of the faith.

XXI. The first of these four chapters of my opinion will be easily persuaded to himself by anyone who notices that in the entire five books nothing else is treated in itself than what pertains to the Arian heresy. For the things that are touched upon besides are certain episodes, neither prolix nor frequent.

XXII. In the first book, it is narrated what the state of affairs was, in what place, when, and by what parent the Arian heresy was born, what parts it had, what conversions, and what forms it took at different times, by whom it was attacked, what and how great disturbances it caused, and how it was condemned at Nicaea; what the piety of Constantine was in the faith, both when protecting it against the Arians and when propagating it among the infidels; how many deceits of the heretics he was nevertheless caught by; the death of Arius; which and whose churches' bishops favored or resisted the Arians; what Athanasius suffered, even from Constantine himself, for the divinity of the Word; into what exiles he was cast; 283 how piously Constantine died. And this is the synopsis of the first book.

XXIII. The second contains the history of the Arian matter under Constantius: for the first return of Athanasius to Alexandria from the Gauls is narrated, then the defection of the Emperor Constantius from the Catholic faith, the second banishment of Athanasius, and the ejection of Paul of Constantinople to the city of Cucusus: afterwards the rise of the heresy of Macedonius, which was an Arian offshoot; what was done in the Council of Sardica; what the Arians plotted at Antioch against Euphratas and Vincentius; how Stephen the Arian of Antioch was deposed; how Athanasius returned again from exile and was ejected for the third time.

^A how he fled; with what rabid fury the impious George invaded his see and devastated the Church of Alexandria; by what arts of the Arians the Council of Milan was forced against Athanasius; what Pope Liberius discussed with the Emperor Constantius; how he was both cast into exile and returned; afterwards, regarding the Council of Ariminum, the impious formula of faith fabricated at Nice in Thrace; the synodical letter of Damasus and the epistle of Athanasius concerning the Council of Ariminum; the arts of Leontius the Arian of Antioch to deceive the faithful; the Eudoxius who succeeded Leontius, in his open impiety; the council convened again at Nice; regarding the council also held at Seleucia in Isauria; regarding the origins of Aetius the Anomoean and his condemnation; regarding the falling away of the Eunomians from the Arians; regarding James of Nisibis by way of digression; finally, regarding the Council of Antioch in which Meletius was troubled by the Arians; and regarding Eusebius of Samosata, the enemy of the Arians, and the death of Constantius, the patron of the same.

XXIV. The third [book] follows the reign of Julian the Apostate, under whose rule the Christians could hardly breathe, as the Gentiles raged boldly; yet the heresy of his own kin dared repeatedly to use its power to persecute the Catholics. In this book, therefore, after describing the character and recounting the beginnings of Julian, the return of the bishops who had suffered exile under the Arians is reported, the ordination of Paulinus the Catholic of Antioch, the fury of the Gentiles against the Christians, and the fourth exile of Athanasius. What follows until the end is set forth in the tyranny of Julian, the triumphs of the saints over the tyrant, the same man's expedition into Persia, ^C and his just slaughter.

XXV. The fourth [book] contains matters of faith that occurred under the reign of the three masters of affairs, Jovian and Valentinian who were Catholic, and Valens who was an Arian. Wherefore, after commemorative mention of the beginnings of Jovian, there is reported first the return of Athanasius; the synodical letter of the Egyptian council to Jovian, and the sudden death of Jovian; then the inauguration of Valentinian, and the assumption of his brother Valens as partner in the kingdom, the ordination of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, the law of the Augusti concerning the consubstantial, regarding which a synod was also held in Illyricum; the beginning of the heresy of the Audians concerning a corporeal God, and of the Messalians 284 concerning a certain fictitious power of prayer; afterwards the lapse of the Emperor Valens into Arian impiety; thence the exiles of the saints, ^D then the death of Athanasius, the harassment of Peter his Catholic successor, the unspeakable deeds of Lucius the Arian who was substituted for Peter, and the rebuke from the bishop chosen by the Saracens; next the persecution of the faithful in Constantinople and Antioch, the solicitude of Flavian and Diodorus for the faith, the conspiracy of the holy monks with these two defenders of the faith; the zeal for the sincere faith of Ephrem in Syria, Didymus in Alexandria, the illustrious bishops in the Pontic and Asian dioceses, and Damasus and Ambrose in the West; finally, the expedition and slaughter of Valens, and the abduction of the Goths into the Arian heresy.

XXVI. The fifth [book] embraces the state of the Arian heresy and the condemnation of its two offshoots, the Apollinarian and the Macedonian, and simultaneously the immense praises of the Emperor Theodosius, of Ambrose the bishop, of John Chrysostom, and of the prelates of Antioch and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Therefore, after lauding Gratian, who upon the death of Valens took possession of the whole empire, the return of the Catholic bishops exiled for the faith is narrated first, and the ejection of the Arians by a law passed: then both parts of the Apollinarian heresy are exposed, and the latter especially. "From this root," says Theodoret 88, "it was born in the churches, that the one nature of flesh and divinity is spoken of, and that the passion is ascribed to the divinity of the Only-begotten, and other things of that kind, about which the contentions of the peoples and of the priests arose." ^B Then the ordination of Diodorus of Tarsus is described, the return of Eusebius of Samosata, and the ordinations of Catholics made by him, and the murder by an Arian woman: then the inauguration of the Emperor Theodosius the Great, his zeal for the faith, whose opponents are considered [to be] the bishops; the convocation of the second council, the synodical letter sent to Damasus the following year, by which Macedonius and Apollinaris are condemned, the synodical letter of Damasus against Apollinaris, and his confession to Paulinus are described. Soon, having brushed past the death of Gratian and the tyranny of Maximus, there is instituted a narrative concerning the zeal of Justina for the Arians, the disturbances moved at Milan, and of the tyrant Maximus, and the judgment of the Emperor Theodosius in that matter, and concerning the law of Theodosius against the Arians issued at the prayers of Amphilochius. Afterwards, through an episode, the massacre of Thessalonica and the sedition at Antioch are narrated, so that an occasion might be taken to praise Ambrose and Flavian and Theodosius: the destruction of idols and temples is narrated, and Flavian’s conversation with the emperor concerning the bishopric of Antioch, and the reconciliation with the Westerners, with Acacius promoting the matter; [also] the tyranny of Eugenius, and the victory and death of Theodosius. One comes then to the reign of Arcadius and the affairs of Chrysostom; these things being explained at length, 285 Alexander, Bishop of Antioch, is praised, and the piety of Theodosius the Younger and his sisters, and Theodotus, the successor of Alexander, who brought the Apollinarists back to the Church. Finally, having narrated through an episode the persecution of the Persians, Theodore of Mopsuestia is exalted with immense praises, and an end is put to the history.

XXVII. Since such is the method of the work which we are reviewing, no one, I suppose, who is skilled in the art of history can doubt that it ought rightly to be titled a history of the Arian heresy. For by the rule of the art, first of all things belonging to it are treated; then everything else that is touched upon is referred to the same.

XXVIII. Now, indeed, that this history was written with the design that the root of the errors which Theodoret seemed to himself to see in the writings of Saint Cyril might be shown, is accomplished with little difficulty.

XXIX. Cyril had taught between the two natures of Christ...

an essential union and ^A a union according to hypostasis, that is, that the divinity and humanity are one hypostasis, and that this is divine, and proper to the Word. For "hypostasis," he had substituted "nature": by which power he signifies all that which is opposed to something relative and moral, whence he concluded that, after the union, there is one nature in Christ of the incarnate Word, and that the only-begotten Son of God is truly said to have suffered in the flesh. He had taught, moreover, that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. Theodoret interpreted both of these—whether maliciously, in order to stir up envy against Cyril, or inconsiderately, because of his perturbation of mind—and therefore he charged Cyril, a most catholic man, with agreement with Arius, Apollinarius, and Macedonius: with Arius and Apollinarius, regarding the one nature of Christ; but with Macedonius, regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit.

XXX. That he might therefore silently, and as though doing something else, show an agreement with Arius, he produces the letter of Alexander, who was the first in Egypt to cast Arius and his sectaries out of the Church, in which the impiety of Arius is expressed in almost the same formulas of speech, and impugned by the same arguments, as the opinion attributed to Cyril, so that Cyril might appear as one already condemned by his fifth predecessor.

XXXI. He insinuates an agreement with Apollinarius by setting forth his error. "From this root," he says, "it was born in the churches, that the nature of flesh and divinity is said to be one, and that passion is ascribed to the divinity of the Only-begotten, and other things of this kind, concerning which contests of peoples and priests arose. But these things, indeed, happened afterward."

XXXII. He hints likewise at an agreement with Macedonius, when he produces the confession of faith of the Roman synod under Damasus in these words: "Since after the Nicene council this error has emerged, that some with profane mouth dare to say that the Holy Spirit was made through the Son, we anathematize those who do not most freely proclaim that the Holy Spirit exists of one and the same substance and power with the Father and the Son."

XXXIII. Now, indeed, Nestorius is depicted under the person of Athanasius and Chrysostom so graphically that he may easily be recognized by readers, even those who are but slightly attentive. For this was the similarity and concurrence of Athanasius and Nestorius. Each held a patriarchate: Athanasius, the Alexandrian; Nestorius, the Constantinopolitan. Each stood forth as a most bitter impugner of the Arian heresy; and for that reason Athanasius published books and sermons known to everyone. Nestorius also published sermons and treatises already circulating, and, moreover, as soon as he ascended to the episcopal see of the royal city, he overturned the temples of the Arians.

Each magnificently praises the Nicene faith as the unique rule of faith that suffices; but Athanasius did so ^B to impugn the true Arians; Nestorius, to disparage those whom he falsely accused of being guilty of the Arian heresy. Each was cast from his seat by the emperor, who, as was claimed, had been deluded by the arts of bishops: Athanasius by Constantine, whom Eusebius had deceived, and by Constans, whom Euzoius had deceived; Nestorius by Theodosius, whom Cyril was said to have subverted through ministers of the court. Each experienced the sister of the emperor, who held sovereign power, as an opponent and an enemy: Athanasius experienced Constantia, the sister of Constantine; Nestorius, Pulcheria, the sister of Theodosius, both of whom were impelled by the arts of bishops.

Each was driven into exile by the emperor, who was deceived by the stratagems of adversaries: Athanasius indeed by Constantine, whom the Arians had subverted with frauds; Nestorius by Theodosius, through the wiles of the Apollinarians, as Theodoret himself persuaded himself.

Each had his open defenders, but few against their adversaries; and the defenders of each, for that reason, suffered persecution, were deposed, were cast out of cities, etc.

Furthermore, when Theodoret wished ^C to defend Nestorius, yet not in a way that was invidious or importunate, he resolved to perform two things: first, to remain silent on the name of Nestorius, since it was full of odium and alien to the matters of the times which he was pursuing; and second, to extol with immense praises Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia because of their zeal for the faith and the rectitude of their doctrine. For since Diodorus had been the master of Theodore, and Theodore the master of Nestorius in reality, and this was known to all, this was an artificial, cunning, and effective method of defending Nestorius, especially when Cyril was heard as the impugner of these same three—Diodorus, Theodore, and Nestorius—and when it was believed that the impugnation also arose from the saints out of a certain envy. ^D

XXXIV. To Theodoret, the similarity appeared far greater between Nestorius and Chrysostom. For each was a monk of the same place, and each was a presbyter of the same Church of Antioch; each was summoned from there by the dissident clergy of Constantinople to

reputation for holiness. ^A Both were pleasing to the prince’s court and the people of the city; both were burdensome to the clergy and monks of the Constantinopolitan Church. Both were hostile to the Arians, whose assemblies Chrysostom suppressed, and whose temples Nestorius tore down. Both fell into the displeasure of the Empress—Chrysostom by his reprimand of Eudoxia, Nestorius by his of Pulcheria; both were deposed in a synod by the Alexandrian prelate, Chrysostom by Theophilus, Nestorius by Cyril; both were cast out into desert exile infested by barbarians, Chrysostom to Cucusus, Nestorius to the Oasis. Both were recalled by the same emperor by whom they had been banished: Chrysostom by Arcadius, Nestorius by Theodosius. Both, while returning, ended their lives on the journey. Both, after their death, had a sect named after them, by which they were revered: Chrysostom by the Joannites, Nestorius by the Nestorian monks. Ultimately, the followers of each sought out his relics as if he were a martyr—a fact that is known to all concerning Chrysostom, and concerning Nestorius is established by Evagrius, ^B *History*, book II, ch. 2, citing Zacharias the rhetorician.

XXXV. Flavian the martyr was a great part of the history which Theodoret sketches, and for that reason he is introduced even under another persona—and all the more willingly, because he had a cause joined with Theodoret’s: for both were deposed in the same council, by the same Dioscorus, patron of Apollinarianism, on account of their defense of the same faith, as Theodoret himself was persuaded. He presents this man in the person of Paul of Constantinople, having been cast out by the Arians, such that there could hardly be one thing more similar to another, ^C as Paul, just like Flavian, presided over the Constantinopolitan Church: both are called by Theodoret defenders of right dogmas; both were hostile to the Arians or the spawn of the Arians; both were accused of stirred-up sedition and other crimes; both were thrust from the throne by the command of an emperor spurred on by the Arians; both were relegated to a wretched place of exile, Paul to Cucusus, Flavian to Epipa; both died a violent death in exile; both suffered this through the power of a man dominating at court—Paul through the prefect Philippus, Flavian through the eunuch Chrysaphius, etc.

XXXVI. A part of the same history was also that great Proclus, who held an oration before Nestorius concerning the Incarnation, in which he said that God had suffered: and who wrote a "tome" to the Armenians, in which he refuted excerpts from the books of Diodorus and Theodoret: this man he depicts in Eudoxius, prelate of that same see of Constantinople. There is no great need to pursue the rest.

XXXVII. The translators of Theodoret’s history into Latin are, so far as I know, five: ^D Epiphanius Scholasticus, Joachim Camerarius, John Christopherson, Jacques Sirmond, Henri Valois. The version which is Epiphanius’s is inserted into the *Tripartite History*; that of Camerarius was published first at Basel, then at Paris; that of Christopherson was issued at Geneva in the year 1612; that of Sirmond at Paris in the year 1642; that of Valois in the same place in 1673.

XXXVIII. Epiphanius does not appear to have been most learned in Latinity: wherefore the interpretation which he labored over is not the most exact. Sirmond compiled his own almost entirely from the two prior ones of Camerarius and Christopherson. Valois attempted a new one, not content with the others. He added notes—learned, indeed, but more grammatical than historical.

Two Frenchmen have published the same history: one recently, Monsieur Cousin, president of the mint; the other nearly one hundred and forty years ago, Martin Matthæus, prior of the New Monastery near Poitiers, of the Cluniac order: both worthy of praise, the former for his elegance, the latter for his sincerity, although a crude one. Matthæus translated from the Greek, Cousin from the Latin version of Valois. Both wrote a preface at the front of the work: but Matthæus a short and epistolary one, in which he commends the history by its subject, author, and utility; Cousin a very prolix one, in which he attempts to defend the faith of Theodoret against the accusation of his contemporary Fathers, and the condemnation of the four general 289 councils, and of very many supreme pontiffs. Wherefore it happened to him what typically happens to the patrons of a cause that is great, indeed, but desperate. He used the exception of falsehood against the most proven documents; he craftily explained almost all the facts otherwise than they had occurred, and he even accused the councils of the entire Church of ill-considered and rash judgment. But this is to be attributed not to the person of the defender, from whom his own praise ought not be taken away, but to the condition of the cause, which either should not have been undertaken, or defended, or so.

§ III. Religious History, or Philotheus.

I. The history which is inscribed *Philotheus* contains the eulogies of most holy ascetics, who in part in the East, and in part in neighboring places, led an admirable life. There are thirty of them in all, not men only, but women as well, whose spiritual struggles Theodoret either saw himself, or learned of from the reports of others, men of no unequal holiness.

II. Theodoret undoubtedly did not write this after the year 445, in which year he sent a letter to Eusebius: for in those he makes mention of it,

as a work now clearly known, and thus published before the year 444, which is to say, in the year following the thirty-eighth or thirty-ninth. This method of reasoning ^A regarding the time is useful for the resolution of several questions to which we shall return later.

III. At what earlier time? Certainly not before the year 437 or 438, in which Acacius of Beroea departed from this life; for a certain opinion regarding his death is formed from the fact that in the encomium of James of Nisibis it is said that he had held the episcopate for fifty-eight years: from this, it is known that he died in the year 437 or 438, since he was ordained in the year 378 or 379. At what time, then, within that six-year period which elapsed between the death of Acacius and the letter to Eusebius, was it written? It can easily be answered if we believe Theodoret; and it is right to believe him before others, insofar as he narrates things he saw and learned from those themselves whose deeds he recounts.

IV. When he was writing the Life of Simeon Stylites, he reports that he [Simeon] had already passed twenty-eight years since he had begun to eat only every fortieth day; he began, indeed, after he had spent two years with certain monks, and ten years in the monastery of Heliodorus, following his conversion. Since Evagrius teaches that Simeon lived fifty-six years from his conversion, and since almost everyone admits the holy ascetic finished his life in the year 460, it is necessary that he was converted in the year 404. If, therefore, twelve years are added to 404, spent partly among monks and partly with Heliodorus, and there be added also the twenty-eight years that had flowed by since he took up the fast, as Theodoret writes, the result is the year 444, when the *Religious History* was composed.

V. From this is resolved the celebrated question regarding the year in which Simeon ascended the column, and how long he stayed in it. For since he lived in a small cell for three years after he left Heliodorus, and he withdrew in the year 416, it is necessary that he ascended the column in the year 419, and thus remained in it for forty-one years. Indeed, he remained until his death, and his death occurred in the year 460.

VI. There is also another way of finding the time when the *Religious History* was completed. That admirable James, whom Theodoret praises in the 21st chapter, began his exercise at the time the Isaurians were devastating the neighboring regions. Marcellinus reports in his Chronicle that they devastated them in the year 405, and this is confirmed both from the letters of Chrysostom and from other undoubted monuments; yet Theodoret says that James had completed the thirty-eighth year of his exercise when he was writing the ^B *Religious History*. "The space of time for the open-air struggles of his (Limnaeus) and the great James is the same: for they have already completed their thirty-eighth year." He wrote, therefore, in the year that had already completed the thirty-eighth. This chronological method is useful for resolving several questions, concerning which we shall speak later in passing.

VII. A single matter creates a difficulty, which drove the most illustrious author of the *Annals* to a certain marvelous opinion regarding the prolongation of Simeon's life beyond the hundredth year. He believes indeed that Simeon was visited by that great Meletius, bishop of the Church of Antioch, who died at Constantinople in the year 381, when the second general council was being held, after he had already ascended the column. To create faith in this for himself, he uses the authority of Theodoret, whose words are these: "But when the admirable Meletius, who at that time was ruling the episcopate of the region of Antioch, a man famous for prudence and intelligence, and adorned with the skill of his genius, said that the iron was superfluous, when the will sufficed for casting chains of reason upon the body; he yielded, and obeyed his admonition, and having summoned a smith, he ordered the chain to be removed."

VIII. Relying on this testimony, he declares three things: 1. That Simeon was met by some Meletius, bishop of Antioch, when he had already ascended the column. 2. That this Meletius, by whom he was met, does not differ from that great man who ^C died at Constantinople in the year 381. 3. That Simeon stood on the column for more than eighty years, and that his Life was written by Theodoret when he had not yet completed his twenty-eighth year of his station. But these three things fight against one another: first, with all the writers of the life of Simeon, then with Theodoret, and finally with Baronius himself.

IX. For to lead from the last point, if Simeon inhabited the column for eighty years, and yet, as Baronius confesses, closed his last day in the year 460: it is necessary that he ascended the column in the year 380, or even sooner; it is also necessary that Theodoret wrote the encomium of Simeon in the year 408, when he had barely reached his twenty-second year, he certainly was not yet a bishop; nor had those things yet happened which he narrates concerning Simeon, whose converts he sent to receive priestly blessing. But how do these and many other things consequential from them cohere among themselves, and how do they cohere with Baronius's account of the deeds of Theodoret and Simeon? ^D

X. But how does what he says about Meletius visiting Simeon, when he had already ascended the column, agree with Theodoret’s narration about Meletius visiting Simeon and persuading him to remove the iron chain? For Theodoret reports in plain words that this happened *before* he had ascended the column. "Three years having been spent in the small cell," he says, "he came to this most famous summit of the mountain, ordering a wall to be led around him, and an iron chain..."

fabricated of twenty cubits, and with its head attached to a huge rock, and the other end chained to his right foot, so that he could not exit beyond those limits, even if he wished; he remained inside, constantly agitating the heavens in his mind, and striving to contemplate those things which are above the heavens. For no such iron chain hindered the flight of the mind. But when that admirable Meletius, etc.

XI. Finally, concerning the fact that he writes that Simeon stood on a column for more than eighty years, he disagrees with all the ancient historians, Theodoret, Anthony the disciple of Simeon, and the historian Evagrius; not to mention the Metaphrast writing after others. Enough of Theodoret for now. Anthony and Evagrius narrate the whole history of Simeon’s ascetic life—whether among the monks, or in the small cell and the sheepfold, or initially in lower columns, then higher ones—in such a way that it comprises no more than fifty-six or fifty-seven years, and that Simeon ascended the column, after the chain was removed, around the year of Christ 420, at which time Theodotus ruled the Antiochene Church, and that he inhabited it, sometimes lower, sometimes higher, for a space of about forty years. ^A

XII. But about Meletius, you ask, what will happen? What about Theodoret? What if Theodoret suffered a lapse of memory and wrote Meletius instead of Theodotus? Truly, I scarcely believe that this happened in so recent and so well-known a matter. It is far more probable that, as our Bollandus says, this Meletius was the chorepiscopus under Theodotus, to whom the care had been committed of inspecting and governing that region in which Simeon’s fold was located, under the primate. The words of Theodoret seem to imply this: "Appointed at that time to inspect the region of the city of Antioch," which no one would say of the bishop of the city properly speaking. He would, however, say it aptly of a chorepiscopus, "appointed to inspect the region," whence the name chorepiscopus is derived.

XIII. The things mentioned earlier concerning Bassus confirm this interpretation; namely, that he was the head over the presbyters governing the villages: "superintending/being in charge of the priests in the villages." For what is it to be "in charge of" the priests, if not "to oversee" (episkopein)?

XIV. Another related passage in chapter 24 illustrates this same interpretation. For when the presbyters are said to have flocked to Polychronius during the time of drought for the sake of seeking aid, it is said that there came with them someone "appointed to shepherd many villages of the region of Antioch." For that which is called "to oversee" in one place is expressed as "to shepherd" in another.

XV. But the 10th Antiochene canon, which is about the chorepiscopi established in villages or countrysides, seems to me to define the matter; for it shows that there were not a few such chorepiscopi, to whom the care of the churches situated outside the city was distributed, whose duty it was to watch over all things that pertained to piety. ^B

XVI. And let it not disturb you that Meletius is called "admirable" by Theodoret, as if this epithet were appropriate only to the great Meletius. For when speaking of Bassus, who without doubt was nothing more than a chorepiscopus at most, he calls him "admirable"; indeed, he is accustomed to adorn anyone whom he thinks excels with the same appellation. And indeed our opinion is strongly confirmed by this: for when Theodoret speaks of Meletius, the bishop of the Antiochenes, he calls him nothing but "the great," Hist. eccl. lib. v, cap. 33: "In Antioch, Flavian succeeded to the chair of Meletius the great." He had said it once and again before, and a third time, now "divine," now "great," never "admirable," and, epist. 112, "when he [spoke of] the man of God, the great Meletius."

XVII. I consider this Meletius to have been later appointed by Theodotus to the Neocaesarean Church; and not different from him who was present with John of Antioch, with Theodoret and four others, when John wrote to Nestorius; and who spoke the judgment against Cyril and Memnon in the synod of the Orientals. ^C

XVIII. The whole work could not inconveniently be divided into two books, of which the former would consist of twenty chapters, the latter of ten: the former would contain the eulogies of those saints who, at the time Theodoret was writing, had already died; the latter those of the survivors: each of which might take its beginning from a certain distinguished Jacob.

XIX. Nor would this partition be made against Theodoret’s will, since he placed a preface to the twenty-first chapter, as if to a new book. "After we have recounted the struggles of the athletes of virtue, who have now been declared victors, and have summarized their labors in training, their sweat in the contests, and their most clear and noble victories, come, let us now describe the life of those who are survivors, and who are acting magnificently, and strive to surpass the prior ones in sweat." And later: "I will draw the beginning of these from the great Jacob. For he precedes the others both in time and in labor; those who imitate him do wonderful and stupendous things. It happened, however, I know not how, that the name of this first place holds both the life of the departed and of those still surviving. For when I was about to describe the life of the departed, I began from that divine Jacob, who dissipated the army of the Persians with his prayer," etc. ^D

XX. Heterodox censors, like Rivetus and Hottinger, and others of that kind, when they saw that Philotheus fought against their beliefs; yet not daring to take away so acclaimed a work from its author, they threw out many things that were added; and they drew the observation of the translator Gentianus Hervetus to this opinion, to

^A point out that a note had been ineptly inserted into the text from the margin, whereas nothing of the sort had occurred in any other part. XXI. Truly, Sirmond’s edition convicts Gentianus, either of faithlessness—which I consider less likely—or of a faulty codex, which is more plausible; but I marvel not a little at Hervetus’s lack of reflection in failing to notice that this text concerning the death of Simeon had been manifestly depraved, and that a note from the margin had been clumsily intruded into the text, for nothing similar occurred elsewhere.

The end of the twenty-first chapter concerning Simeon Stylites ^A has been blamed for having been written by someone who had not received the rays of an intelligent and divine Spirit: "This, too, is the help I currently need," he says, "as I strive to write the life of the saints who flourished shortly before us and in our own times; their prayers, therefore, are to be invoked, and the narrative begun." And in chapter 21, when he had related that, as he was explaining the prayers of Jacob, he had received this reply from the holy man: "You have no need of me, nor of any other intercessor before God; you have the greatest, John, the voice of the Word, the forerunner of the Lord, who intercedes for you in this matter assiduously." And when I said that I trusted in the prayers of this man as well as of other holy apostles and prophets, whose relics had recently been brought to me, he said: "Believe that you have John the Baptist." I, however, could not be moved even then to keep silent, but insisted all the more, seeking and wishing to know why he made mention of him rather than others. Then he said: "I would like to embrace and kiss his beloved relics."

XXII. Theodoret had foreseen that there would be some who, at some time, would be deterred from believing ^B by the wondrous nature of the things he was narrating. "But he who is not going to believe the things that are to be said by me, it is clear that he will not believe even those things that were done through Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha, and that he holds as fables the miracles that were performed by the holy apostles. But if he testifies that those things are true, he will believe that these also are alien to falsehood; for the same grace that worked in those also brought it about that these should happen," etc. He continues, indeed, to stabilize faith that is wavering due to the wondrous nature of the events: "Moreover, of the things that are to be said, some I have seen myself; but what I have not seen, I have heard from those who had seen them, men who are lovers of virtue and held worthy to see them and enjoy their teaching."

XXIII. But when he had narrated Simeon’s ascent onto the column, undertaken at God’s prompting, assigning the causes of this instinct: "I believe," he says, "that this station was not taken up without divine counsel; wherefore I pray those whom it delights to criticize, that they put a bridle on their tongue and not allow it to be carried away rashly, but consider that the Lord has very often instituted such things for the benefit of the slothful." Then, having brought forward certain unusual deeds of the prophets, which by their novelty would convert the minds of those who saw them to hear the prophecies of the prophets: "Thus," he says, "He instituted this new and wondrous spectacle, so that it might attract everyone by the novelty of the thing to look upon it and make the admonition handed down to him credible to those arriving," etc.

XXIV. This book is, furthermore, to be valued the more highly, the more spitefully it is traduced by heretics. They blather that it is full of trifles and unworthy of Theodoret, for no other reason, certainly, than that it demonstrates—which greatly pains the heretics—the view of the Church of those times regarding the invocation of saints, the cult of relics, the erection of temples in memory of the martyrs, prayer for the dead, the performance of miracles, and voluntary bodily afflictions. ^C

XXV. And regarding the invocation of the saints, from the very first chapter, when he was approaching the work, having prefaced that he would not have written of the notable deeds of the ancient saints, had he not received the rays of an intelligent and divine Spirit: "This, too, is the help I currently need," he says, "as I strive to write the life of the saints who flourished shortly before us and in our own times; their prayers, therefore, are to be invoked, and the narrative begun." And regarding the invocation of the saints, from the very first chapter, when he was approaching the work, having prefaced that he would not have written of the notable deeds of the ancient saints had he not received the rays of an intelligent and divine Spirit: "This, too, is the help I currently need," he says, in the presence of his work, "as I strive to write..."

Furthermore, he is accustomed to conclude the eulogies of the life of each of the deceased with an invocation of aid. Of Jacob of Nisibis: "Having set forth these things concerning the divine man, imploring his blessing, I shall proceed to another narrative." Of Julian Saba: "Ending my narrative concerning him here, I shall proceed to another, praying to the saints whom I have commemorated, that they may procure for me, through their intercession, a supernal blessing." Of Marcian the Great: "I, for my part, putting an end to this narrative again, pray and beseech that through the intercession of all these I may obtain divine aid." The eulogies of Eusebius, Publius, Simeon the Elder, etc., are finished with the same formula.

XXVI. Regarding the cult of relics, besides what has just been reported concerning the zeal with which that admirable Jacob was held to kiss the relics of John the Forerunner, that is excellent which he did when an aedicula was built on the mountain: "I will not suffer," he says, "this to be called the sepulcher of Jacob; but I wish for this to be a temple of the triumphant martyrs, and for me—like some tenant—to be placed in another chest, admitted to cohabitation with them." Nor did he say these things only, but he performed them in reality; for, having collected from everywhere many prophets and many apostles and very many martyrs, he placed them all together in one chest, desiring to dwell with the people of the saints, and to rise with them and enjoy the divine vision, etc.

XXVII. By this same testimony is demonstrated the pious custom of that time of erecting temples in memory of the martyrs: indeed, in that very place, Theodoret himself testifies that he had prepared a chest, of which there is mention shortly, in the temple of the triumphant martyrs. He also reports that Thalelaeus overthrew a shrine of demons and erected a very large temple for the triumphant martyrs. ^D

opposing the divine dead to the false gods. Then he adds, to confirm the invocation of the saints: "May it happen that by their intercessions, one may reach the finish line of the contests and, with the same victory, and aided by them and by him, become an ardent lover of the contests of divine philosophy." Why should I pursue further what is everywhere obvious?

OBSERVATIONS ON THE INDIVIDUAL CHAPTERS OF THE PHILOTHEUS.

1. Regarding the first chapter, which concerns St. James of Nisibis, it must be observed first that Theodoret suffered a lapse of memory in the things he writes about the death of Arius. For he says that he died at Nicaea immediately after the council, with James having persuaded everyone to fast, while Alexander, the bishop of the Church of Alexandria, refused to receive the heresiarch. Yet it is established by certain testimonies that Arius died at Constantinople, in the tenth year after the council, with James far removed, and Alexander, the prelate of Constantinople, refusing to receive Arius into the Church, while Macarius, an Alexandrian presbyter, joined his prayers to the prayers of the prelate of Constantinople. See Socrates, lib. I, cap. 25; Sozomen, lib. II, cap. 28; and Theodoret himself in his ^A *Ecclesiastical History*, where he silently retracts his own error regarding this point by bringing forward the letters of Athanasius, who narrates the whole affair. Truly, it is a wonder that such a great error of Theodoret was not observed by Baronius, a man so sharp-sighted; it is also a wonder that, through lack of thought, Valesius, the Latin translator, and the French translator who followed Valesius, sinned in a matter so open. For they confused the *Ecclesiastical History* with the *Religious History*; in the latter, indeed, is the error which they attributed to him, although in the former, concerning the death of Arius, almost nothing is reported exactly according to the truth except for the words of Athanasius.

It must be observed second that Theodoret also suffered a lapse of memory in the narration of the siege of Nisibis by the Persians. For since there were three sieges, the first in the year 338, the second in 350, and the last in 359, he confused the first two into one and was silent about the third, for the reason that it happened after the death of James. See Petavius in his notes on the 4th item of Julian the Emperor.

It must be observed third, that nothing was written by Theodoret about the doctrine and books of James of Nisibis, although it would have contributed much to [his] commendation: nothing [was written] by Jerome, whether in his *Chronicle* or in his *Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers*; and likewise nothing by Hebed-Jesu, who was otherwise a diligent investigator of Syrian books; nothing by any of the ancients, except for Gennadius alone, who lists twenty-four books. But the authority of Gennadius does not seem to me so great as to uproot every scruple. ^B For how would he know of Syriac works, when he scarcely knew Greek? How could he know of things passed over by Jerome, on the grounds that they had not yet been translated into the Greek language, nor had they been translated later into the Greek and Latin languages, so that they could become known to Gennadius, who, as it seems, was not very skilled in the Greek language? If they were translated into both languages, how could they have perished entirely, when they would have been scattered into a triple sphere, so to speak—Latin, Greek, and Syriac? Why were they known to no one among the ancients, not even to Photius, such a great and curious censor of ancient writers? The suspicion is increased by the fact that Gennadius attributes to James the epithet "the Wise" as if it were common, of which, however, no one speaks, except the one who copied Gennadius. Whence I would easily believe that the writings attributed to James of Nisibis were supposed to be his, when they perhaps belonged to another James, for instance, the most famous hermit of Amida. But in such obscurity, I know not to whom I should adhere.

II. Regarding the second chapter, which concerns Julian, it must be observed first that the famous Acacius, bishop of Beroea, lived an ascetic life under Asterius, a disciple of Julian, in the monastery of ^C Gandari, a village located near Antioch; and that he did not abandon this life in the episcopacy; but had held the episcopacy for fifty-eight years: whence it is established that he died in the year 436, for he was ordained in the year 378. Yet it is a miracle that a man of such sanctity could have either stirred up or fostered such tumults in the Church; but it is known even by the example of Theodoret himself what deluded religion can do.

It must be observed second that mention is made of a certain prefect of the Praetorian Orient. This was Modestus, whom we read in the Prosopography of the codices to have held the prefecture under Valens, in the year 370, the year in which Aphraates, that admirable monk, came to Antioch, led by Acacius, who was then a presbyter, and Julian, the father of the monks, and stood against Valens's persecution of the Catholics.

It must be observed third that, before Isidore, who preceded Theodoret, Asterius, an Arian sophist, had been in charge of the Church of Cyrene; yet not that Cappadocian who was himself an Arian sophist: for he cannot be said to have reached these times, unless it is affirmed that he died a centenarian or near to it; for if during the persecution of Maximian Herculius and Diocletian, which happened in the year 303, he sacrificed, who would believe that he was at that time ^D less than thirty years old, when he was already of no small name?

Therefore, I cannot agree with Baronius, who confuses both Asterius's: and in truth, the Cappadocian was never bishop of Cyrene, nay, not even a presbyter, if we believe Athanasius. But the one of whom there is speech here did exist; whence it is said by Theodoret that Cyrus had received a benefit through the intercession of Julian, which had been liberated from the Arian shepherd. Furthermore, it remained widowed for almost eight years, until it was [provided for] by Eusebius of Samosata.

Isidore of Pelusium, by the authority of the Antiochene synod, was ordained.

III. Regarding the third chapter, which concerns Marcianus, nothing needs to be observed other than the meeting of the five bishops who visited Marcianus, that is, Flavian of Antioch, Acacius of Beroea, Isidore of Cyrus, Eusebius of Chalcis, and Theodotus of Hierapolis: for it occurred with certainty after the year 381, in which Flavian was ordained at the second general synod; yet not long after, since Theodotus of Hierapolis died a short time later. Wherefore it seems to have happened in that very year 381, ^A in which those prelates, returning from the synod, visited for the sake of piety a man celebrated for his holiness, situated near Antioch.

IV. In the fourth [chapter], which contains the praises of the disciples of the most holy man Eusebius, mention is made of that holy hut in which they lived, visited by Theodoret and others of the same institute. But at the time when Theodoret visited the Abbot, 298 he had reached his twentieth year, or certainly had not exceeded it by much: this, therefore, happened in the year 406. For the Abbot, one of the disciples, had spent thirty-eight years of ascetic life when the *Religious History* was written; which we have shown was written in the year 444.

V. In the encomium of Publius, which is the fifth chapter, ^B it must be observed first, whence the city of Zeugma received its name, namely from the juncture of the bridge which Xerxes placed over the Euphrates. Second, that in the monastery of Publius, praises were sung to God by the monks in the Greek and Syriac languages simultaneously, in alternating choirs, and this was still preserved at the time when Theodoret was writing the *Philotheus*. Third, that Aphthonius, a disciple of Publius, after having directed the monastery for forty years, presided over the church of Zeugma. He was ordained, therefore, when over seventy: for who would believe that one was placed in charge of a sacred society before his thirtieth year? Truly, happy times!

VI. In the sixth chapter, which is the eulogy of Simeon the Elder, observe the religious custom of this age of visiting Mount Sinai, where Moses received the Law.

VII. In the eulogy of Aphraates, ^C which is the eighth chapter, it must be observed first, regarding what is reported about the Persian embassy of Anthemius, who was Master of Offices in the year 404, consul in 405, and Praetorian Prefect of the East in that same year and for the ten following, one excepted. I do not recall reading elsewhere that he fulfilled this embassy; yet this embassy occurred under Arcadius, when the treaty between the Persians and the Romans was renewed.

Second, that Flavian and Diodorus are said, during the times of the persecution stirred up by Valens, to have been honored with the second throne, *τῆς δευτέρας ἠξιωμένους καθέδρας*. For this seems to me to be interpreted, not of simple presbyters, but of chorepiscopi. This passage serves to confirm what we previously said ^D regarding Meletius the chorepiscopus.

Third, the stupendous *thaumaturgy* of Aphraates and others of those preceding [is to be noted], even concerning brute animals.

Fourth, that the holy ascetic lived for a long time; for he was already a senior when he reproved Valens in the year 376, and was still living in the year 393, when Theodoret—as a small boy, accompanied by his mother—visited him. 30

VIII. In the eulogy of Peter, 30 besides the conversion and healing of Theodoret's mother, and the healing of Theodoret himself by the aid of Peter’s girdle, one must note the mention of Pergamius, Praetorian Prefect of the East, who held office under Valens in the year 364, or 365, or 366: yet the year of his magistracy is found thus: Theodoret was born in the year 386, seven years before, that is, in the year 379. Peter liberated Theodoret's mother from an eye disease; he had liberated the daughter of Pergamius from sickness 299 years before: therefore, either in the year 374, or 375, or 376, or [377]. It remains, therefore, that Pergamius held the same [office] in one of the other three; more probably 376.

IX. In the eulogy of Theodosius 31 it must be observed, first, that he died shortly after he returned to Antioch, for fear of the Isaurians who were devastating everything, that is, in the year 405; for in the preceding year the Isaurians were encroaching.

Second, that he was buried in the same tomb as the wonder-worker Aphraates, six or seven years after [the latter] finished his life. This communion of the sepulcher was in these times a sign of friendship and reverence. Hence that James, of whom it is spoken in chapter 21, when he loved Theodoret, wished to be buried in the same tomb.

Third, that Helladius of Tarsus, who was one of the schismatics, after the conditions upon which the peace of the Churches was entered into were rejected, was partly placed in charge of the sacred society under Theodosius, and had lived an ascetic life miraculously for sixty years, and did not relinquish it in the episcopate; wherefore, when he was expelled from his see, he was not much less than an octogenarian. But who would not marvel, or rather be stunned, at the blindness of such a man, or rather his presumed opinion concerning Nestorius?

X. It is worth the effort, in order to deduce the account of the times, to summarize the eulogy of Zeno 32. Before he became a monk, he served among the *veredarii*, and at that time he was instructed in matters of faith by Basil the Great, who departed from life in the year 378: he then laid aside his belt, immediately upon the death of Valens, that is, in the year 378, to devote himself to the ascetic life. He was met by Theodoret while almost naked, but already a reader, that is, about 22 years old. Finally, shortly before his death, he handed over money—contracted from the sale of his patrimony—to Alexander, the bishop of Antioch, to be distributed to the poor.

SCHULZ'S NOTES.

From these, two things are gathered. First, that the meeting ^A mentioned in the *first* chapter of this dissertation took place in the year 408. For that was the twenty-second year of Theodoret, since he was born in the year 386. Second, that the text should be corrected where it is said that Zeno had passed forty years of ascetic life when he was visited by Theodoret: for instead of *forty* [τετταράκοντα], one must substitute *thirty* [τριάκοντα]; otherwise, the fortieth year from Zeno’s conversion would fall in the year of Christ 418; in which year it cannot be said that Theodoret had "scarcely induced his cheeks with the first down," since he was ordained bishop in the year 420; namely at a suitable age, that is, at least thirty years old. One should note, however, that Theodoret, shortly before he slipped, or while he was beginning to slip, visited James, who was laboring under illness.

XI. Theodoret wrote the eulogy of Macedonius ^B as if it were a thanksgiving: for he was brought into the world by his prayers, after his mother had spent sixteen years sterile in marriage. That wonder-worker departed from life when nearly a hundred years old, having lived thirty-five years without a hut, twenty-five under a small hut, and about thirty since he began to be exercised. In the year 382 he was ordained priest by Flavian of Antioch, ignorant of what was happening; in the year 388, he detained the masters of the soldiers sent by the Emperor Theodosius to take vengeance on the Antiochenes for the overturned statues. He gave warnings to Theodoret, then seven years old, in the year 393 about leading his life more holily, and he died around the year 395, being carried on the shoulders of the magnates to the tomb, having been preceded to the heavens by Aphraates and Theodosius long before.

XII. In the fourteenth chapter nothing worthy of note occurs, just as in the following two, except that they shed light on the region of Cyrrhus, where three men are praised: Maisimas, Acepsimas, and Maro; and that Acepsimas was ordained priest by Isidore, the predecessor of Theodoret, when he was well advanced in death; and finally, that Maro was the author of that exact ascetic observance which others who followed in the Cyrrhestica region imitated.

XIII. The seventeenth chapter contains the eulogy of Abraames, who, having been made bishop of Carrhae from a monk, did not diminish his ascetic labors but added to them: by praising which way of life, Theodoret shows that he himself was not unlike Abraames. He died in Constantinople, whither Theodosius, or rather Pulcheria with the queens her sisters, had summoned him.

XIV. In the last three chapters ^C, in which the narrative concerning Eusebius, Salamanes, and Maris is instituted, there is likewise nothing to be noted except that unusual form of liturgy by which Theodoret, in order to serve the piety of Maris, used the hands of deacons in place of the altar.

XV. In the twenty-first chapter, Theodoret begins to weave the history of the saints who were still among the living when he was writing; he takes his beginning, indeed, from James, of whom we have spoken much, partly in the *Life*, partly from the first chapter of this dissertation: for there is scarcely any passage fuller with more notes of time.

XVI. In the twenty-second chapter, mention is made of Limnaeus, who, when it is said that he began his ascetic life at the same time as James, and that at the time when Theodoret was writing he had completed the thirty-eighth year of his exercise, shows clearly at what time the religious history was written, since James began to be exercised in the year 405. If the 38 years already completed are added to this, the beginning of the year 444 emerges.

XVII. In the twenty-third chapter it is said that John had already reached, or even completed, the twenty-fifth year of his exercise: he began, therefore, in the year 419. In the same chapter, mention is made of three other distinguished ascetics, Moses, Antiochus, and Antoninus, and Theodoret immediately adds: "Beyond these, God, the trainer of virtue, has many others in our borders, and in the mountains and fields, whom it would be difficult even to enumerate, let alone to write the life of each." From this, I vehemently wonder how a man, as if surrounded and hemmed in by so many men of stupendous holiness, could have strayed from the straight path of the faith. O unsearchable judgments of God!

XVIII. In the twenty-fourth chapter, where the eulogy of Polychronius is woven, nothing worthy of note seems to appear, except for the matter concerning the priest "ordained to shepherd many villages of the region of the Antiochenes." From this, the other passage is illustrated (the obscurity of which gave Baronius the occasion to write incredible things about Simeon Stylites). ^D

XIX. In the twenty-fifth chapter, which is the encomium of Asclepius, this one thing is to be noted: that mention is made of James the admirable ascetic, who, while still living, was older than a nonagenarian and was another person from James the Wonder-worker, of whom [we spoke in] chapter 21. For the Wonder-worker lived without a hut, whereas this man lived in a small cell.

XX. In the twenty-sixth chapter, the stupendous life of Simeon Stylites is narrated. Besides the notes of the times which we have used, four things are to be noted:

1. Regarding what is narrated of Bassus: for this is what will be said later about Meletius: "He persuades the wonderful Bassus, who at that time traveled through many villages, presiding over the priests in each village."

2. Regarding the forty-day continuous fast of Bassus, [semi-alive], it [mentions] the symbols of the divine mysteries, having moistened his mouth beforehand with a sponge, but [it occurred] before he was refreshed with food: from which it is gathered that even in that time the Eucharist was provided to both the dying and the fasting.

^A raised by six cubits, that is, fifty feet at the very least, not being of the same construction from bottom to top; but having as it were its own levels, and consequently smaller masses set upon larger ones, so that a ladder could be moved to the upper mass for an easy ascent: for thus he was able to answer those who accosted him and consulted him concerning religion, although he had a weak voice, as one who ate only, at the beginning indeed, every fortieth day: but afterward, the eighth.

4. It is true that mention is made of letters from Simeon to the Emperor Theodosius the Younger concerning religion; but not of these being sent by the emperor to Simeon concerning the peace of the Churches after the Council of Ephesus: for that peace was almost never approved by Theodoret. At that time, certainly, it was not pleasing when he was weaving his history: although the letter which is inscribed to Simeon in the third part of the Council of Ephesus seems to pertain to Acacius; and that which follows is mutilated, and not individually addressed to Simeon.

To these I add, that the Emperor Leo, when he sent letters to the bishops concerning the Council of Chalcedon, wrote also to illustrious monks, and in the first place to the three most holy men, Simeon, Jacob, and Baradatus, of whom is chapter 27, which follows.

XXI. The twenty-seventh chapter contains the praises of Baradatus, who was one of the three most holy ascetics to whom Evagrius remembers that the Emperor Leo wrote by name, concerning the cause of Timothy of Alexandria and the Council of Chalcedon.

There exists in the encyclical book a letter of Baradatus in reply, full of great, yet holy, simplicity: the letters of the other two have perished. Although in Evagrius there is the letter of Simeon to Basil of Antioch, the successor of Maximus who was deposed for fornication, in which mention is made of another sent to the emperor.

XXII. Concerning Thalelaeus, whose encomium is had in chapter 28, nothing seems to be observed, except that slight detail, that he had enclosed himself in that admirable machine made in the manner of a lattice, in the year 431. For in it he had already spent ten years when Theodoret was writing.

XXIII. The remaining two chapters describe the stupendous exercise of the three women, Marana, Cyra, and Domnina. The former two lived together, and had begun to be exercised as early as the year 402. For it was the forty-second year of their exercise when Theodoret was writing.

Domnina, since she was accustomed to provide the necessities for sustenance to those who arrived, when Theodoret came to that part which is situated to the south of the Cyrestica region, used to send both bread and fruit and soaked lentils. There is no doubt the cause ^B was other than that she knew he was accustomed to this food; whence Theodoret’s abstinence marvelously appears.

Toward the end of the whole work Theodoret says those things by which he manifests the sense of piety ingrained in his soul, oppressed indeed and nearly suffocated by a certain impatient blindness, by which he thought he saw faith where it was, and heresy where it was not, but striving to disentangle himself, if by any chance the true light should dispel the illusions of some proud fascination. Them, he says, whose life I have interwoven, let them not despise me as placed far from their spiritual choir; but let them drag me, lying below, and lead me to the summit of virtue and join me to their company, so that they may not only praise the praises of others; but that I also may obtain some matter of praise, glorifying in deed, in words, and in mind, the Savior of all, Christ our Lord.

§ IV. A Discourse on Charity

I. The author leads the beginning from these words: “How great are the athletes of virtue, and with how many and what kind of crowns they shine, the narrations concerning them written by us clearly teach.” And a little before the end: “Captured by the love of this beauty, recent athletes of virtue, whose Life has been described by us in summary, have proceeded to those great struggles that exceed human nature.” Toward the middle, alluding to the name by which he had inscribed the *Religious History*: “He therefore who is truly a philosopher, is also justly called a *philotheos*.”

II. Hence it is certain that the same person is the author of the *Philotheos* and the *Discourse on Charity*, namely Theodoret. It is also certain that the *Discourse* was written after the *Philotheos*, and thus not without reason is it appended to it in certain copies: since it might show the cause, by which those admirable men were impelled to proceed to struggles exceeding human nature.

III. There was, however, another reason for writing, that he might sustain the constancy of his own soul, while he was being overwhelmed by the weight of calamities, not only by the examples of ascetics, but also of saints, whom Scripture mentions, and of Christ himself. Hence he extols with praises their magnanimity in suffering prisons, exile, calumny, and the plundering of their goods gladly, on account of the ardor of charity by which they were borne toward God. Hence also he exhorts himself and other companions, under the end, that they might embrace this love, and, enticed by the beauty of the bridegroom, and captured by the desire of promised goods, and revering the multitude of benefits, and fearing the punishments of ingratitude, they might show themselves lovers of God and keepers of his laws.

IV. From these things it appears, which is also evident from elsewhere, that this discourse was composed after the Ephesian Robber Synod, that is, toward the end of the year 449, or the beginning of the following. I think it was sent to friends, whom a fellowship of lot and compassion touched, so that...

it might persuade them to constancy, or prove them unconquered by evils.

V. It was first published at Rome in the year 1580 by Gerard Vossius in Greek and Latin; he also added variant readings of the Greek text and scholia. Sirmondus polished the version of Vossius, changing only a very few things where Vossius had deviated from the Greek.

VI. In this work, which is a specimen of eloquence, there is contained nothing of history that might instruct the reader, but beyond the incentives of piety with which it is filled, it possesses a dogma concerning Peter, to whom, as he speaks, Christ is introduced: «As I did not despise you when you were wavering, so also be a support to your brothers who are troubled; and with the help by which you have been saved, impart this same help to others; do not urge on those who are tottering, but raise up those who are in danger: for this reason I allow you to waver, and I do not permit you to fall, 304 providing stability through you for those who are wavering. Thus this great pillar confirmed the entire world that was wavering and tottering, and it did not permit it to collapse entirely; but it raised it up and restored it to stability; having been commanded to shepherd the divine sheep, etc.»

VII. This sentiment regarding Peter, as it is akin to those things which are held in the appellatory letter 113 to Saint Leo, so it shows not obscurely that the oration and the letter were written at almost the same time.

VIII. One must not pass over in silence—though anyone who reads it cannot help but observe—that in this oration the nature, excellence, effects, and causes of charity are copiously explained; yet among the causes, no mention is made of interior grace, by which charity is diffused in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, but only a remembrance of received benefits, of the examples of Christ and the saints, of promises and laws, all of which pertain only to the grace of law and doctrine. But more will be said on this diligently when the faith of Theodoret is discussed.

§ V. The Letters of Theodoret.

I. Nicephorus Callistus writes that he obtained more than five hundred letters of Theodoret, and that they were composed both excellently and with the polish of the Greek language. It is doubtful whether he intended to designate a certain number, or said five hundred in the manner of the Latins, who are accustomed to say six hundred for "many," the number of which can scarcely be defined. Be that as it may, it is certain that many have perished, of which Theodoret himself makes mention. Certainly those have perished which he relates that he wrote both to Cyril, and to the anonymous person to whom he had sent Commentaries on Paul to be read, and to Eugraphia, and two to Dioscorus, etc.

II. Baronius obtained more from Federico Metio from the Vatican Greek codex and inserted them into his Annals, wherever light had to be brought to history from thence. The Metian version does not exist; a better one succeeded it. For Sirmondus published one hundred and forty-seven in the second part of the third volume, which he rendered into Latin from another more copious Vatican codex.

III. He could have added to his number three others, which he rejected into the appendix of volume IV; one to Sporacius concerning Nestorius; another to John, bishop of Germanicia; a third to John of Antioch, which is placed before the refutations of the chapters of Cyril, although the first is supposititious.

IV. He seems to have omitted these: both those which he found only in Latin, since he was taking care with a Greek-Latin edition; and those which Theodoret wrote under another's name, such as the one to Rufus of Thessalonica, etc.

305 V. I believe all of them are to be represented, partly so that nothing may be taken away from their author; partly, and that most of all, because several are to be added, whether those which Mercator inserted into his collectanea, or those which are found in the Acts of the third and fifth synods.

VI. It also seemed fit to perform that which others are accustomed to do in collecting the letters of other writers: namely, to insert those sent *to* Theodoret: for this is of no small benefit to history; although the book of Letters will not be much increased thereby, since I have been able to find scarcely three or four.

VII. Furthermore, although I think the order and numbering established by Sirmondus should be religiously retained, partly because of the custom of citing which has been accepted by the learned; yet I think the other should be exhibited in a chronological synopsis, so that greater light may be shed upon history from it. There are some, I confess, about which I have determined scarcely anything, or it matters little, or it is even impossible. But I believe three characteristics are to be observed in each: year, feast, and person. I said "feast," on account of the heortastic letters, which he wrote in great numbers to friends, according to custom, to offer congratulations for the completed feast days.

VIII. All of them can conveniently be distributed, as far as our business is concerned, into two parts: historical and non-historical. I call those historical which, since they have a note of time or person, can conduce to illustrating the ecclesiastical affairs of Theodoret. In this class I include dogmatic ones as well.

IX. In the codex which Baronius used, and in others which I have seen, the letter to Sporacius concerning Nestorius is placed before all others; but it was rejected by Sirmondus into the appendix, and indeed rightfully so, since it is supposititious, as is demonstrated in its proper place.

X. Nothing is more perfect in this kind of writing: for those things which are the virtues of letters—brevity, perspicuity, elegance, urbanity, modesty, observance of decorum, and an ingenious, prudent, and learned simplicity—shine forth so admirably in the letters of Theodoret that they can be an example to those who write.

The first two letters to an anonymous person.

I. Theodoret had sent his Commentaries on the Apostle to a certain friend, asking by letter for his judgment; the friend returned them after reading them, but did not indicate his judgment. Theodoret interpreted this silence as a polite disapproval; in a second letter, he requested that his judgment, whatever kind it might be, be sent to him. The friend wrote back praising the work immensely; Theodoret lessened these praises in a third letter, claiming they had sprung from the affection of the person who was praising, rather than from the work's own merit. The first letter is lost: of the other two, especially the latter, nothing could be more elegant or ingenious.

II. The years are certain, but the person is uncertain: they were given shortly after the Commentaries on the Apostle were finished, that is, around the year 453, as has been established in its place.

III. It is hardly possible to guess to whom they were sent: it is only credible that it was a bishop, since he addresses him by a title of holiness. What if it were Eutherius of Tyana, with whom Theodoret had a great fellowship of studies and bond of friendship?

Letter 3 to Irenaeus, Bishop.

I. The identity of the person is clear: for it is addressed to Irenaeus, bishop. He was first a Count, then from being a Count, he became Bishop of Tyre. Mention is made of him in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, to which he came with another count, Candidianus; he, indeed, as a friend of Nestorius, while Candidianus acted with the authority of an imperial commissioner. Therefore, he ardently supported the side of Nestorius with counsel, industry, and the dignity of his position; not only at Ephesus, but also at Constantinople, whither he was sent by the schismatics to deceive the emperor while matters were being conducted at Ephesus.

II. Afterward, he helped the same faction no less at Antioch, at the time when that abominable enemy of the Theotokos and of Christ, Nestorius, was proceeding to stir up riots from his retreat in the monastery of Euprepius. Because of this impious support, he offended the emperor's mind; and therefore, having been brought into order and cast out of the court, he retreated into Syria, where, by the decree of the bishops of Phoenicia, and with Theodoret ordaining (him), he took up the bishopric of the city of Tyre.

III. Yet he did not hold it for long: for the emperor, bearing the deed of the Phoenicians and Theodoret with difficulty, ordered Irenaeus to be deposed; first, because he was hateful to the emperor, whom he had offended; then, because he was suspected of the name of Nestorian heresy; finally, because he was a digamist.

IV. The anger of the emperor did not stop at Irenaeus, but extended to the bishops of Phoenicia and to Theodoret: for he ordered the former to openly confess the faith, as had been decreed in the establishing of peace. The latter he forbade to leave the boundaries of Cyrus, all of which is understood from epistle 110 and others.

V. The ordination of Irenaeus occurred around the year 444, ^A a deposition after four years; the time of his deposition is marked in the edict of the praetors, indiction 1, in the 164th year of Diocletian, which is the year of Christ 448. The ordination was carried out before the death of Proclus, who died on October 24, 447; indeed, before the sanction by which Theodoret was confined to Cyrus; but the sanction was given at the end of the year 445. For Proclus approved the ordination, and Theodoret remained at Cyrus after the sanction, and therefore did not set out for Tyre.

VI. From this history, and from the argument of the letter itself, the time at which it was given becomes known: ^B for when Irenaeus had proposed this enigmatic question to Theodoret: "If an impious judge gives two champions of piety the option of doing one of two things—either to sacrifice to demons, or to cast themselves headlong into the sea: and one of these later arrives and leaps eagerly into the deep; but the other chooses neither, but rejects the worship of idols by the former's example, yet does not cast himself into the waves, but waits to be cast in by force by another—which of them seems to have done the right thing?" Theodoret replies, praising the alacrity of the former, but preferring the virtue of the latter, which he confirms by the examples of the saints and of Christ himself.

VII. Following this reply, Irenaeus did not retreat from his see of his own accord, but waited until he was ejected by force. For, with the emperor’s mandate urgent that he should either simply and without restriction call the Virgin Mary the Theotokos, or lose his see, ^C he had sought counsel from Theodoret through an enigmatic question; he sought it, therefore, around the year 446, or 447. For the cause of Irenaeus remained pending for a long time, as is gathered from epistle 16.

VIII. Furthermore, it is read in the Catalogue of books written in the Syriac language, in the work of Ebed-Jesu: "Irenaeus of Tyre composed five books of ecclesiastical histories concerning the ejection of Nestorius; and also of all those things which were done in those regions." It seems doubtful whether this writer of histories is that Irenaeus of whom we are speaking: certainly, he is joined with Theodoret as an equal, which can seem to be the reason for affirming it: this work has not yet been seen in Europe, so far as I know.

Letter 4, festal (heortastic).

I. This letter has no character of time or person, but it has something of a feast, namely Pentecost: for mention is made of rain given at an opportune time, when the most holy feast was being celebrated. Rain is, however, desirable for the crops at the time of Pentecost.

II. Moreover, festival greetings were offered on solemn feasts, which the Greeks call ^D *heortai kyriakoi*; not, however, on all, but on the three principal ones: Theophany, Easter, and Pentecost. By the name of Theophany, as far as pertains to this, they included the Nativity of Christ and the Epiphany: just as...

^A *σεβεσία ὑμῶν δυσχεραίνει*, etc. These words, I believe, ought to have been translated: *Your Piety is indignant*, etc. For Theodoret is not accustomed to use the plural number for the singular in places of this kind. I suspect that this person to whom he writes is Alypius, the head of the monks of the entire province of Cyrrhus, or certainly the exarch of Cyrrhus.

*Epistola 10, a letter of recommendation, to Elias the Scholastic.*

It must have been sent after the year 445. For Theodoret was not summoned to court by anyone before this time, nor did he intend a lawsuit against anyone; indeed, not even any clerk of the Cyrrhine Church did so, as he sets forth in express words in writing to the consul Nomus. In this letter, however, it is manifest that a lawsuit was being conducted against a certain Abraames, a plunderer of the Cyrrhine Church, before the Prefect of the East residing at Antioch, and that Elias the Scholastic was summoned to plead the case. Who, furthermore, this Abraames was, or who this Elias was, is obscure, except that the former was a most wicked man, and the latter was skilled in law and the art of oratory.

*Epistola 11, a letter of congratulation to Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople.*

I. It bears a manifest character of both time and person. For Theodoret congratulates Flavian on having attained the bishopric of the royal city, to which he succeeded Proclus, who closed his final day in the year 447, on the 24th of October.

II. Concerning Flavian, who after his deposition by Dioscorus at the Robber Council, died having undergone noble martyrdom, we have dealt at length in the notes to the Breviary of Liberatus.

III. Now a brief opinion must be stated concerning two questions which the learned raise: namely, how many years Flavian sat, and where and when he died. But first two things are to be observed; the first is the art by which Theodoret praises Flavian; for he says, ^B "That a dark night was converted by him into pure midday, as if by the most brilliant light of the world." By which remark he seems to tacitly arraign Proclus, as if he were the author of his own vexation; for he was restrained by human terror from contending eagerly for the evangelical dogmas. Theodoret was certainly not very well disposed toward Proclus, on account of Theodore of Mopsuestia, whom Theodoret greatly admired, and whom Proclus had refuted in a tome written to the Armenians.

IV. The second thing: it may seem strange why a letter which is distinguished by such an open mark of time should nevertheless have been viewed by Baronius as written after the Robber Council of Ephesus; and for that reason, as if it were an epitaph, fit to be engraved upon a column for the holy martyr: for it was written almost two years before a council of that kind.

V. Regarding the years during which Flavian sat, the opinions of authors are at variance. Some assert he sat for two years and ten months; others for only one year and ten months. In the former opinion are Baronius, Antoine Richard, and Bollandus. In the latter are the Greek Menaea, Maximus Cytheraeus, ^D [Schultz's notes.]

Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Cedrenus, Petavius.

VI. Concerning the ten months, all now agree, for the reason that Flavian was ordained toward the end of October and deposed on the tenth day of August.

VII. The question of the years depends on the time of the death of Proclus, to whom Flavian succeeded. Some say that Proclus died in the year 446, others in the year 447, just as both the one side and the other have different opinions concerning the earthquake by which Constantinople was shaken, and which happened while Proclus was alive. That movement is placed by Petavius in the year 447, in which he follows Marcellinus and the Alexandrian Chronicle; it is placed by Baronius in the year 446, where—which is strange, and contrary to the faith of the codices—he cites Marcellinus in his favor. I think that the former opinion should be adhered to, both because it is held by more numerous and older writers, and because the reasons brought forward for the latter have hardly any weight against such great ancient authority. ^A

VIII. It might seem that the only thing of any moment is the argument offered regarding the twelve years of Proclus's see; it is certain that he was appointed in the place of Maximian on the 12th of April, in the year 434. Hence, it is concluded that he died in the year 446. But this is actually trivial: for the historians themselves do not agree regarding the years of Proclus. I admit that twelve years are attributed to him by Nicephorus of Constantinople, whether in his *Chronographia* or in his Catalogue; that they are similarly attributed by Theophanes, when he writes that he died in the 39th year of Theodosius; but beyond the fact that the authority of Nicephorus and Theophanes is the sole authority for the Greek Menaea and Menologia—for Theophanes follows Nicephorus, and the Menaea and Martyrologies are described from these writers; beyond the fact, I say, that this authority is singular, it is also in itself weak. For that an error crept into the number of years in Nicephorus, by reading thirteen for twelve, no one would consider a rash opinion. Certainly, one must confess that there is a mistake in the number of months: for they should have said not three, as is held by those who are so called, but six with twelve days. Indeed, from the 12th of April, the day on which Proclus was certainly ordained, to the 24th of October, the day on which it is agreed he died, the months and days I mentioned have passed. Wherefore I believe that Proclus died in the year 447, and held the see for 13 years, 6 months, and 12 days. Nay, I think Nicephorus Callistus should be corrected, when he says: *“After this, Proclus the most divine having spent eleven years and ten [months] in the throne of Constantinople, and the marvelous Cyril of Alexandria [having spent] thirty-two years in the same, both passed to the ageless life.”* For the text should read *twelve*: otherwise, since he reports both that Proclus was ordained on the 12th of April, 434, and that that great earthquake occurred while he was alive, he would fall into an open contradiction; for he would either refer the movement to the year 445, than which nothing can be said to be more foreign to the truth, or he would concede that Proclus was not present, which is openly false. ^B

IX. But now, concerning the time when Flavian completed his martyrdom by death, the opinions of authors are again divided. For some report that he was killed by Barsumas and his monks in the very place of the synod; others that he died after three days from the blows he received; others that he died on the way to his exile at Hypaepa; others that, after he arrived at Hypaepa, he was worn down by calamities and miseries. The truth is easily known from the first part of the Council of Chalcedon; for in the letter of Galla Placidia to Theodosius, it is supposed that Flavian was still living. ^C *“And therefore may your gentleness, resisting such tumults, command that the truth of the Catholic religion be kept immaculate: so that, according to the form and definition of the Apostolic See, which we likewise venerate as surpassing, and with Flavian remaining in the status of his priesthood unharmed in all things, the judgment may be transmitted to the council of the Apostolic See.”* But Placidia wrote after the 18th of November, that is, three months after the robber Council of Ephesus was dissolved; at which time it is incredible that news of the slaughter of the patriarch of New Rome had not yet been heard in the West, if it had truly happened. For who could persuade himself, when all things were resounding with the affairs of Ephesus, that after such a crime—the patriarch of the royal city being butchered—either the rumor, than which nothing is more swift in delivering insolent news, or letters passing to and fro to the courts of the emperors, would have been silent; or that the Augusta, when she was writing to her parent Theodosius, would have reported only the complaints of Saint Leo concerning the expulsion of Flavian, and not also of the murder, and that one so monstrous and horrifying, if it were known at Rome? ^D

X. And if these things are true, as they certainly are, it is a wonder of how much it deviates from reason that the desire to contradict did not come into someone's mind until not long ago. That the letters of Valentinian and the Augustae were written only after the feast of Saint Peter, that is, the 29th of June, 450. For one of two things must happen: namely, that after almost eleven months, news of the death of a bishop of such a see had been learned in the West, or that Flavian had been living until then. Both are akin to a prodigy.

XI. It remains, therefore, that Flavian died at Hypaepa, whether by a supervening death or one inflicted: but in what month, or on what day, no one says definitely; it is probable, however, that it happened on the 18th of February, 458, on which day the memory of Saint Flavian is celebrated in the Greek Menologium and the Roman Martyrology. For as to why Baronius asserted that the memory of the relics brought to Constantinople is celebrated on that day, with nothing of the sort reported in the Martyrologies, this was done because of the presumed opinion regarding the death of Flavian three days after his deposition in the city of Ephesus itself.

XII. Furthermore, what I stated as probable can be supported by these arguments: First, Flavian died at Hypaepa in the city of Lydia, whether by a supervening death or one inflicted. That, however, could not have happened, if things are judged by the way they usually occur, unless an unexacting time were allotted both for the journey and for the delay. Next, if the death of Flavian had happened before October,

[DE LIBRIS THEODORETI]

without doubt, some notification of it would have been received in the West toward the end of November, at which time Valentinian sent letters to Theodosius along with the two Augustae; but no such notification had been received. Afterward, if Flavian had departed this life before January or the end of December, Theodosius would certainly not have remained silent in replying to Valentinian and the Augustae; but he did remain silent. Finally, if the death of Flavian had occurred before February, 312 what cause would there be why the holy Leo did not say a word about the matter, or at least not write to Theodosius, Pulcheria, and others concerning Anatolius before the month of July? Why did not Theodosius, before Lent or even before Easter, ask that Anatolius be received into communion by the holy Leo, whom he well knew had written this solemn declaration to all the people of Constantinople: “Whoever shall have dared, while your bishop Flavian is safe and alive, to invade his priesthood, shall never be held in our communion, nor shall he be able to be numbered among the bishops”?

XIII. This opinion is confirmed, first, by the Greek Menaea, in which Flavian is said to have been “by the permission of God, cast into exile by the heretic Dioscorus and his conventicle, after he had held the see for a year and ten months; and after having suffered many afflictions for the orthodox faith in exile, he died at length from illness.” Then by the Menologium of Maximus Cytheraeus, in which the same facts are related. Afterward by the Menologium of the Greeks, which was edited by Heribert Rosweyde [Henrico Canisio] from the library and by the translation of Cardinal Sirlet, under February 17: “Of our holy father Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople, who, having been cast out and sent into exile by the impious Dioscorus and the heretics conspiring with him, and having been vexed by various pressures and calamities, fulfilled his life.”

XIV. Two arguments may seem to support the opposite side, one of which is taken from the Roman Martyrology, the other from certain words of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. The Martyrology reads thus: “At Constantinople, of the holy bishop Flavian, who, when he was defending the catholic faith at Ephesus, was struck by the faction of the impious Dioscorus with fists and heels, and finished his life after three days.” But, first, the authority for the Martyrology is the same as that of Baronius: for Baronius added to the new Martyrology what pertains to Flavian; for it is not read in the older texts, not even in the Galesinian edition printed at Venice. Furthermore, he took this addition from the Menaea and the Menaeology of the Greeks in such a way that he interpolated the words, as if he wished to correct an error. Afterward, he preferred to believe Nicephorus Callistus rather than Marcellinus Comes and Felix, the defender of the Roman Church—that is to say, he preferred a man writing about the affairs of Flavian nine hundred years later to historians separated from them by not even a single whole century. Why he should believe ^A Nicephorus, and condemn the Menaea as erroneous, he could find no reason at all, neither from the words of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon nor from ^B other sources, which nevertheless he wished to serve as the chief and indeed the only foundation for his opinion; for while Eusebius of Dorylaeum complains in the first session that Flavian was killed, Quintus Phocensis and also Proterius of Myrina relate in the third session that he was killed by Dioscorus; and in the fourth session, there is an outcry against Barsumas as the killer 313 of Flavian. But let no one conclude anything from this other than that Flavian was evilly treated at Ephesus and from there cast into exile, where he was consumed by his calamities. And indeed, Theodoret, when he said in his address that Nestorius was killed by the reed pens of his fellow pastors, meant nothing else, I think, than that he was deposed and cast down so that he might be consumed by grief. The same Theodoret himself, when he wrote about his own deposition, used the term “slaughter.” Eusebius called his sufferings “funeral rites.” Yet neither was killed, but only suffered dire things.

Letter 12, consolatory, to Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre.

He consoles Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre, on the funeral of his son-in-law, of whom mention was made previously. Regarding the time, it is evident from the end of the letter, since it is said to have been written immediately after the prior one was composed: “I have dictated this, having already written my previous admonitions, when a certain friend of mine brought word to me from Antioch of his death.” Therefore both were sent at the same time, namely, in the year 447.

Letter 13, eucharistic, to Cyrus.

The note of time is not obscure, since Theodoret writes that he had received the gift from Cyrus, namely Lesbian wine, at a time when there were many and grave storms of life, for which reason he did not desire a long life: for I interpret the “storms” as the vexations that occurred after the year 445, at which time it is fitting to estimate that this letter was given.

Cyrus, to whom it was sent, could seem to be that bishop of Marcopolis who, in the Ephesian conventicle, together with other Orientals, deposed Cyril and Memnon, and was subsequently deposed himself in turn in the brigandage of Dioscorus; and mention of whom is made by Victor of Tunnuna at the time of the consulship of Gibbus, and by the monks of Palestine in their letters to Alcyson. See what is written about him in the Life of Theodoret, chapter 13.

But what prevents me from coming to this opinion is the inscription, which holds nothing except the name of Cyrus; for Theodoret, in writing to bishops, is accustomed to make mention of their rank. I believe, therefore, that it was sent to Cyrus the Master of Offices [Magistrianus], to whom is also addressed the consolatory letter on the funeral of his wife and son, which is numbered 136.

Letter 14, consolatory, to the illustrious lady Alexandra on the death of her husband.

I. Furthermore, the title must be corrected, and for *Alexandria* one must read *Alexandra*, just as in the context. ^{C D}

^A *πρoσvýκους* [those nearby] not *vicinos* [neighbors], but heirs, the series shows, should be understood.

II. The date is a time when Theodoret was ordered to keep himself at Cyrus: "I am now compelled to write this, because, if I were to run to you, the bonds do not allow it."

^A III. Who this illustrious woman Alexandra was, and whose wife, one may conjecture to some extent; for she was married to a man who was consul, given that Theodoret says her husband attained the pinnacle of dignities, by which title all men are accustomed—and he himself writes by name to Zeno and Taurus—to call the consulship. Then she was residing at Antioch: for how, immediately upon hearing the report of his death, could Theodoret have rushed there, had not his bonds restrained him? Wherefore that bishop, whom he praises so magnificently, and says that one [person] is enough to offer consolation to the afflicted woman, was Domnus, at that time bishop of the city of Antioch.

IV. Finally, she seems to have been the wife of the Prefect of the East: for he is hinted at as being uniquely beloved by Theodoret, and the Prefects of the East were accustomed to be chosen from among the consuls, and the prefects resided in Antioch, where Theodoret was frequent in attendance, and by his own admiration won over the minds of the magnates to himself.

Letter 15, to Silvanus.

I. It has no character of time, unless perhaps it is said to have been written before the time of his vexation: for it is silent about his own [troubles], even though it is a complaint of the situation of any man whatever, and especially of the misery of Theodoret.

II. I believe Silvanus, to whom the letter of consolation on the death of his wife is written, was a governor, or some primary man of the region of Cyrrhestica; ^B whence, towards the end, Theodoret adds: "Let your magnificence therefore accept the paternal exhortation," namely that of your bishop.

Letter 16, to Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre.

I. The sense and history of the letter are so intertwined and perplexed that it cannot be resolved with ease: for Theodoret wrote briefly to Irenaeus, as among friends cognizant of the situation, things which nevertheless are of no small moment to be known by students of ecclesiastical affairs.

II. In all, six things are touched upon: the ecclesiastical calamity, the summoning to the synod, the complaint about his calumniators, the question concerning the Virgin ^D *Theotokos*, the cause of Diodorus and Theodore, and the counsel regarding the abandonment of the bishopric. How these things are to be remembered, must be explained, having made the beginning from the time of the letter.

III. It was given without doubt after the publication of the *Eranistes*: for Theodoret responds to Irenaeus asking why he had been silent concerning Diodorus and Theodore among the Fathers who were to be appealed to, and he brings forward here the same cause, and in almost the same words, as in the second dialogue; it was written therefore after the year 445, or 446. But we also have another character of the time, the summoning to the synod, concerning which anon.

IV. Concerning the calamity of the Church, which he laments, and his calumniators, concerning whom he complains, it is easy to judge. For at the time he was writing, the storm against the Church itself was seen to be mounting day by day, as he speaks, that is, ascending to its height; the public tranquility was also seen to be desperate; nor could the peace of minds be expected from anywhere else than from patience; for then he was being pressed more closely by accusations; he was experiencing a prince angry with him; he was being held in domestic confinement; he was exposed to the audacity and envy of his adversaries; by the timid patronage of courtiers he was not so much defended as he was laboring.

V. It is more difficult to understand what was the synod, to hold which he reports that summons had come to the metropolitans. Was it some Antiochene [synod], which Domnus, having summoned the metropolitans from the entire diocese of the East, was to hold? Or the later Ephesine [synod], which the Emperor Theodosius gathered from all sides? Everything joined together fits the Ephesine [synod], which, after the judgment of Flavian concerning Eutyches, in the month of November, in the year 448, Theodosius proclaimed, with Eutyches requesting it and Chrysaphius working for it.

VI. I conclude, therefore, that the letter was sent after the deposition of Irenaeus, indeed after the month of April in the year 449. For the deposition of Irenaeus happened in the year 448, in the early spring; the emperor's summons is dated the 3rd of the Kalends of April, in the year 449.

VII. From these things, which are written concerning the Virgin *Theotokos*, I conjecture that at that time the question had flared up, whether the Virgin ought to be called simply and without addition *Theotokos*, or whether there ought to be added *anthropotokos*, with some refusing to subscribe to the common formula without this addition, by which they wished, of course, to restrict the amplitude of the word, so that they might cunningly retain the Nestorian sense under a catholic word.

VIII. I believe the words of Theodoret prove my conjecture: "Those who struggle for piety ought to examine what they are about to say diligently, and not seek words which stir up contention, but sentiments which clearly express the truth, and overwhelm those daring to resist with shame. For how do these things differ, to call the holy Virgin *anthropotokos* and *Theotokos* at the same time, or to call her the Mother and handmaid of the Son; and to add that she is Mother, as of a man, our Lord Jesus Christ, but handmaid as of God, and to cover the occasion of calumny with silence, and to set forth the same sentiment under another name?"

IX. Concerning the cause of Diodorus and Theodore, it will be said in the censure of the *Eranistes*; it will be useful then to compare the words of the letter with the words of the Dialogue.

X. What Theodoret adds toward the end, concerning the counsel

^A of deposing the bishop, unless he were to fear divine judgment, is in harmony with the counsel given in letter 3. XI. What he adds concerning the expectation of death, which he anticipates as imminent from the snares laid for him, may be seen as a prophecy of a mind foreseeing future calamity. XII. Furthermore, a not insignificant fragment of this letter is reported in the acts of the 5th synod, collation 5, with this faulty inscription: *From the letter of Theodoret to Hierenatus the digamist*, providing testimony that Theodorus was under accusation and that there was doubt concerning him. And it runs thus: "But since you blame me," etc.

*Epistle 17, consolatory to Casiana the deaconess, on the death of her son.* There is no indication of time or person here, except that from the circumstances one may suspect that she was a widow who served the Church of Antioch.

*Epistle 18, consolatory to Neoptolemus, on the death of his wife.* This also bears no character of either time or person.

*Epistle 19 and 20, to Basilius and Martyrius, presbyters.* Both are of the same argument, concerning Athanasius the Egyptian orator; both are of almost the same time; yet neither has a certain note of person, year, or of Athanasius.

*Epistle 21, to Eusebius Scholasticus.* I. It bears a certain mark of the year, though the person is uncertain, for it was given after the rumor of his deposition at the Robber Council of Ephesus had spread, when the matter was not yet confirmed. Therefore it pertains to the month of September or October of the year 449, since his deposition at Ephesus took place on the eleventh day of August. II. Theodoret shows wonderful constancy of mind in such a disaster; he also professes the right faith in express and clear words, and wishes all to be informed of his orthodoxy through Eusebius. III. That Eusebius, I think, was the Antiochene Scholasticus, from whom he had learned through letters what rumor was spreading.

*Epistle 22, to Ulpian the count.* It was written at about the same time as 19 and 20. For it has the same argument concerning Athanasius the orator staying with him. There is no mark of the year. That Ulpian was still a pagan, as one to whose praises the main good was lacking, namely faith.

*Epistle 23, to Ariobindas, a petition on behalf of the farmers of Cyrrhestica.* I. This is the very Ariobindas who held the consulship in the year 434, and whose death is placed by Marcellinus under the consulship of Protogenes and Asterius, that is, in the year 449. II. He had very extensive possessions in the Cyrrhestica region, which, having suffered a calamity from the inclemency of the weather, Theodoret ^B entreats [him], as a generous man, to grant relief to the farmers afflicted by the sterility of the land, by letting off their usual burdens. III. Furthermore, the sterility occurred, as I suppose, from that drought which is mentioned in the Eulogy of Polychronius.

*Epistle 24, to Andreas, bishop of Samosata.* I. Andreas of Samosata is well known, both from the objections proposed in the name of the Orientals against the chapters of Cyril, and from the letters of Theodoret—not only these, but others which the fifth synod and Marius Mercator exhibit; and finally from the books of Anastasius Sinaita, who reports some things about him. II. He was distinguished in doctrine among the bishops of the Oriental diocese, and was joined in singular friendship with Theodoret; even being a participant with him in the same calamity at the Robber Council of Ephesus, if we believe Theophanes; yet not of the same lot in the Council of Chalcedon: for death anticipated him, since Rufinus, bishop of Samosata, sat with the Fathers. See what we have observed in Part II of the Works of Marius Mercator regarding the aforementioned objections and the responses of Cyril, which Marius Mercator rendered into Latin. III. It is not possible to conjecture the time of the date of the letter, since no character is present.

*Epistle 25 and 26, heortastic.* Both lack a character, except that the former indicates the Nativity festivals.

*Epistle 27, to Aquilinus, deacon and archimandrite.* It is consolatory on the loss of a son; whether spiritual or natural, is uncertain: otherwise it has no mark. Whether that Aquilinus was later ordained bishop of Byblos in Palestine, and deposed with Theodoret at the Robber Council, as Evagrius writes (lib. 1, cap. 10), and who with Theodoret subscribed to the letter of Saint Leo to Flavian, is uncertain.

*Epistle 28, familiar to James, presbyter and monk.* It lacks any mark at all. There are those who think that this James, to whom Theodoret writes, is not different from James the most holy monk, whose eulogy while alive he composed in the *Philotheus*, and whom he left surviving when he died; for, they say, both the one to whom it is written, and the one who is praised, was a presbyter and a monk. But whoever reads the eulogy more attentively will without a doubt not agree with the claim that the one who is praised was ever a presbyter. For that which is said of the Nisibene, *homotimos kai homotropos*, does not relate to equal dignity in the Church (for the Nisibene was a bishop), but to the same merit of praise, because of the same manner of holiness. ^C

*Epistle 29, recommendatory to Apellion.* I. The mark of time is manifest, partly from the other six following letters, of which the argument is the same, and the time the same; partly from the persons to whom some are written. II. They are all letters of recommendation to friends or ^D

others, whom Theodoret admonishes to show compassion in relieving the poverty of Celestiacus, a nobleman of Carthage, who, when Carthage was captured by Gaiseric, was stripped of his wealth and yet compelled to go into exile with his whole family.

318 III. He had arrived, as it seems, at Cyrrhus by way of Egypt and Phoenicia, and, through Cyrrhus, Beroea, Emesa, and Antioch, he was planning for Tyre, so that from there he might set sail for Constantinople to implore the aid of the emperor.

IV. At what time this was issued must be disputed with the most illustrious author of the Annals, since he refers it almost two whole years earlier than he ought, indeed to the year 440. He reasons thus: Carthage was captured by the guile of Gaiseric in the year 439, in the month of October; the nobles who were unwilling to serve in their homeland were soon ejected. One of them was Celestiacus, who, having fled into the East in the following year, which is 440, came to Cyrrhus and, upon departing, received letters of recommendation from Theodoret to friends stationed along his route.

But this reasoning cannot stand: for Celestiacus had already spent another year in wandering about in his misery when he arrived at Cyrrhus and obtained letters from Theodoret: for one of the friends whom Theodoret exhorted by letter to alleviate the misery of Celestiacus was Domnus, the successor of John in the see of Antioch: yet John died only as the year 440 was drawing to a close, or even at the beginning of the following year; and Theodoret writes to Domnus as one already established in his seat for some time; therefore he wrote in the year 442. ^B Furthermore, the time when John died is demonstrated from this: Writing to Dioscorus in the year 448, Theodoret says that this year is the seventh from the ordination of Domnus; Domnus was therefore ordained in the year 441.

V. From these things it is certain that the letter to Apellio, which is now in question, was written, as were the six following it, in the year 442. For they were all given at one time to the unhappy guest who was departing.

VI. Who that Apellio was, I cannot define: he was perhaps some learned and powerful man, residing either in Antioch or Beroea.

Epistle 30, a letter of recommendation to Aerius the Sophist.

I. Of the same time and argument as the preceding, is Epistle 66 to this Aerius, in which he is invited to celebrate the dedication of the temple of the apostles at Cyrrhus: which fact moves me to conjecture that he was also a learned man, a citizen of Beroea, distant a few miles from Cyrrhus.

II. Moreover, the temple of the apostles which is mentioned seems to be different from that which Theodoret built at the persuasion of Jacob, and in which he was laid to rest in a common sepulcher with Jacob. See chapter 21 of the *Religious History*.

Epistle 31, a letter of recommendation to Domnus, Bishop of Antioch.

Of the same argument and time. Concerning Domnus, enough has been said in the *Life of Theodoret*.

Epistle 32, a letter of recommendation to Theoctistus, Bishop of Beroea.

Of like argument and time. Theoctistus succeeded Acacius in the year 437 or 438, ^C as will be demonstrated later. There is about his ordination a congratulatory letter, Epistle 37. To the same person is also Epistle 134, a reproach for the neglected law of friendship, concerning which in its proper place. He was present at the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451, and subscribed to the letter of the bishops of the First Syria in the year 458.

Epistle 33, a letter of recommendation to Stasimus, Count and Primate.

Of the same argument and time as the preceding. Furthermore, who Stasimus was, and of what city he was primate, it is not permitted to conjecture; was he of Tyre, or Emesa, or of some other city or region through which Celestiacus might pass?

Epistle 34, a letter of recommendation to Patricius, Count.

Again of the same argument and time. What if that Patricius was the count of some province through which Celestiacus had to pass while heading for Tyre? He certainly would have had to pass through both Phoenicia and the First Syria: for in the First Syria were Antioch and Beroea; in the Lebanon Phoenicia, Emesa; and in the extreme borders of the other Phoenicia, Tyre.

Epistle 35, a letter of recommendation to Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre.

Concerning time, argument, and person, it is certain. This one thing must be observed, that Irenaeus had been ordained before the year 442: but at what definite time?

Epistle 36, a letter of recommendation to Pompeianus, Bishop of Emesa.

... at the same time.

II. Pompeianus succeeded Paul, who conducted the business of peace between the Churches. He died after Uranius, who was present at the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451, and signed the synodical letter of the Lebanon Phoenicia to the Emperor Leo in the year 458.

Epistle 37, a letter of salutation to Sallustius, Governor.

It has no character of time. Sallustius was a Christian, as is understood from the epistle; he was governor of the Euphratensis province, but not yet...

Epistle 38, a letter for the feast (Heortastic).

It seems to have been given at the time when Theodoret was constrained within the borders of Cyrrhus. It manifests itself clearly as Paschal.

Epistle 39, a letter for the feast (Heortastic).

Given at the same time and at the same feast.

Epistle 40, a letter for the feast (Heortastic) to Theodorus, Vicar.

It was written in the same year and festival as the previous two. Theodorus is indeed called Vicar, but of whose diocese? Is it not the Asian, which is closer...

^A to Euphratensis? Next, is not this the same Theodorus who held the prefecture of the royal city, and was one of the judges sent by the Emperor to the Council of Chalcedon? One would not rashly suspect this, who has observed that the chosen judges were for the most part admirers of Theodoret.

*Epistle 41, Festal, to Claudianus.* The mention of the great earthquake and the invading barbarians occurs; both, in fact, happened in the year 447, in which year almost the whole world was shaken by an earthquake, and Attila devastated many provinces of the East, and compelled the Emperor Theodosius to buy peace with tribute. It may therefore be believed to have been written after the birthday of Christ in the year 447.

II. In this year Proclus died on the 24th of October, after he had been present at the stupendous miracle which later became the cause for the Trisa- gion being sung.

III. Concerning this Claudianus, whom the manuscripts and the Sirmond edition carry as the addressee, Baronius calls him Sallustianus at the year 446, in which year he opines that that great earthquake occurred, and he cites the testimony of Marcellinus, who relates the contrary: for he records the earthquake in the 15th indiction, during the consulship of Ardabanes and Callepius.

*Epistle 42, A Supplicatory Epistle to the Prefect Constantius.* I. The subject matter of this epistle and the five following ones is the same: the relief of the taxes of the province of Cyrrhestica. For they were written in the year 446, after the promulgation and command for execution of the Emperor Theodosius’s Novella 33, concerning relieved, improved, or donated possessions, which was issued at Constantinople on the 3rd of the Ides of December, in the consulship of Theodosius Augustus for the nineteenth time and Albinus, that is, in the year 445.

III. Constantius, to whom it is written, is the very man whose efforts, as Marcellinus relates, rebuilt the walls of the royal city, which had collapsed in the earthquake, within three months. He was also one of the judges sent by the Emperor Marcian to the Council of Chalcedon: for in the Acts, Constantius is to be read in place of Constantinus, as the Acts themselves sufficiently show, and as is understood from the Theodosian Code.

*Epistle 43, A Supplicatory Epistle to Pulcheria Augusta.* At the same time, on the same matter. Concerning Pulcheria there is nothing to be observed here, except that she always favored Theodoret whenever she could: she could not, however, when he was deposed at the Latrocinium Council; for by the arts of the eunuch Chrysaphius he had been removed from the management of affairs: but as soon as she resumed the reins of empire upon her brother’s death, she wished for the deposed man to be restored.

*Epistle 44, A Supplicatory Epistle to Senator the Patrician.* At the same time and on the same subject. Senator was indeed consul with Isidorus in the year 436, and he was also among the patricians ^A whom Theodoret congratulates at the beginning of the epistle. He attended the Council of Chalcedon, as he was one of the most glorious judges.

*Epistle 45, A Supplicatory Epistle to Anatolius the Patrician.* At the same time and on the same subject. Anatolius held the consulship in the year 440. He was also Master of the Soldiers, during which time he deserved well of the Oriental diocese, as Theodoret implies. He is ranked first among the judges of the Council of Chalcedon. He favored Nestorius before the Council of Ephesus.

*Epistle 46, A Letter of Recommendation to Petrus the Scholasticus.* Of the same time and subject. It seems that this Petrus took up the cause of the Cyrrhestic region against the calumnies of the bishop's accuser.

*Epistle 47, A Supplicatory Epistle to Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople.* At the same time, on the same matter. The name of Proclus is too famous to need our praise.

*Epistle 48, A Familiar Epistle to Eustathius, Bishop of Berytus.* I. The mark of time is missing, yet without great loss, since it is a purely familiar epistle. II. That Eustathius was bishop of Berytus, of famous ^B name, partly on account of both judgments concerning Ibas, whether that of Tyre, or that which was done at Berytus; and partly on account of his controversy with Photius, the prelate of Tyre, concerning seven cities, in which he had arrogated to himself the right of ordaining, having obtained the rank of metropolitan against the canons from the Emperor; but this was abrogated for him by the Council of Chalcedon. III. Then, I think, was the rank I mentioned obtained from the Emperor, when Irenæus was deposed: for because this was the greatest among several causes of his deposition, that Irenæus had offended the Emperor’s mind, Eustathius, abusing this occasion, caused First Phoenicia to be divided into two metropolises: nor did Photius, who took Irenæus’s place, dare to protest, lest he also provoke the Emperor's wrath upon himself. However, Theodoret’s sanction having been rescinded, Eustathius was reduced to order: for after Dorotheus, Photius’s successor and metropolitan, he subscribed to the synodical letters of First Phoenicia to the Emperor Leo in the year 458. ^{C D}

*Epistle 49, A Familiar Epistle to Damianus, Bishop of Sidon.* The mark of time is likewise missing for it. Damianus, to whom it is written, attended the Council of Antioch in the cause of Athanasius of Perrha in the year 445, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. He did not survive long, however: since Megas, bishop of Sidon, subscribed to the synodical letters of First Phoenicia sent to the Emperor Leo in the year 458.

*Epistle 50, A Familiar Epistle to Gerontius the Archimandrite.* The mark of time is missing; it seems, however, like others...

SCHULZ’S NOTES. *It seems to be the same person to whom epistles 59 and 99 were written.

^A The first two are dated before Theodoret was harassed: otherwise he would not have omitted, at least ^B obliquely, to mention something of his vexation: for it was a matter of complaint and an ostentatious display of patience. I have no certain information about Gerontius, unless perhaps he is the same as the subdeacon Gerontius, who is mentioned in epistle 10.

Epistle 52, a letter of recommendation to Ibas, bishop of Edessa.

I. It was written after the year 436, in which year Ibas was made bishop: indeed, after the year 439, when Carthage was captured by the Vandals, and the African bishops were compelled partly to flee and partly to endure hardships: for the bishop Cyprian is commended to Ibas, "who, having risen from most celebrated Africa, was compelled to wander through foreign shores on account of the savagery of the barbarians."

II. Theodoret had received this man, commended by Eusebius, bishop of Ancyra: he requests in turn from Ibas that, having received him liberally, he might send him on to other bishops with letters. The epistle is therefore dated about the year 440.

III. Truly, the wanderings of that African were wondrous, in that from Ancyra in Galatia he came to Cyrus in Euphratesia, from there intending to seek Edessa, the capital of Osrhoene, and from Edessa Constantina, situated far away in the opposite direction.

IV. Furthermore, Eusebius, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, whom Theodoret mentions, succeeded Theodotus, whose name is distinguished in the Ephesian synod. He was present at the Ephesian "robber synod" in the year 449, and at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. He did not, however, survive long; for in the year 458, Anastasius, bishop of Ancyra, subscribed to the synodical letters of Galatia Prima to Emperor Leo.

Epistle 53, a letter of recommendation to Sophronius, bishop of Constantina.

Similar to the preceding in regard to time and subject matter. Sophronius, to whom it is written, was bishop in the province of Osrhoene. He was present at the Council of Chalcedon. The city, whose Church he ruled, should not be called Constantia, nor Constantinopolis, as it is in some codices; but Constantina, and sometimes Nicephorium.

Heortastic Epistles 54, 55, 56.

All were sent at Epiphany, and while he was being harassed: the middle one is to some illustrious man; the others bear no mark of the person.

Epistle 57, a congratulatory letter to Eutrechius the prefect.

There are three epistles to Eutrechius the prefect, 57, 80, and 96. He received them all in the year in which he held the prefecture; he held it, in fact, in the year Nomus held the consulship, that is, in the year 445. Theodoret congratulates both him and himself: himself, on account of the dignity obtained; him, on account of the benevolence, not only, but also the friendship, of such a great man.

Epistle 58, a congratulatory letter to Nomus the consul.

I. It has a manifest character: he congratulates Nomus on the consulship, ^A which he held in the year 445, as is established by the Fasti.

II. Theodoret mentions his meeting with Nomus, and the disease by which a certain most blessed man was extinguished. The meeting took place, I suppose, at Antioch; that most blessed man was the head of the see of Antioch, John.

III. Nomus was Master of Offices in the year 443, in which year Novel 31, "On illicit practices and land boundaries, etc.," is read to have been given by Theodosius to him. He was also one of the judges sent to the Council of Chalcedon, where he heard the complaints brought against him by Anastasius. Anastasius complained that Nomus, relying on his own power, immediately upon the death of Cyril, had harassed the kin of the same Dioscorus, and had even drained them of their wealth.

IV. It is prodigious to relate how much wealth such men collected, whether by Cyril's will or by some other art: for from the two men who were Cyril's heirs, Nomus extorted eight thousand pounds of gold; Dioscorus [extorted] from two women one hundred and twenty pounds of gold, to which aggregate add huge sums of money, part of the property at Artopolis, part at Oenopolis, handed over from the same inheritance by the Alexandrians, so that they might sell to the populace for more, though at no greater price.

V. Estimate from this, reader, how great was the power of the Alexandrian pontiffs, how great their wealth, when it was so profitable for a single family to have produced two [men who were] even most holy pontiffs, who held the Alexandrian see for nearly sixty years continuously.

Epistle 59, a salutation to Claudianus.

There is no mark of the year, nor any other of the person, than that Claudianus was an illustrious man and lived far away. I believe him to be the same as the one to whom epistle 41 is written, or even 99, in which he is inscribed as *antigrapharius* (keeper of copies/records), and thus to have existed at Constantinople, when he received letters from Theodoret per the *draconarius* Patroinus. The *draconarii* were indeed standard-bearers, who carried the standards of the cohorts, on which dragons were painted.

Epistle 60, a congratulatory letter to Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria.

I. It was sent not long after the time that Dioscorus succeeded Cyril in the Alexandrian see, and therefore in the year 444, in which Cyril departed to the heavens on the 28th of January or the 9th of June.

II. Theodoret praises his singular gentleness toward his subjects, and his modesty of character: partly because that was how things were—for the wicked man captured the minds of the citizens with these arts, so that he might later abuse their love to strengthen his own machinations—and partly because of his biased mind toward Cyril, who was truly a man of stricter discipline, and was accused of ambition by his calumniators.

Epistle 61, a salutation to Archibius the presbyter.

It is credible that this is of the same time as...

the preceding one: for it seems to be the same Eusebius the presbyter, whose mention as the bearer is made in both. 324 Wherefore one might deservedly think that Archibius was a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church.

*Epistle 62, a salutation to John the presbyter.* I. It was written some months after the two preceding: for mention is made in it of the return of Eusebius the presbyter: "But the most religious presbyter Eusebius, having recently returned from your fatherland." II. From this it is evident that John was a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church, and that he held Theodoret in great esteem, whom he had praised honorably in an assembly. III. Theodoret indeed sent the letter by the same Eusebius, who was setting out again for Egypt; and he asks through him, when he should return, that a reply be given. I do not know if my suspicion deceives me, that through so many goings and returnings Eusebius kept a diligent watch on what was happening in Alexandria; and reported back to the East to curious bishops, and above all to Theodoret, who was intent on all opportunities to carp at Cyril.

*Epistle 63, a Paschal letter.* It is a Paschal one, and written at the same time when he was being harassed, and at which Dioscorus was stirring up troubles; wherefore it pertains to the year 447, or thereabouts.

*Epistle 64, a Paschal letter.* This is also a Paschal one, but lacks any other note.

*Epistle 65, a letter of consolation to Zeno, Master of Soldiers.* I. Who Zeno was, may be gathered from the consular monuments: for he held the consulship with Posthumianus in the year 448. For the synod of Flavian against Eutyches was in the consulship of Zeno; after the consulship, the Robber Synod of Ephesus was arranged: there exists also Epistle 71 of Theodoret addressed to him while he was holding the consulship, concerning which [I shall speak] in its own place. II. At what time this was written is not yet clear to me: for it still lies hidden, or at least it is doubtful, who after all that brother of Zeno was, famous in the military, and noble by his splendid deeds, at whose death Theodoret consoles the Master of Soldiers: though it is lawful to suspect that this happened before the harassment.

*Epistle 66, an invitation to the dedication of the temple of the apostles, to Aerius the sophist.* Concerning Aerius the sophist, I have spoken at Epistle 30. I have not yet discovered in what year the temple erected by Theodoret to the apostles was completed.

*Epistle 67 and 68, to Maranas and Epiphanius, invitations to the same dedication.* I. It is likewise uncertain as to the time; Maranas is unknown, as is Epiphanius, unless it be said that the former contributed much to the construction of the temple, the latter was devoid of faith, and both were citizens of Cyrene. II. 325 Observe the ancient custom of inviting even the unbelievers themselves to Christian festivals, that they might be inflamed toward piety by the example of the faithful.

*Epistle 69, a letter of consolation to Eugraphia.* It has been spoken of at Epistle 8.

*Epistle 70, a letter of recommendation to Eustathius, bishop of Aegae.* It pertains to the year 443, or the following one: for it contains the history of Maria, a certain noble African maiden, who was sold by Vandals to merchants and served Cyrus; but—which is a marvel—was redeemed by soldiers, and instructed with suitable subsidies by Theodoret for ten months, and when she had learned that her father was holding a magistracy in the parts of the West, that she might depart to him, she was recommended to the bishop of Aegae, in which city of the second Cilicia markets were held, to which merchants from the West were wont to flow. Regarding Eustathius, nothing has been discovered to date.

*Epistle 71, a letter of congratulation to Zeno, Master of Soldiers and Consul.* It has an open character of its time: for Zeno held the consulship in the year 448. See the notes to Epistle 65.

*Epistle 72, a Paschal letter to Hermesigenes the assessor.* There is no index, neither of time nor of person, except that Hermesigenes held a magistracy in some neighboring city, such as Beroea or Antioch.

*Epistle 73, a salutation to Apollonius.* There is no note of time, and none very clear of the person, except that he was an *illustris* man, but not yet a Christian; which two things lead me to the conjecture concerning Apollonius, count of the sacred largesses, to whom Epistle 105 is addressed. Wherefore it seems [the letter] was omitted, on account of [his] infidelity, as Gothofredus observed, [or] due to an inscription of rank.

*Epistle 74, a Paschal letter to Urbanus.* It lacks any note whatsoever.

*Epistle 75, a familiar letter to the clerics of Beroea.* It was given to Theoctistus, who was not long before ordained bishop, and thus in the year 437 or 438. For he succeeded Acacius, who was ordained at the end of the year 378, or the beginning of the following one, as is evident from the history of the Antiochene council, from which Eusebius of Samosata, the ordainer of Acacius, received a commission, and at the same time a mandate to provide for the widowed Churches in the East; the Beroean Church was then widowed. Since therefore Acacius held the Beroean episcopate for fifty-eight years, as Theodoret relates in his *Philotheus*, chapter 2, he certainly died in the year 437 or 438, being over ninety, or even nearly a centenarian: for one could hardly believe he was ordained before his fortieth year, when he had practiced himself for a long time under Asterius, 326 and for the faith had transacted affairs of no small moment.

*Epistle 76, hortatory to Uranius, governor of Cyrrhus.* Whom he is exhorting to the faith, and when, is revealed by no index.

^A *Epistle 77 and 78, to Eulalius and Eusebius, bishops of Persian Armenia.*

I. That part of Greater Armenia which is nearer to Media, and which the Persians occupied under Valens and long retained, is called by the name of Persian Armenia.

II. When a persecution had been stirred up in Persia under king Isdegerd, as Theodoret relates, it spread into those more remote regions which had been snatched from the Roman empire. At this time, Theodoret warned the bishops, who were near to Euphratensis, of what was necessary to be done, so that they might not fall short of their duty, both in protecting their flocks and regarding those who had deserted the faith and those who were penitent.

III. He therefore exhorts the two to care for the flock during the time of persecution, and warns them that the sheep ought not to be abandoned in shameful flight; but that those who had fallen should be restored through suitable and merciful penance.

IV. It is difficult to define in what year Theodoret gave such salutary admonitions: for this persecution lasted for thirty years, namely from the year 420 to the year 450. However, Theodoret seems to have been an older man then; for he asks of Eulalius, as older men are accustomed to ask of friends, that it might be obtained from God by prayers that he might spend the remaining years of his life according to His precepts. If this is so, it seems that the epistle was written around the year 443, when Theodoret was nearly sixty years old, and was not yet suffering what later occurred at the hands of Theodosius: for, as affliction is a complaining thing, he would not have been silent about his own calamities, which he seemed to himself to be suffering for the faith, to those who were experiencing persecution for the Christian religion.

V. It is difficult to define the churches of which cities Eulalius and Eusebius had charge: furthermore, nothing better can be brought forward to persuade us of that which was being treated than what is contained in these letters.

*Epistle 79, supplicatory to Anatolius the patrician.*

I. This and the three following epistles contain the same argument; for they contain Theodoret’s complaint concerning the emperor’s mandate by which he had been ordered to remain within the borders of Cyrus.

II. Wherefore the indices of both years and persons are clear: of persons, because the names of each are noble; of years, because one is written to Nomus the consul, who, as is confessed by all, held the highest magistracy in the year 445.

III. But this epoch, just as it is the foundation of many others, is so to be established most firmly by epistle 81.

IV. Concerning Anatolius, it was spoken of at epistle 45.

V. Theodoret narrates the whole history of the imperial mandate sent to him diligently, and at the same time the things joined in 327 must be carefully observed: we spoke of the pertinent matters there in the *Vita*.

*Epistle 80, supplicatory to Eutrechius the prefect.*

Of the same argument and time as the preceding. Concerning Eutrechius, it was spoken of at epistle 57.

*Epistle 81, supplicatory, to Nomus the consul.*

I. Of equal argument and time as the previous two.

II. The greatest part of the chronology of Theodoret’s affairs depends upon the question concerning the words of the inscription, whether the reading of all the codices, which has "consul," should be retained; or if it should be corrected, as Baronius wishes; and Nomus should not be called consul, but *consularis*.

III. I think it should be retained, because nothing forbids it being retained; indeed, many things demand it: Baronius wishes it corrected, because he thinks that unless *consularis* is put for consul—*ὑπατικὸς* for *ὑπάτῳ*—the things Theodoret writes to Saint Leo towards the end of the year 449 would be false—namely, that when he gave the letters, he had spent twenty-seven years in the episcopate: for he would have spent twenty-nine, indeed nearly thirty, if, at the time he was giving these letters to Nomus, Nomus were both consul and he himself had already spent twenty-five years in the episcopate.

IV. But six demonstrations altogether work against Baronius. The first is *ad hominem*, as they say: for Baronius fights against himself. Since it is openly established that Theodoret gave this epistle when he was forbidden to depart from Cyrus; and since Baronius asserts that the prohibition was made in the year 443, at which time Nomus had not yet held the consulship, the epistle certainly could not be inscribed to a *consularis*, that is, to a man who had finished his consulship.

V. The second, again *ad hominem*. If the emperor’s order was made in the year 443, how did Theodoret in the year 444, after the death of Cyril, hold an assembly at Antioch, which Marius Mercator and the fifth synod report? For he obeyed the order religiously, and did not approach the city of Antioch after he received it, as he himself testifies.

VI. The third. At the same time and for the same cause, Theodoret addresses Nomus as consul and Eutrechius as prefect: but the prefecture of Eutrechius and the consulship of Nomus coincide in the same year: therefore either neither reading is to be corrected, or both are. But the latter cannot be corrected; the former must therefore be retained.

VII. The fourth. Theodoret gave three epistles to Nomus at different times: the first he inscribes to the master of the offices, the last to the patrician, the middle one to the consul; Nomus was therefore holding the consulship when he received the middle one, for when he received the other two individually, he was functioning in the magistracy inscribed.

VIII. The fifth. Theodoret named no one who had held the consulship a *consularis*, when he gave letters to many after the highest magistracy was held; but each by the name of his own dignity with which he was then distinguished: for he neither inscribed Anatolius, Antiochus, Ariobindus, Senator, Taurus, or Vincomalus, who had served the consulship, as consuls nor as *consulares*; but either as patricians, such as Anatolius, Ariobindus, Senator, and Taurus; or as prefects, like Antiochus; or as masters of the offices, like Vincomalus.

^A IX. Sixthly. The words of the following letter to Eusebius have deceived a most learned Cardinal: "It is intact for whoever has had the mind to unroll my ancient works, both those which I wrote before the Ephesian synod, and those which I wrote again after it, twelve years ago." For he has interpreted this as if Theodoret meant that the year in which he was writing was the twelfth year from the Ephesian synod; but who does not see that he is speaking of books which he had published twelve years before he sent the letter? But this question was discussed in chapter 2, when the time of the beginning of Theodoret's episcopate was being inquired into.

Epistle 82, a familiar one to Eusebius, bishop of Ancyra. ...yet it is to be explained [Greek: κατὰ μέρος], since there is nothing that contains more things pertaining to history: but first, a few things about Eusebius. II. Successor to Theodotus, whose famous name is in the Acts of the Ephesian council; in what year, is uncertain. He was present at the council of Flavian against Eutyches in the year 448, at the robber-council for Eutyches in 449, and at the Chalcedonian council in 451. He did not survive long: for in the letters of the synod of Galatia to the Emperor Leo, Anastasius, bishop of Ancyra, subscribes first. Eusebius must have been of a very fickle and inconstant mind, as one who condemned Eutyches at Constantinople, as was right; and absolved him at Ephesus in the robber-council, having condemned Flavian; and finally cursed him with anathemas at Chalcedon. But now let us go through the individual points of the letter. III. Theodoret complains first, in a friendly manner, that Eusebius had failed in his duty, who had not comforted with his letters one who had been afflicted and had suffered calumny. He writes, therefore, from his domestic exile. IV. He relates next that those had slandered him who at that time were reviving the heresy of Marcion, Valentinus, Manes, and the Docetae: he once objected this to Cyril, when he was arguing against the twelve chapters, which is to be observed. This same thing he later reproaches his adversaries with in the preface to the *Eranistes*, of whom, he says, [Greek: αἵρεσιν ἄντικρυς στηλιτεύομεν]. There is a wondrous emphasis in the words with which he indicates his dialogues: for he writes and brings to public view the heresy of his adversaries, openly and directly, as if on a pillar.

329 V. Then he explains the calumny, that he was said to divide Christ into two sons; he was indeed strictly said so because he had inveighed strongly against the defenders of one nature of the incarnate Word, both in his dialogues and in a sermon against the deceased Cyril. VI. Presently he narrates that a monitorium had been sent by the emperor to the [Greek: στρατηγῷ καὶ ὑπάτῳ], to Nomus, the master of the soldiers of the East and consul. Hence arises the opinion of a certain recent writer, wishing a monitorium to have been directed to Lupicinus, of which opinion more will be said regarding epistle 90. He adds that the monitorium did not contain an accusation of heresy, but an injunction for Cyrus not to leave his boundaries, because he was convening synods at Antioch, by which, of course, he was stirring up the minds of the bishops, so that they would not cross over to the parties of Cyril and John, and observe the laws of the established peace. VII. He adds also that he had complied willingly and immediately, and that the authors of the calumny, God avenging, were exposed, and their heresy made known: surely at that time the Armenian monks, who had first stirred up the strife, were detected to be Apollinarists; then at the same time Eutyches, the supporter of those monks, was brought into suspicion. VIII. He writes, however, that Alexandria was incited against him by ministers who were spreading among the common people that two sons were defended by Theodoret, although he abhors this impiety: indeed, Dioscorus had already been solicited by Eutyches to rage against Theodoret. See the following letter. IX. He says that he had imitated the Nicene Fathers, who, arguing against Arius, were many in dividing the natures in Christ. He has the same thing and in almost the same words in the second dialogue, which is called *Inconfusus*. X. He testifies afterward that this confession was not first issued by him, as if it had been extorted through force and fear; but that it had always been his consistent view, which anyone could understand from his own books, which he lists as having been edited long before. Books were discussed in chap. 3, but among the listed books he is silent about the *Reprehension of the Chapters*, and about the defense of Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. XI. Finally, he asks of Eusebius that he resist the slanderers, show the vanity of the calumny, entreat God for the desired peace of the Churches, and confirm his own purpose regarding the entering of contests for the faith with prayers. 330 Epistle 83, apologetic, to Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria. I. This, like the preceding one, is of great moment, since it has many historical notes. II. Who Dioscorus was, no one ignores: in what year Theodoret wrote to him, it is clearly evident from this. "For six," he says, "continuous years I taught under Theodotus of blessed and holy memory, bishop of the Antiochians; for thirteen years again under the blessed John; at [the present time] these... [alt-version omitted] XII. From these things many things of great moment are understood, but these two are of greater: the one, that the emperor's command regarding not leaving the boundaries of Cyrus was issued in the year 445; the other, that the dialogues were written before the year 445.

^A This is the seventh year of the most God-beloved archbishop, the lord Domnus." For since Theodotus died in the year 427, as Theodoret reports in his History, and it is necessary that John departed this life around the year 440, or at the beginning of the next, having held the see for thirteen years; and thus the seventh year of Domnus, who succeeded John, must fall in the year of Christ 447, at which time it must be admitted that the letter was given. From this clear demonstration it is evident that Albertinus has shamefuly lapsed, and drawn others into error, when he writes that the dialogues elaborated by Theodoret were written after the Council of Chalcedon, in the year 451; for they are mentioned in this letter.

III. But now each of his points must be called to examination. First, Theodoret consoles himself with the example of Joseph, who was once unjustly treated in Egypt and imprisoned on account of his having kept his marriage pure; then of David, who had been cast into exile like an impotent tyrant; then also of Christ, who was heard being called a deceiver. He was alluding, of course, to the three causes for which he was being harassed: that he had ordained Irenæus, who had married twice; that he dominated in the synods; and that he was said to seduce the people with his sermons.

IV. Next, he complains that he was condemned by Dioscorus without a hearing, when the charge brought against him was that he had divided Christ into two sons in a sermon at Antioch. This is the very sermon in which he spoke bitterly against the late St. Cyril, toward the end of the year 444. Hence the authenticity of the sermon is proven.

V. Afterwards, concerning his accusers, he says: "They are indeed three, or four, or fifteen; but I have many myriads of men as witnesses of the right doctrine." He adds with what applause and what approval he was accustomed to deliver his speech to the people of Antioch.

VI. Then he sets forth his faith concerning the one Son and the Virgin Theotokos, and confirms it with testimonies, partly from Scripture and partly from the Fathers: he mentions among the Fathers to be cited the Alexandrian prelates Alexander and Athanasius, even though both were defenders of the one incarnate nature of the Word: he also mentions Theophilus and Cyril, out of confidence of soul, as if he were thereby aiding his own cause primarily from the source where it was believed he would be overturned.

331 VII. He also shows his correspondence with Cyril, so as to silently clear away the charge of hostility toward Cyril. But he is silent about the fact that Cyril had complained to John of Antioch that he [Theodoret] was misusing his letters.

VIII. Finally, he concludes his faith with an anathema: "If anyone does not call the holy Virgin Theotokos, or calls our Lord Jesus Christ a mere man, or divides into two sons the one Only-begotten and firstborn of every creature: let him fall from the hope in Christ, and let all the people say: Amen, amen." But Nestorius himself used these same words without prejudice ^B of his own error, and at the same time complained that he was suffering slander, as if he held the opposite view.

IX. Whoever has been a little more attentively occupied with the affairs and books of Theodoret will, I think, desire his prudence; for indeed, writing to Dioscorus the Alexandrian bishop, and to one most zealous for Cyril’s predecessor, he praises his books, and wishes to appear a witness to his own attachment to the Alexandrians, in which he not only makes the Eranist not obscurely an Alexandrian, but even puts Cyril in the mask of that fictitious name, just as if one and the same opinion of Cyril had assumed a different form at different times: one, namely, before the anathemas were reproved; another, when the peace of the Churches was confirmed; another, reviving among the monks, both the Armenians and the Constantinopolitans.

Letter 84, encyclical to the bishops of Cilicia.

I. Written at the same time as the preceding, and with the same argument: for Theodoret proves in many ways the unity of the Son, and exhorts that those who divide Christ into two sons be coerced with ecclesiastical penalties; since the cause of the slander cast against the Orientals was said to have arisen from there, because it was reported that there were those in Cilicia who were erring in this error.

II. I have inscribed this [letter] as encyclical, since, as is evident from the following letter, it was sent to the bishops of both Cilicias, that is, to the primates of both provinces, the Tarsian of the first, the Anazarbean of the second, who were to transmit it as usual to the other, lower ones. Whence I believe that Theodoret wrote not in his own name, but in the name of the Antiochene or Euphratesian synod.

III. At that time, Theodorus held the see of Tarsus, and Cyrus that of Anazarbus, as is gathered from the three following synods held soon after.

IV. Furthermore, in this passage: "But there are those who say that they grasp the cause of the slander from a few certain individuals who feel this way among us;" the word of the first person seems to need changing into a word of the second person, and it should be written in the Greek text πὰρ’ ὑμῖν, not πὰρ’ ἡμῖν, in Latin "among you," not "among us": for the entire context demands this emendation.

332

Letter 85, apologetic to Bishop Basil.

I. It has a manifest indication of time: for it was written first after the apologetic letters were given by Theodoret to Dioscorus; second, after the bishop was sent by Dioscorus to Constantinople, to accuse Theodoret and other Orientals before the emperor; third, at the same time as the following letter, inscribed to Flavian; and after the encyclical letter to the primates of both Cilicias.

II. These are three indications of the beginning of the year 448: for Flavian succeeded Proclus toward the end of the year 447. Theodoret wrote his apologetic letters to Dioscorus in the year 447, already drawing to a close, and at that time Dioscorus...

had already sent an accuser of the bishop to the royal city.

III. There is almost no doubt that Basilius, to whom the letter is inscribed, was bishop of Seleucia and primate of Isauria: for he was both a neighbor of First Cilicia, and a man of great authority at that time, even at Court, and joined to Theodoret by friendship.

IV. He succeeded Dexianus, who had been present at the Council of Ephesus; in fact, he attended four councils: the Constantinopolitan of Flavian against Eutyches in the year 448, that of Dioscorus at Ephesus in 449, the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, and he wrote back to Emperor Leo from his own synod of Isauria in the year 458.

V. He was a mutable man, whether of faith or of speech: for he condemned Eutyches along with Flavian in the royal city, acquitted him along with Dioscorus at Ephesus, and execrated him along with the Church at Chalcedon, where he obtained pardon—after he had suppliantly requested it, pleading that force had been applied to him at Ephesus, even though Dioscorus was raising his prayers—and obtained it.

Epistle 86, a supplication to Flavian of Constantinople.

I. It pertains without doubt to the year 447. For it could neither have been written earlier nor later: not earlier, because Flavian succeeded Proclus, who died on October 24, 447; not later, since it preceded the synod held by Flavian against Eutyches on the eighth of November, 448. Add that it is of the same subject matter as the preceding one.

II. Concerning Flavian, it has been said before in [the section for] epistle 11.

III. The epistle contains a vehement complaint by Theodoret concerning Dioscorus, which, however, as anyone who has read it can see, differs not at all from the complaint made later before St. Leo. Everyone also understands from this that Leo was called upon as it were as a judge; Flavian, as a patron.

IV. Besides this complaint, there are things to be observed, 1. Mention of a presbyter sent by Theodoret to Alexandria; I believe it was Eusebius, through whom he announced to Dioscorus that he assented to the synodical [letters] of Cyril and John, which hitherto he had refused. Wherefore, here there is for the first time mention of Theodoret having turned to the right faith, or at least having awakened from his pristine obstinacy: although he had read the synodical letters—ever since the time peace was established, when they were sent—and had approved them in that part in which they contained the doctrine of the two natures; yet he had not subscribed, partly from love for Nestorius, partly from hatred of Cyril. Be sure, furthermore, not to understand by the name of synodical letters those which have anathemas subjoined, but those which begin with these words: "Let the heavens rejoice," etc.

2. How Dioscorus is said by Theodoret to have sinned, as one who exercised judgment over a man of another diocese: although, so that he might not incur the odium of a violated canon, he did not hold the form of a trial, but craftily introduced as accusers the Eastern monks, who, after a sermon on the faith by a presbyter, had been inhabited and exposed, as I think, by those of Athanasius and Cyril regarding the one nature of the Word incarnate, saying anathema to those who divided Christ into two sons, and specifically to Theodoret, as the most noble of all. Dioscorus did not repress the tumult of the people redoubling the anathema, but, receiving their sermon in the manner of a teacher, while standing, he even assisted with his own suffrage. "He bore with those who spoke anathemas against us, and rising and acclaiming, he confirmed their voices."

3. Under Proclus, it happened that the Antiochenes consented to the presidency of the Constantinopolitan prelate established by the second general council.

4. Hence the hatred of Dioscorus toward Theodoret was born: for he believed the Antiochenes were behind the decision to yield the primacy to the prelate of New Rome.

5. These words, "Dioscorus wrote to us," etc., are to be understood not as private letters, as if Dioscorus had given any to Theodoret, but as referring to the common ones sent to Domnus, of which Theodoret, writing to Dioscorus, makes mention. Those were directed to Domnus and to his synod; which was done as a matter of custom when business of this kind was being handled.

V. But in this place, the controversy which was had with Baronius in the Life of Theodoret, chapter 77, must be ended. He was to explain in his own sense the words of this epistle, which gave the illustrious writer the occasion of inventing the council of which we have spoken there. They are of the following kind: "Know, lord, that he (Dioscorus) bears this pusillanimity against us, from the time when, following the rules of the holy Fathers, we assented to your synodicals made under Proclus of blessed memory: and that he has rebuked us for this once and again, as if we had betrayed, as he says, the rights of both the Antiochenes and the Alexandrians."

But as to the synodicals made under Proclus at Constantinople, which Theodoret mentions and which were approved by the Antiochenes, I believe they are none other than those which were drawn up in the cause of Athanasius, bishop of Perrha, in a council from which Proclus wrote to Domnus concerning that matter. For the letters of Proclus are cited in the Council of Chalcedon by this title: "Copy of the synodical letter. To the most holy and most beloved of God, and fellow-minister Domnus, Proclus, in Christ greeting."

A question can, however, arise, why, if the matter happened as we have said, Theodoret wrote that the Antiochenes had offered assent to Proclus's synodicals, "following the canons of the holy fathers": why Dioscorus should have made the same Antiochenes guilty of betrayal of his and of the Alexandrian Church; and in what grade Dioscorus was constituted at that time.

But to start from the last point, Dioscorus, when he was accusing the Antiochenes of the crime of betrayal, had recently succeeded to the place of Cyril, who had died on the 28th of January, in the year 444. He accused them, in fact, because they had received the synodicals of Pro-

- clodius, and had been admonished by his letters; he recognized the case of Athanasius of Perrha as having been adjudged, by which act he appeared able to concede the primacy to Proclus; for just as it pertains to friends to give advice regarding duty in private letters, so it pertains to synodicals ^A regarding a superior. Indeed, since the Alexandrian see was the second after the Roman, and the Antiochene third after the Alexandrian—and that has been preserved since the earliest times of the Church—if the Constantinopolitan see, recently established, holds the second place, and its right is acknowledged in this regard, it is necessary for each of the other patriarchal sees to be demoted.

*Epistola 87, a familiar letter to Domnus, bishop of Apamea.* I. Of the same time and also argument. II. Domnus held the primacy in the second Syria, the metropolis of which is Apamea: he was present at the Council of Chalcedon, and was joined in singular friendship with Theodoret. III. In the letter, there is mention of the Osrhoenian clerics who presented libels against Ibas, and are said to have disturbed the peace of the Church, and against Theodoret himself, the singular friend of Ibas, and other bishops of the East, to have poured forth many things. IV. Regarding the cause of such clerics, see the acts of the 10th session of the Council of Chalcedon, in whose Acts the two judgments are inserted, which were executed concerning the clerics accusing Ibas at Tyre and Berytus.

*Epistola 88, a letter of intercession to Taurus the patrician.* I. ...are of the same argument and of one time, and are directed to one royal city, toward which, evidently, the bishops delegated from the East were proceeding. II. Those bishops were indeed sent so that they might oppose the maneuverings of Dioscorus as legates, and might refute the accusation against the Orientals, and especially against Theodoret himself, regarding Christ divided into two sons. III. There are, however, twenty-two letters written by Theodoret at the end of the year 447 to thirteen high officials, three bishops, two presbyters, two stewards of equal standing, and as many deaconesses. IV. They were written, I say, in the year 447; for they could not have been written later, since the legates had departed from Antioch 335 in the bitter winter, and yet the case of Ibas with his Tyrians had not yet been agitated, which was first settled at Tyre in the month of February in the year 448. V. Now Taurus, as he is in the prosopography of the Theodosian Code formulated by Gothofredus, was count of the private estates ^B in the year 416, consul in 428, praetorian prefect and patrician in 434. To him exists the letter of Isidore of Pelusium, book 3, epistle... [regarding] the consuls, that is, in the year 449. He was urban prefect of Constantinople in the year 422; praetorian prefect in the year 428; consul in the year 429; praetorian prefect again in 436, and in 439, and in 440; investigator in the case of Eutyches in the year 448; judge at the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451. There is to him one letter of Isidore of Pelusium, book 1, epistle 416. He was not moderately learned in ecclesiastical matters.

*Epistola 90, a letter of intercession to Lupicinus the master.* I. Concerning Lupicinus I have observed nothing at all, except that he was master of the soldiers, illustrious in religion, and of virtue known to all. II. He who wrote recently that a sanction had been given to him, by which Theodoret was ordered to keep away from Cyrus; he had not read, I think, the Greek inscription of this letter, and one word of epistle 82; for when in the Latin version of both places he saw the title of "master" used, he believed it to be the same meaning. But in epistle 82, it is *stratêgô*, which signifies *magistrum militum*; in this one, *magistrô*, which is proper to the masters of the offices.

III. This, however, is to be noted, which Theodoret reports, that he had already entered upon the limit of old age: a limit, surely, not by which it is ended, but from which old age begins; but this is variable: for the minimum is the eighth septenary, that is, the 56th year of age; the maximum is the ninth septenary, which is the 63rd year of age; the medium is about the 60th year. Which of the three did Theodoret determine? If the minimum, his birth is to be said to have happened in the year 391; if the maximum, in 384; if the medium, in 386, inasmuch as this letter was given in the year 447. I think the medium: for it agrees ^C more with the other circumstances of his life.

*Epistola 91, a letter of intercession to Eutrechius the prefect.* To him there were already two letters, 57 and 80. From all things it is clear that Eutrechius was a singular friend and patron of Theodoret.

*Epistola 92, a letter of intercession to Anatolius the patrician.* Regarding Anatolius, it was said at epistle 45. But here he is praised briefly, indeed, but excellently; 336 for "to whom the Lord of all has granted both a sincere faith, and a zeal burning for it, and a mind adorned with prudence, and moreover, an ability obeying good counsels."

*Epistola 93, a letter of intercession to Senator the patrician.* To him was given epistle 44, regarding which the things that occurred have been observed.

*Epistola 94, a letter of intercession to Protogenes the prefect.* He was praetorian prefect in the year 447; consul in 449; patrician in 450; one of the judges of the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451.

*Epistola 95, a letter of intercession to Antiochus the prefect.* I. This [is] regarding Antiochus, praised once and again in the prosopography. He was under Theodosius the Younger, prae^D...

praetorian prefect in the year 427, 430, and 431; consul with Bassus in the year 431. He contributed much to the edition of the Theodosian Code, as Theodosius himself declares at the end of novel 1.

II. There are those who think that the [reference is to] Theodosius's novel 33, which was published in the year 444, and that Antiochus had finished his life before the year 444. They think this because of these words: "If any invocation occurred after the administration of the illustrious memory of Antiochus;" and these: "We know that this sufficed, which Antiochus of illustrious memory indicated as being relieved before him."

III. However, the authority of Theodoret, writing in the year 447, stands in the way. Marcellinus also stands in the way in his *Chronicle*, where, at the consulship of Zeno and Postumian, which is the year 448, Antiochus the praetorian prefect is said to have rebuilt towers and gates that had been consumed by fire.

IV. Suidas relates that he was a eunuch; that he favored Nestorius is gathered from the fact that he brought his sermons and letters to Pope Celestine.

*Epistola 96, a letter of intercession to Nomus the patrician.* Regarding Nomus, it has been spoken of at letters 58 and 81, in which Theodoret complains that he had not been answered: "For having written already twice, and even three times, I think, I have not received a reply."

*Epistola 97, a letter of intercession to Sporacius the count.* He held the consulship in the year 452, having been present the year before among the judges at the Council of Chalcedon. At his exhortation, Theodoret wrote the book *Against the Heresies*. See what we have observed regarding the supposititious letter.

*Epistola 98, a letter of intercession to Pancharius.* It is certain that he was among the illustrious and that he fulfilled an important office; but who he was otherwise, I do not know.

*Epistola, a letter of intercession to Claudianus the antigrapheus.* Three things are certain regarding Claudianus. 1. That he frequently heard Theodoret when he was speaking to the people of Antioch. 2. That when he received letters from Theodoret, he was among the catechumens. 3. [He was among] the illustrious: whence he is addressed by Theodoret by the name of Magnificence. Indeed, he was an *antigrapheus* among the Greeks, whom the French call *Contrôleur général des finances*. There are other letters to him, in my opinion, letters 41 and 50.

*Epistola 100, to Alexandra the deaconess.* I. This is Alexandra, whom Theodoret comforted in letter 14, and who, according to the custom of the most noble widows, was ordained into the office of deaconess by Proclus, just as Olympias was previously by Chrysostom. II. These were Theodoret's intentions, as he himself indicates, to defend her and had announced this in his letters: he commends bishops to her to be helped by her goods and care.

*Epistola 101, to Celerina the deaconess.* I. Theodoret thought it right to make use of the power of this woman as well, who was, without doubt, noble. For it is wonderful how much this whole order of deaconesses flourished in both dignity and authority, so that Theodosius wanted to place his own sister, Pulcheria Augusta, into it, so that, with worldly cares interdicted, she might be entirely free for ecclesiastical and divine matters. II. Two things are to be observed. 1. That Celerina was studious of Theodoret's works: for how otherwise would she have known what his mind was, unless she was either from Antioch or had stayed a long time in Antioch? 2. That [he tells her] the bishops gave themselves to the journey, the bitterness of winter being disregarded, and so [they arrived] toward the end of the year 447.

*Epistola 102, an expostulation to Basil the bishop.* Understand [this to be] the bishop of Seleucia, the primate of Isauria, to whom letter 85 is addressed. See what has been observed regarding Basil in that place. He was frequent in the royal city and served the times: which was the reason why Theodoret complained that he was deserted by him, in this inclination of affairs.

*Epistola 103, a letter of recommendation to Apollonius the count.* I. Apollonius was count of the sacred largesses in the year 436, as is evident from the last law *De murilegulis*, given at Constantinople. II. Letter 73 was written to him, which is worth the effort to re-examine. A friendship existed between him and Theodoret, whether caused and fostered by letters or by meeting.

*Epistola 104, a letter of intercession to Flavianus, bishop of Constantinople.* I. Regarding Flavianus, it was spoken of once in letter 11, and a second time in letter 86. II. Now three things are to be observed. 1. That this letter, sent through the bishops as legates, is of the same subject matter as the eighty-sixth, except that the dogma concerning the one Son is explained more prolixly. 2. That, when the heretics who thought concerning Christ otherwise than they ought are listed, the name of Nestorius is not mentioned. 3. That what is said about the different manner in which the debate concerning the incarnation must be held against different heretics is contained in almost as many words in the dialogue which is called *Inconfusus*.

*Epistola 105, a letter of exhortation to Eulogius the oeconomus.* It is of the same subject matter as the twenty preceding letters. No learned man is unaware of how great the power of the oeconomi was in the Church of Constantinople: and with what zeal for piety he was inflamed, and what struggles Eulogius consequently sustained from many defenders of the "one nature," Theodoret relates; he relates likewise that he was well instructed, either by reading books, which I believe more, or by sermons, as to what Theodoret's mind was concerning the questions fervent at that time, concerning the one nature of the incarnate Word, concerning God having suffered, etc. Wherefore he exhorted...

^A to his defense and the relief of the bishops.

*Epistle 106, a letter of recommendation to Abraham the oeconomus.* Of exactly the same argument as the preceding.

*Epistle 107, a letter of exhortation to Theodotus the presbyter.* It appears that this Theodotus also was a member of note among the presbyters of the Church of Constantinople, and that he openly and at his own peril defended the cause of Theodoret against the champions of the "one nature." Of which church or title he was a presbyter, I do not know.

*Epistle 108, a letter of exhortation to Acacius the presbyter.* This Acacius, the curator of orphans, was also in the parts of Theodoret, and openly and constantly defended them. Theodoret exhorts him to persevere; and further, it is to be understood, to communicate his counsels with the bishops.

*Epistle 109, a letter of recommendation to Eusebius, bishop of Ancyra.* I. There was to the same man an Epistle 82, regarding which we have noted what seemed necessary concerning Eusebius: now we speak of the epistle which was sent with the remaining preceding ones. II. In it, Theodoret first consoles himself with the fact that he follows in the footsteps of the saints who have suffered calumny. Next, he expounds his faith regarding the one Son. Afterwards, he speaks of a writing in which he had comprised the testimonies of the Fathers in his favor; and he asks for a response from Eusebius regarding what he thought of it. Finally, he recommends the bishops who are to pass through Ancyra, and mentions that they are making the journey in winter. For since the sea was tempestuous and unsafe at the time of winter, they had to travel by land; and in order to complete this as quickly as possible, they were to pass through Ancyra of Galatia, and from there travel by the Sangarius river into Bithynia, thence crossing at Chalcedon to Constantinople. He mentions the harshness of the winter, since they were to travel through the regions near Mount Taurus and the Antitaurus. III. Regarding the writing he mentions, I suspect it to have been taken from the second dialogue; nor does the collection of testimonies, which was added later to the epistle of Saint Leo, differ from it.

*Epistle 110, to Domnus, bishop of Antioch.* I. It is certain that it concerns the time: for in it there is mention of the deceased Proclus, who passed to the heavens at Constantinople in the year 447, on the 24th of October. II. Mention is also made of the deposition of Irenæus, which was then either rumored among the populace as something that would happen, or had already been decreed by the order of the emperor; but in reality it was later published by the edict of the prefects in the churches of the monks in Palestine in the year 448, on the 18th of April, which was New Sunday (Νέα κυριακή). III. Theodoret complains that snares were being laid for him, because the emperor ordered Irenæus to be deposed without, however, commanding that an ordination of another be made: for from this ^A it was to come to pass that he would be held guilty of some unjust ordination, whether he approved or disapproved of the deposition of Irenæus. For if he disapproved because of the reasons brought forth by the emperor, why did he ordain Irenæus? Why does he praise him for his faith and other virtues? If he approved, why does he not ordain a successor to Irenæus? IV. He further confirms that digamy was not an impediment, first by the example of Alexander of Antioch, who ordained Diogenes, and Praylius of Jerusalem, who ordained Domninus, both of whom had been digamists; then by the agreement of Proclus and the bishops of the Pontic diocese and of Palestine, who had approved the ordination of Irenæus. V. It might seem strange that Theodoret, a bishop of a small and remote city, should have ordained the bishop of the Church of Tyre, the metropolis of the first Phoenicia: for what was the cause of the act? Why, with so many antistites of the surrounding provinces, of both Syrias and Phoenicia Libanitis, did he dare to do this? Was he swayed solely by the prayers of the Phoenicians? Why then was he so solicitously anxious about appointing a successor to the deposed bishop? Was it by the command and vicarious power of the patriarch Domnus? Why is he silent about this? Why does he not repel the crime of having performed the ordination with this defense?

*Epistle 111, an apology to Anatolius the patrician.* I. When Anatolius received the epistle, which is number 92, answering it, he taught Theodoret how great an uproar the complaint of the ^C clergy of Osrhoene had stirred up against him in Constantinople, and how great a danger was hanging over him unless he were removed; Theodoret defends himself with excellent arguments, and nevertheless testifies that he is prepared to suffer anything, whether that be exile or even death. II. The epistle was given after the reception of Anatolius's response to the former letter: ^D Anatolius did not respond until he had received the earlier epistle from the bishops who had arrived in Constantinople: they could not arrive before the end of the year 447, or even the beginning of the following; for they had departed from Antioch in the harsh winter. This later epistle, therefore, was given after the Paschal feast, about the end of April of the year 448.

*Epistle 112, to Domnus, bishop of Antioch.* I. The note of time is most certain: for in it mention is made of a royal summons to the second synod of Ephesus; and counsel is given by Theodoret to Domnus regarding matters to be transacted in the synod, and the selection of the metropolitans to take with him. II. It was given, therefore, after the summons had arrived in Antioch, and before Domnus set out for Ephesus. Since, therefore, the summons is signed in the consulship of Protogenes and Asterius on the 3rd of the Kalends of April, and the gathering of the Fathers was set for the Kalends of August, and Antioch is more than thirty days' journey from Ephesus, and Domnus had not yet chosen the metropolitans he was to take with him; it is necessary that...

Theodoret should have written to Domnus in the month of May of the year 449.

III. From this we learn: 1. That the most important cause for the convocation of the synod was the *μικροψυχία* (pusillanimity) of Theodosius, who was angry with Flavian; for the plan to convene the synod hung in the balance until the reconciliation between the bishop and the emperor was attempted. 2. That Theodoret foresaw the evils which the synod would bring upon his time, and upon the affections of men, when compared with the Nicene [synod], which is a point to be diligently observed, so that the scope of ecclesiastical history may be attained. 3. What opinion he himself still held regarding the chapters of Cyril, to confirm which the synod seemed to him to be summoned; since he thought it was the same thing for Eutyches to be absolved and for [Cyril’s] chapters to be ratified. 4. What the Orientals did before the first Ephesian synod, what they did in the synod itself, and what they did afterwards, when peace was being established among the Churches, on the occasion of the chapters. 5. To which bishops of the West the Orientals wrote for this reason from the city of Ephesus. 6. The disagreement concerning dogmas, with some standing for Cyril, and others against him. ^B

IV. Theodoret warns Domnus that he should make a selection both of bishops and of clerics of the same mind, whom he should take with him: "Lest," he says, "betrayed by our own people, we be forced to do something that displeases God, or, being left alone, we easily be taken by our enemies."

Epistle 113, Appellatory to Pope Leo of Rome.

I. This famous epistle was without doubt written in the year 449, in the month of October or thereabouts, when, having received news of his deposition, which took place at Ephesus on the eleventh of August, he appealed to the apostolic see and sent to Rome two chorepiscopi and the exarch of the monks, who were to pursue the appeal.

II. I said an "appellatory" letter: for what else do these words signify? "I pray and beseech your holiness that you would bring aid to me if I invoke your right and just tribunal, and command me to come to you, etc."

III. Indeed, Theodoret's words concerning various matters worthy of being known should be noted.

1. On the apostolic see: "It is fitting for you to hold the first place in all things, etc."

2. From the epistle of Leo to Flavian: "He declared at the same time the eternal divinity of the Only-Begotten from the eternal Father, and His humanity from the seed of Abraham and David, and that a nature like ours in all things was assumed by Him, different in this one respect, that it remained free of sin, as it is born not of nature, but of free will, etc."

* who begot Him, the Father, and the Holy Spirit; therefore He assumed a passible nature, because the divine nature did not receive passion, so that through the passion of His own flesh He might bestow impassibility upon those who believe in Him.

4. On Flavian: "The bishop of the Alexandrians was by no means content with this unrighteous and most unjust deposition of the most holy and most dear-to-God bishop of the Constantinopolitans, the lord Flavian; nor did the slaughter of other bishops satisfy his soul." From this, indeed, it is understood that Flavian was not killed in the council; nor, when Theodoret was writing of his death, which occurred either on the road to the place of exile or at the place of exile, had it yet been learned in the East.

5. On the churches subject to him: "I have been allotted the pastoral care of eight hundred churches; for Cyrus has so many parishes."

6. On the anathema against himself from Alexandria: "In the previous year, when two men infected with the disease of Apollinaris had traveled there and wove calumnies against us, he rose up in the church and struck us with an anathema, and this even though I had written to him and had set forth through letters what I felt." From this point we know the anathema was pronounced in the year 448; the letters, ^C of which there is mention, were dated at the end of the year 447; the accusers set out for Alexandria in that same year, 447.

7. On his age: "But do not, I beseech you, reject my pleas, nor despise my wretched gray hairs, handled contumeliously after many labors." Since he was at that time a sexagenarian, or even a little older, seeing that he was born in the year of Christ 386.

IV. There are many other things worthy of note, such as: the praises of Rome and the apostolic see and of Leo; his labors in tending the flock; his sermons delivered at Antioch; the books written by him; his way of life and conduct; the years of his episcopate; all of which have been discussed by us elsewhere.

Epistle 114, Commendatory to Andiberis.

I. Theodoret writes this when, after his deposition, he was thinking of departing from his own city.

II. Andiberis must have been a man of distinction, since Theodoret addresses him with the title of magnificence.

III. It is to be observed that in that age the practice of medicine was not forbidden to priests: for Peter the priest, who had long practiced this art at Cyrus, is recommended to Andiberis as one who would be useful in another city; for he intended to abandon Cyrus because of his longing for Theodoret. ^D

IV. This and the following [epistle] were inserted rashly into this place; for it ought to have been placed after the one hundred and eighteenth [epistle], which is addressed to the archdeacon of Rome; since the 113th, 116th, 117th, and 118th are of the same subject matter, and...

are all sent to Rome, to Leo, to Renatus, ^A to the Roman synod, and to the archdeacon of Rome.

*Epistle 115, a letter of recommendation to Apellas.* At the same time, concerning the same subject: here also Apellas is addressed by the title of magnificence.

*Epistle 116, a letter of recommendation for the presbyter Renatus.* I. Sent with letters to Saint Leo. II. Renatus the presbyter was one of the legates sent by Leo to the Ephesine synod, according to ep. 10: "For the pious and faithful discharge of every matter, [I have sent] our brothers Julius the bishop and Renatus the presbyter of the titular church of Saint Clement, but also my son Hilarius the deacon." III. These words must be observed: "Your piety has indeed done this, when you had witnessed [such] a unique slaughter. But if you had perhaps imitated that Phinehas regarding the others also, which have been committed since your departure..." From this it seems possible to conclude either that the legates of the apostolic see did not attend the synod after the deposition of Flavian, or that by Theodoret, whether because he was deceived by messengers or because of a lapse of memory, Renatus the presbyter is confused with Hilarius, who fled for his life. ^B IV. Observe likewise these [words]: "For which reason I beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed archbishop to use his apostolic authority and to order that he fly to your council: for that most holy see possesses, for many reasons, the primacy over the Churches which are in the whole world, ^C and above all this, that it has remained immune from heretical filth, nor has anyone holding contrary views ever sat therein, but it has preserved the apostolic grace intact. Regarding those things which shall have been judged by you, in them, whatever they may be, relying upon the equity of your judgment, we shall acquiesce, and we ask that the decision be established from [your] writings." They prove indeed openly that not only was the patronage of Leo implored, but that the tribunal of the apostolic see was appealed to by Theodoret. V. It must be observed thirdly, that Theodoret was not sufficiently informed about the affairs of the legates; for he writes to Renatus as if he had attended the robber-synod and had from there returned to Rome, when, however, it is stated by Felix (in the Acts concerning the name of Acacius, or the Breviary of the Eutychian heresy) that he died on the island of Delos on the way to the Ephesine council. For thus it is read: "There were present also vicars sent by the apostolic see, Julius bishop of Puteoli, and Hilarius the archdeacon, because Renatus the presbyter had been overtaken by death on the island of Delos, etc." Whom Felix calls Julius, the Acts of the robber-synod name Julianus: for there, after the president Dioscorus, immediately the legate of the apostolic see is considered to be Julianus the bishop; and since he is so considered, Quesnel imagines [him to be] the Coan [bishop], whom he fancies [was joined] to Julius on the journey to the council, having appointed him as a substitute for the deceased. But I fear that he can persuade no one who is not very ignorant of such matters to believe this: for there are many of Julian of Cos's letters to Leo, and many of Leo's to the Coan; yet there is no mention in any of them of a presence exhibited at the synod. Furthermore, if Julian died before the synod was begun, and Julian of Cos were appointed in his place, how is it that no mention of the substitution was made in the Acts, when all of Julian's letters to the emperor, to the Augusta and the synod, and to others expressly remembered it, and the document ought to be produced as most authentic, if at any time anyone ought to preside over a synod by the right of a mere vicar before the bishops of the greatest sees? I confess, indeed, that the history of Julius is most involved. For what was done concerning him after the Ephesine robbery, no one, so far as I know, reports, nor does anyone [report] what he did at Ephesus. But that Renatus died on the island of Delos while he was seeking Ephesus, beyond what Felix writes, is demonstrated in my judgment invincibly, because his name is not counted in the Ephesine Acts, where there is no silence concerning Hilarius the deacon and Dulcitius the notary. ^D Finally, the review of the books, of which we treated in chapter 2, should be observed. [F]

*Epistle 117, a deprecatory letter to Bishop Florentius, or rather to the Roman clergy or council.* I. The time is known when it was given: for the legates sent by Theodoret to Rome brought this; it is unknown to whom it was written. In the common codices and in our manuscript it is inscribed: to Bishop Florentius; but the epistle itself argues against the title. II. At the time of Florentius there were two remarkably famous men; one was the bishop of Sardis, the other a patrician distinguished for his learning. Perhaps someone might conjecture it was written to the bishop of Sardis: for the inscription of the epistle says "bishop," and the words of Theodoret signify that he to whom it is written presided over a certain great city and was famous for the holiness of his manners and his learning; for they stand thus: "The human race is not in every part forsaken by the grace of God and our Savior, but He has left for us a seed, your holiness, so that we may not become as Sodom, and that we may not be like Gomorrah. This does not allow us to fail utterly in spirit, but bids us await the end of the troublesome storm. This raises us to good hope: for which reason we have sent also the most religious presbyters Hypatius and Abramius the chorepiscopi, and Alypius the exarch of the monks among us, to your holiness, that you may repel the calamity which has occupied the Churches of the East." And afterward: "It further befits your holiness not to despise those who hold the same views as we do and have been cast out by injustice; but to repress the injustice with just assistance, and to teach those who obstinately attack the truth that they cannot carry out all things, those who licentiously dare to attempt whatever they wish."

SCHULTZ'S NOTES

III. The bishop of Sardis was indeed the primate of Lydia and of great authority; there was also Florentius the patrician, noble in doctrine and integrity of character, of whom mention has been made before. IV. But I see no way that the words of the epistle can apply to a bishop who absolved the heresiarch Eutyches and condemned the holy Flavian in the robber council, and who requested that so great a sin be forgiven him at Chalcedon, as Florentius did. V. ^B But if anyone thinks that the name of bishop should be deleted from the inscription, and the writing ascribed to Florentius the patrician, who was the most powerful, learned, and upright man of his age, the conjecture will possess more probability and congruity with the words of Theodoret. However, it stands in the way that the one to whom it is written is addressed by the name of "holiness," and is not obscurely hinted at as being situated in the West. But the former does not fit a secular man, nor the latter a patrician having his seat in Constantinople. If one may offer an opinion in a matter so obscure, I am of the opinion that an error has crept into the title, and that the whole epistle was directed either to the Roman clergy—which I would less affirm—or to the bishops of the Roman or Western synod, which seems more probable. ^C VI. Six points lead me to this opinion. 1. Theodoret often uses the plural number, being accustomed to address any individuals, even the supreme pontiff and the Augusta Pulcheria, by a singular name. What the interpreter set down, *your holiness*, does not agree with the Greek, *ὑμετέραν ἁγιωσύνην*, just as what he said, "most holy man," does not match; for in Greek it reads *ἁγιώτατοι*. 2. That the many to whom it is written would be of the Western parts; for he contrasts them with the Orientals. 3. That those Westerners were also many bishops; besides the fact that the title indicates this, the expression *your holiness*, used for the third time, demonstrates it further. 4. That these bishops had not defected from the faith, while the Churches of the East suffered a common calamity, and thus there was hope from that quarter for the restoration of the situation: "God in His grace has left us a remnant, your holiness, so that we do not become as Sodom," etc. 5. That they were of such authority ^D "as to be able to banish the calamity of the Eastern Churches, to proscribe the heresy that had arisen, to openly refute those who dared to adulterate the doctrine of the incarnation, to undertake the patronage and defense of those who are vexed for the sake of piety, not to despise those cast out by injury, but by just aid to repress the injury, and to teach those who stubbornly assault the truth that they cannot accomplish everything, they who licentiously try to undertake anything." 6. That ambassadors were sent to them: "We have sent to your holiness the most religious presbyters Hypatius and Abramius, chorepiscopi, and Alypius, the exarch of the monks among us."

VII. Unless these six points demonstrate the Western synod, I do not see what others could do so more clearly. Add that it is clear from epistle 116 that Theodoret had desired his cause to be heard in a Western council: "Let your holiness persuade the most holy archbishop to use his apostolic authority and order [him] to fly to your council." He had hoped to obtain this same thing through the prayers of Anatolius from the emperor (epist. 119): "I beseech your greatness to ask this favor of the victorious Augustus, that I may come to the West, and there be judged by the bishops, who are most dear and holy to God." VIII. But if these things be as they are beyond doubt, they bring light to obscure questions in history, such as concerning the appeal of Theodoret to the supreme pontiff and his synod, concerning the mode of the appeal, concerning the judgments of the supreme pontiffs of that time, etc.

*Epistle 118, to the archdeacon of Rome.* I. Of the same time and subject as 116. For he complains of the injury done to him at Ephesus, and asks that his cause and that of the Churches be promoted before the supreme pontiff. II. But who is that archdeacon? Hilarus, or another? What is said certainly does not fit Hilarus very well. Yet it could have happened, as is usual in sudden cases, that Theodoret, when he was writing, was not yet sufficiently instructed about the things done by Hilarus at Ephesus—since he attributes to Renatus what are Hilarus's—and yet he knew before how great an authority Hilarus possessed at Rome, both on account of the dignity of the archdeacon, whose duty it was to conduct causes, and on account of the excellence of the man, who was deservedly chosen later as Leo's successor; hence he offered his prayers to him.

*Epistle 119, a petition to Anatolius the patrician.* I. At the same time, when he had not yet departed from Cyrus, but was believed to be about to be cast out. "I have been driven to write these things now, because I have learned that some are plotting for me to be ordered to leave here." II. He complains that he was deposed against law and right, and begs lamentably that the emperor grant him one of two alternatives, either to go to the judgment of the holy Leo: "I beseech your greatness, ask this favor of the victorious Augustus, that I may come to the West, and there be judged by the bishops most dear and holy to God: and if I appear to deviate even in the least from the rule of faith, may I be cast into the depths of the sea!" Or to secede to a monastery: "But if he will not yield to these prayers of yours, may he at least order me to live in our monastery, which is indeed one hundred and twenty miles distant from the Cyrrhestica, and seventy-five from Antioch; but it is three miles distant from the city of Apamea." III. It is to be observed that he says "of his monastery," of which he describes the location: for from this it is clear, in the mona-

he first exercised himself while his parents were alive: but that when they died, he came to Apamea, but was recalled to the former place, when he was chosen by Bishop Alexander for the clergy of Antioch.

*Epistola 120, consolatory to Lupicinus.* I. At the same time and for the same occasion. II. We have corrected the spelling, which commonly has Lupicius, for it is clear from the adjuncts that the person to whom it is written is none other than the one to whom epistle 90 was sent; which see, so that you may be informed about Lupicinus. III. It is to be noted, however, that Lupicinus is called the prince of the studious of piety, that is, of the followers of Theodoret.

*Epistola 121, to Anatolius the patrician.* I. It was sent a little after epistle 119, when he had already received the copy, or of the Acts of the Ephesians, or at least of the letters which Saint Leo had written either to Flavian or to the bishops gathered at Ephesus. Having congratulated himself on the consensus of doctrine with Saint Leo, whom he calls the greatest beacon of the whole world, he could not contain himself from composing an apology for himself to this most powerful friend, and one superior to every accusation, if only the letter of the supreme pontiff is compared with those things which Anatolius himself had heard while Theodoret was giving his discourses. II. A most full profession of orthodoxy is to be observed: "What we have received from the holy and blessed prophets and apostles, and from those who after them preached the Gospel, and what has been handed down by the holy Fathers gathered at Nicaea, the same we have obtained in these letters, in which we profess that we also persist, and those who think differently from these, we condemn for impiety." III. But the silence regarding the ecumenical synod of Ephesus, in which Nestorius and also Theodore were condemned in their own symbol, is also to be noted.

*Epistola 122 and 123, familiar to Uranius, bishop of Emesa.* I. He writes from the refuge to which he had withdrawn when driven from Cyrus: wherefore the former epistle seems to have been sent about the end of the year 449, the latter at the beginning of the following one. II. These words of the latter are to be noted: "This indeed, my lord, you must know: that I have not accepted the eulogies sent to me by other bishops beloved of God—not that I would despise those who sent them, God forbid!—but because I was meanwhile taking necessary sustenance from Him who supplies this even to the ravens in abundance. But toward your piety I have done no such thing: for in truth, the ardor of charity—that which had been my long-standing purpose—conquered." From these it is clear that Theodoret was either stripped of his goods when he was expelled from Cyrus or, having completely spurned everything, took himself to the monastery.

^A III. Furthermore, Uranius, bishop of Emesa in Phoenicia Libanensis under the metropolitan of Damascus, was present at both judgments of Ibas: namely at Tyre, in the month of February, and at Berytus, in the month of September in the year 448. He was also present at the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451, and he subscribed to the synodical letter to the emperor Leo in the year 458.

*Epistola 124, familiar to Maranas the scholastic.* It is written from the place to which he had fled, having been expelled from Cyrus, and where he was enjoying the company of angry adversaries, far from tumults. Of Maranas, mention was made at epistle 67.

*Epistola 125, dogmatic to the magistrates governing Zeugma.* I. Theodoret wrote from the same place, and this is clear from the fact that, in order to write, he was asked by an archimandrite who had come to him from Zeugma on a long journey: the journey would not have been very long if he were then stationed at Cyrus; but it was, if he was near Apamea. In either case, it is necessary that he was settled. II. Furthermore, the exact exposition of the dogma concerning the incarnation is to be noted, except that he is silent about the *union according to hypostasis*, or *physical*.

*Epistola 126, rebuking Sabinianus the bishop.* I. This was also sent from the same place in the year 450. II. When Sabinianus had lost the see of the Perrhesian Church at the Ephesian synod of Dioscorus, he had attempted to redeem it, having made some base prayer or economy. Theodoret argues against him as he was attempting this, and when he had induced him to say: "What then is need to be done by those who detest these things?" (namely the dogmas concerning one nature and the God who suffered); he responds that one of two things must be done: "namely, that either they should rather lock horns and refute the falsity of the dogmas, or they should flee as from the communion of the openly impious." III. After Sabinianus had said anathema to Nestorius, the case against Athanasius for the see of the Perrhesian Church was agitated through the entire fourteenth session of the Council of Chalcedon.

*Epistola 127, congratulatory to Jobius the priest and archimandrite.* I. He congratulates Jobius on his noble defense of piety, that is, of the two natures. II. Who that old man was, and over which monastery he was prefect, is uncertain to me: for the calculation of times does not allow it to be said that he is that Jobius whom Photius praises, and claims to have written against Severus on the incarnation. III. The epistle was sent before the Ephesian Latrocinium, at the time when he was being detained at Cyrus. "I wish," he says, "to embrace your most venerable white hairs, but because I cannot do this, since your piety is kept at home by old age, and royal law restrains me here, etc."

^A *Epistle 128, exhortatory to Candidus the presbyter and archimandrite.* The times seem to be indicated as prior to the Council of Chalcedon rather than subsequent. Who this Candidus was is unknown: he exhorts him to pray for the defenders of piety, that is, for his own people.

*Epistle 129, exhortatory to Magnus Antoninus, presbyter and archimandrite.* I. The same judgment must be held regarding this as the preceding one. It must be observed, however, with what diligence Theodoret fostered the friendship of monasteries, and with what respect he was in turn held by them as ^B. II. In those times there was a certain famous Antoninus, whom Theodoret mentions as being among the living in chapter 231 of his *Religious History*; but he seems to have been a solitary, not an archimandrite or presbyter, unless he became such after the year 445, when the *Religious History* was composed.

*Epistle 130, dogmatic to Timotheus the bishop.* I. Written in the year 450 from the place of exile, that is, from a monastery three miles distant from the city of Apamea. II. That Timotheus was bishop of Doliche—a city in the province of Euphratesia, not far from the city of Cyrrhus, under the same metropolis, namely Hierapolis. He was present at the Council of Chalcedon. III. He had requested, as he burned with a desire to defend the cause of Theodoret, which he called by the name of piety, that it be written to him what he ought to preach or believe concerning the saving passion. For at that time that was the sum of the dispute, and the formula of 349 faith, "God suffered." Theodoret writes back in such a way that he condenses a large part of the second dialogue from the *Eranistes*. ^C IV. The words with which the epistle almost closes should be noted: "I have now dictated this in brief; but I have also sent what I recently wrote at the exhortation of the most religious and most holy man of God, the Lord... a brief instruction, which in itself should suffice to teach the truth of the apostolic dogmas. But if I should manage to find a scribe, I will also send to your holiness those things which I have written in the form of a dialogue through question and answer, producing an address at some length and confirming our own with the doctrines of the Fathers. I have now also sent a few opinions of the ancient masters, which are enough to demonstrate the doctrine of those Fathers." V. From this we understand: 1. That the brief instruction of which there is mention here does not differ from the writing mentioned in epist. 109 to Eusebius, Bishop of Ancyra. 2. That the bishop whose name is missing here is Eusebius, whom I just praised. 3. That the dialogues were written before the ^D Council of Chalcedon, indeed even long before the Second Council of Ephesus, and thus even before the dogmatic epistle written by Saint Leo to Flavian. 4. That the few opinions of the ancient masters are the very same ones which are appended to the *Eranistes* dialogue and the letters of the holy Leo.

*Epistle 131, eucharistic to Longinus, archimandrite of Doliche.* I. It was sent with the previous one, from the same place, to the same city. II. Nothing at all is known about Longinus, except that he sent two deacons to visit Theodoret, and that he shone with a zeal for piety and holiness of life.

*Epistle 132, consolatory to Ibas, Bishop of Edessa.* I. Sent from the same place to Ibas, who shared the same fate in the meeting of Dioscorus: for both were condemned in their absence, while Theodoret was in Cyrrhus, and Ibas was living in exile: the former by the emperor's command, the latter by the schemes of Eutyches and Chrysaphius. II. The acts of the ninth and tenth sessions of the Council of Chalcedon must be consulted, in which the whole case of Ibas *κατὰ μέρος* is contained.

*Epistle 133, familiar to John, Bishop of Germanicia.* I. It was dated toward the end of the year 449. II. John of Germanicia had invited Theodoret, as if to a place of refuge, when he was being driven from Cyrrhus. Theodoret writes back with thanks, dating from the city of Cyrrhus, that he was awaiting the emperor's command regarding his place of exile; for he had requested this in a letter sent to Anatolius: "They can write nothing about our departure to that place until I learn what the most pious emperor has commanded concerning us." 350 III. He makes mention of this epistle in another written shortly thereafter: "I replied to your holiness's earlier letter as soon as I received it; but regarding the present matter," etc.

*Epistle 134, exprobratory to Theoctistus, Bishop of Berœa.* I. A most explicit characterization of the time: "The lie of the new heresy," says Theodoret, "has been proscribed, and the truth of the divine Gospels is openly preached." This is when, after Theodosius had finished his life, Marcian and Pulcheria assumed the empire, and they immediately ordered Eutyches cast into exile, Theodoret recalled, and Chrysaphius put to death. This happened in the autumn of the year 450; in which year Theodosius died on July 29, and the Emperor Marcian was proclaimed on August 25. II. Theoctistus, regarding whom it is spoken in epistles 32 and 75, had not most holily observed the laws of friendship toward Theodoret, who was driven from Cyrrhus: for although Berœa was very close to Cyrrhus, he had not consoled the afflicted man—neither with money, nor even with a letter. "If all had followed this cruelty, there would have been nothing left but that we should either be destroyed by want while still alive, or lack burial when dead, and"

^A be prey to dogs and wild beasts." Such a reproach, in itself grave, becomes even more serious through comparison. "But there were those with us who disdain this life and await the fruit of eternal goods, and they have relieved us with every kind of consolation."

III. He speaks of the monks of Cyrrhus and Apamea; the former had supported those interdicted from fire and water, the latter had received those driven into exile.

*Epistle 135, to Bishop Romulus.*

I. At the same time, and on almost the same subject.

II. Romulus, Bishop of Chalcis, had succumbed to the times out of timidity, and had spent time among those who were stirring up massive waves. ^B Theodoret admonishes him that the causes for fear had been removed, with Marcian having entered upon the empire, and, so that he might preserve their former friendship, he ignores the fear; and he willingly grants the pardon that he, in his entreaty, had sought through letters.

III. These words are to be observed: "We have heard that even the companion of your piety, when he learned that the anathemas issued in the great cities had been published, ceased his oblique, crab-like walk and walked straight when he was discoursing on dogmas in a certain assembly."

IV. For from these things, although that companion is unknown, it is allowed to conjecture that, as soon as Marcian rescinded the edicts by which the predatory convention at Ephesus was confirmed, ^C in the three greatest cities—Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem—anathema was pronounced against Eutyches and the new heresy.

V. Romulus, to whom the epistle is addressed, was Bishop of Chalcis, as has been said. He attended the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451, and did not survive much longer: for in the year 458, Domnus, Bishop of Chalcis, subscribed to the synodical letters of the First Syria to the Emperor Leo.

*Epistle 136, to Cyrus the Magistrianus, of consolation on the funeral of his wife and adolescent son.*

It bears no certain mark of time; yet it is credible that it was written around these times, if the Cyrus whom Theodoret consoles in the present [epistle] does not differ from him to whom Epistle 13 [is addressed], in which he gives thanks for Lesbian wine sent to him: for it seems he gave thanks when Cyrus was detained by royal command, ^D and consoled the afflicted man at a later time.

*Epistle 137, to John the Archimandrite.*

I. He urges that thanks be given to God, because "he had dissipated the adulterated and spurious dogmas; but as to what has been handed down to us in the holy Gospels, he has ensured that these be preached freely."

II. The epistle was therefore written, with Marcian having entered upon the empire, from the monastery into which Theodoret had withdrawn, not yet having been restored to his see, which these words sufficiently indicate: "I am not kept by the longing for the city, in which those laboring consume all their time," etc.

III. Who this John was, and of what monastery he was the head—whether one of the East or one of Constantinople—has not yet become clear to me. He is certainly called, among the archimandrites of the royal city, a certain John in a petition to Marcian, inserted in the Acts of the fourth session; yet I would scarcely believe our John to have been head anywhere other than in the East, and in that part, specifically, which was not far from Apamea.

IV. A certain John is also numbered by Theodoret among the holy ascetics of his region: but he was not an archimandrite in the year 445; whether he became one later is not established.

*Epistle 138, to the Patrician Anatolius, of congratulation.*

I. After he congratulated Anatolius on his own restitution and the rescinding of the iniquitous sentence, he asks the Patrician, his patron, to use his influence to have a synod convoked—at which Marcian, with the Augusta Pulcheria, might attend—to curb the turmoils of the rioters.

II. From these things it is established: 1. That the epistle was written toward the end of the autumn of the year 450. 2. That the revocation of Theodoret was prior to the other things done in this business. 3. That it was on account of Theodoret's sentence that the Council of Chalcedon was forced. 4. How safe Theodoret's affairs were to be in the synod, with Anatolius, first of the patricians, and others, as will be said shortly, most powerful men of the whole empire, caring for them so propitiously and so diligently.

*Epistle 139, to Avienus, consul and patrician.*

I. He gives thanks to Avienus because he had warned the Emperor Marcian concerning the injury inflicted upon him, and had been the author of the rescinding of what had been done wrongly at Ephesus in his case: he asks further that he offer thanks to the Emperor and the Augusta in his name, and urge them to call a synod.

II. The name of Aspar had been written in the published codices: but since Avienus held the consulship in the year 450, and Theodoret was not accustomed to address anyone as consul unless at the time he was performing the consulship, the reading had to be amended, perhaps corrupted thence, because once, as happens, only the letter A had been written in the epistle.

III. The vulgate reading cannot be retained, unless it be said that Aspar was substituted for Avienus as ordinary consul, either on account of the death of Avienus, or for some other cause which remains hidden.

*Epistle 140, to Vincomalus the Patrician.*

I. The reason for writing and the time of the epistle's sending are clearly shown. "I was very surprised when I learned that your magnificence, while being completely ignorant of the matter and having learned only of the injury that was done to us, had undertaken our patronage, and…"

had moved everything in order to overthrow the engines prepared against us.

II. Theodoret, having given immense thanks to Vincomalus—the same thanks that he offers in his prayers for two other patricians—beseeches him to offer thanks to the Augusti in his name and to persuade them to hold a synod.

^A * Epistle 141, to Marcellus, archimandrite of the Acoemetae.

I. That Marcellus was one of the archimandrites of the Acoemetae who, having presented a petition, asked the Emperor Marcian for the power to apprehend the remnants of Eutyches, who were hiding in monasteries and caves and fostering heresy, to the Fourth Council of Chalcedon.

II. Two years earlier, in the Constantinopolitan synod of Flavian, in the year 448, he subscribed in the last place to the sentence by which Eutyches was deposed, as is evident from the Acts of the Constantinopolitan synod, which are inserted into the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.

III. He not only subscribed in the synod but afterwards also defended Flavian's sentence with his words, despite the threats of the court, as can be gathered from this epistle.

IV. Theodoret congratulates him on such constancy and at the same time explains the peace of his own retreat and his joy at the stopping of the mouths of those who were opposed to him and to the dogmas of God.

V. Therefore, he sent this epistle from his retreat, as autumn was drawing to a close, after he had learned of the decrees of Marcian and Pulcheria against Eutyches.

Epistle 142, to the same.

I. It was sent a little after the preceding one. "We have already addressed your piety in other letters."

II. Theodoret praises the archimandrite for "both his admirable life and the praiseworthy zeal which he had declared for the cause of the apostolic faith, fearing neither royal power nor the consensus of the bishops," etc.

^B 353 Epistle 143, to Andrew, a monk of Constantinople, being a hortatory letter.

I. It was given from the retreat of the Apamean monastery, at the time when "the most wise Lord revealed the iniquity of the defenders of the new heresy, not permitting the wicked heresy to be strengthened by long-suffering patience." By these words are indicated the beginnings of Marcian. Therefore, it was sent along with the other of the two preceding letters to Constantinople by monks returning there.

II. This Andrew was, as it appears, an archimandrite who participated in the deposition of Eutyches, having subscribed in the first place among the archimandrites through the presbyter Timothy in the council of Flavian in the year 448.

III. Theodoret invites Andrew to write to him as a fellow believer, and in order to urge him to do so, he extols him with marvelous praises: "All wonder at the rectitude of your faith, the brightness of your life, the constancy of your soul, the sweetness of your meeting, and everything else that depicts a perfect student of philosophy."

IV. These words are to be observed: "I have considered those to be equally impious who dare to compress the two natures of the Only-begotten into one, and who attempt to divide our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God—the God Word made man—into two sons; if there are any, that is—for I do not think so. But those who follow the parties of Arius and Eunomius, and of Apollinarius, have always impudently affixed this calumny to the Church. But it is easy for those who are diligent to perceive that our most renowned Fathers, the lights of the Churches, have suffered from the enemies of the truth this very same accusation that we in this time are suffering from the excellent inventors of the new heresy, whose impiety the most wise Lord has revealed, not permitting the wicked heresy to be strengthened by long-suffering patience." From this, many things are understood.

V. First, what was the attitude of Theodoret even then towards Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teachers of Nestorius, and what opinion he held concerning them, even after the doctrine of both had been openly refuted by Cyril in two books, and by Proclus (with names left silent) in his Tome to the Armenians. That these whom he calls "our most renowned Fathers" are Diodore and Theodore, no one will deny who has compared this epistle with his words: both in Epistle 16 and in the first dialogue, toward the end; and in both Histories, the ecclesiastical and the religious; and finally in the Catalogue of writers composed by Hebed-Jesu: for in the former place he calls Diodore and Theodore "holy and blessed Fathers, and our teachers." He also calls them in dialogue 1, "the strongest defenders of the truth, and streams of the Holy Spirit." And with what praises he treats Diodore in the Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chapter 22! "The most wise," he says, "and strongest Diodore, like a certain clear and huge river, was indeed watering his own; but he was washing away the blasphemies of his adversaries." And in the Religious History, chapter 11: "The divine and blessed men Flavian and Diodore presided over the people." What he has to say about Theodore in book V of the Ecclesiastical History has been often cited.

* Hebed-Jesu, reviewing the works of Theodoret, says: "He composed an apology for our Fathers in two tomes; that is to say, for those Fathers whom saint Cyril attacked, and the fragments of whose tomes were inserted into the Acts of the fifth synod, coll. 5."

Second, what he felt similarly about the dogma of Nestorius after the Ephesian council, after the peace of the Churches had been initiated, and after the faith concerning the incarnation had been so often explained by Cyril: he believed, indeed, that it was catholic, since it was the common opinion of Catholics and sectarians alike; that the dogma of Nestorius did not differ from the doctrine of Diodore and Theodore, and he judged the doctrine of both to be catholic.

Third, what new heresy he was speaking of—namely, the Cyrillian, or rather the Catholic, opinion concerning the union of the two natures in Christ, physical and substantial, and concerning the one incarnate nature of the Word: for he understood it to be contrary to the opinion of Nestorius, Diodore, and Theodore, and thus contrary to the Catholic truth.

Fourth, why, when writing to Himerius at the time the peace of the Churches was being made, he denied that this condition could be accepted: that whoever wished to prove himself a Catholic and a lover of peace should have to strike at the dogma of Nestorius with an anathema; for he denied that this could be done without detriment to piety, but that when signing the instrument of peace, there should be applied, first, a distinction of law and fact, or of dogma and person; and then a caution, by which the dogma concerning two sons would be condemned, if it were found in any book and if it were asserted by any man.

Fifth, why, in the synod of Chalcedon, when ordered to anathematize Nestorius and his dogmas, he stalled for so long; and asked for the power to be granted to him to set forth his own faith, which he certainly did not distinguish from the faith of Diodore and Theodore, and consequently from that of Nestorius; and did not swear away the dogma and person of Nestorius with a solemn formula until, with the Fathers crying out, he realized he was to be cast out from the place of the synod as a heretic.

Sixth, how he himself seems to have cherished ^B in his mind up to the synod of Chalcedon the opinion concerning the union of natures in Christ: for since he was entirely intent upon asserting the separation of the natures, and did not sufficiently understand (the cause of which is uncertain) the mode of the hypostatic union, which must be physical and substantial 355, he seems to have remained until that time in the opinion concerning a union [σχετική], or purely moral, which was nevertheless perpetual and indissoluble.

Lastly, from whom those more recent men took, or certainly could have taken, the template who, when they obdurately refused to consent to the Church regarding certain propositions so long as they were condemning them, unless it were permitted, while subscribing to the formula of faith, to place a distinction between law and fact, and to agree with the Church regarding the rejection of a heretical dogma, but to dissent regarding the person, as if he had sinned in the attaching of the dogma to the person, and had proposed for himself a proscription of an imaginary heresy which no one had in reality defended.

Epistle 144, dogmatic, to the soldiers.

I. It was given after the year 449, or certainly toward its end: for at the end is lauded the epistle of Saint Leo, namely that famous one which was given to Flavian at Rome on the Ides of June, in the consulship of Asterius and Protogenes ^A, nor could it reach Theodoret, detained at Cyrus, before autumn, and indeed late autumn at that. But Theodoret wrote to the soldiers immediately upon receiving the letter of Leo, as these words demonstrate: 'Ακουσάτωσαν, καὶ τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου καὶ ὁσιωτάτου τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐπισκόπου, τοῦ κυρίου Λέοντος νῦν γεγραφότος, etc. "Let them hear the most holy and most religious bishop of the Romans, the lord Leo, who has just written," etc.

II. The soldiers, to whom this is directed, appear to have been of the third rank of the Stabilisiani, who were dwelling in the provinces of the East.

III. They had asked Theodoret what should be thought concerning the one who had rebuked him for saying that some things were absolutely impossible for God. The good men had, I think, been led astray by some defender of a passible God, arguing his own opinion from the fact that nothing is impossible to God, and that God can do whatever He wills. Furthermore, Cyril had said among the chapters to be defended, "God has suffered willingly"; the man had perhaps drawn the saying to that point, from whence the question was at that time.

IV. Theodoret answers first that some things are impossible for God, such as to lie, to act unjustly, etc., and that God does not will to do anything which does not accord with His nature; yet that it is not to be argued from this that He is weak, but rather that His power is greatest, by which He can persist unshaken in the right.

V. Then he shows, in almost the same manner as ^C in the third dialogue of the Eranistes, which is called *Impassibilis*, how God the Word is said to have suffered, and he praises Athanasius, Damasus, and Leo—whom he did not praise in the dialogue just mentioned, though he would have praised him most opportunely if the dialogues had not been published long before the epistle; which, because Albertinus does not know, he has drifted with his followers into absurd opinions.

VI. The testimony which is brought forward from the writing of Leo is not read in any published codices; indeed, not even 356 in manuscripts, whether Greek or Latin, word for word. But this question will be discussed in the *Auctarium* to the epistles; for to that place that famous epistle of Leo ought to be referred: both because it has subjoined the testimonies of the Fathers, which Theodoret collected, and because it has not yet been published free from errors.

Epistle 145, to the monks of Constantinople.

I. It is not so much an epistle as a certain long treatise concerning the incarnation, in which Theodoret sets forth his faith.

II. It presents a manifest mark of the time. "Those," he says, "who had woven a calumny against us, and had bought our tribulations with much money, so that they were clearly recognized as infected with the rot of Valentinus and Bardesanes," etc. For when Theodoret makes mention of his condemnation at the synod of Dioscorus, and of the ejection of Eutyches into exile, and when concerning the [reign] of Marcian— ^D

the benefit of which he speaks of in silence—he clearly shows that he is writing at that time which followed the death of the Emperor Theodosius, which occurred on July 29, and the transition of the empire to Marcian, which began on August 25, by whose order Eutyches was ejected, and for whom that act of Marcian was known, which could not have been heard of before the end of September. The letter, therefore, was issued either in the waning days of September or at the beginning of October, at which time he had not yet been sent back by Marcian to his see.

III. Furthermore, it would be rash to suppose that these monks to whom he writes were the Acoemetae [Sleepless Monks], among whom he perhaps labored under a suspicion of heresy.

IV. He writes, however, through monks sent into Phoenicia by Marcellus, archimandrite of the Acoemetae, regarding other matters: namely, that having met with them, he had learned what opinion was held of him among their brethren; but they reported that they were striving to root out that opinion from their minds, because of the great authority such men had in the royal city.

V. What he recounts concerning his own books is set forth in the second chapter.

Epistle 146, to John the steward.

This epistle also, although mutilated, has the form of a great treatise. We have woven its history into the *Life of Theodoret*, and we show that it was written after the Council of Chalcedon, when he had withdrawn into a monastery and, far from all business, was entirely devoting himself to the writing of books and the exercises of his former religious life.

Epistle 147, to John, bishop of Germanicia.

I. This is the one to whom Epistle 133 was written a few days earlier. It was given, therefore, toward the end of the year 449, or immediately at the beginning of the next.

II. From this we learn many things which are almost unknown from elsewhere. 1. That Domnus, the prelate of Antioch, was deposed because he would not accept the "chapters," and Theodoret, because he was the leader of the heresy; in Greek it is *exarchos*, which term is more significant than the Latin: for it signifies a leader and one who is, as it were, dominant.

2. That Dioscorus openly testified that the synod had convened at Ephesus solely ^A so that judgment might be exercised regarding persons, not regarding accusations. ‹ Let the "chapters," which they cursed many times before, but recently approved at Ephesus, now at last be exploded. ›

4. That Maximus, who was substituted for Domnus in the Antiochene see, had not been ordained in that same Ephesian synod, but after these letters were written. ‹ After the ordination of the president of the East is known, the mind and sentiment of each one will be revealed. › Do not let anyone understand "president" as civil power; for in the Greek it is, *cheirotonian tou tēs Anatolēs proedrou*. "The ordination of him who obtained the first throne of the East."

5. That Theodoret was condemned for heresy, by whom he was once marvelously praised. ‹ They praised what was said by me at Antioch before the congregation, both when they were among the number of the brethren, and [later when they were] made readers, and ordained deacons, and presbyters, and bishops; and when the discourse was finished, they would embrace me and kiss [my] head, and chest, and hands; some even touched [my] knees, calling our doctrine apostolic: and this they have now condemned, this they have fixed with a curse; and I, that man whom they called the light, not of the East alone, but of the entire world, have been proscribed. ›

6. That it was forbidden to grant him water and fire. ‹ They do not even allow me, as far as they are concerned, to enjoy the use of bread: for they have pronounced anathema even against those who speak to us. ›

7. That those who condemned Eutyches at the Council of Flavian, the same ones absolved him at Ephesus. ‹ Him whom they had deposed a little while before, and had pronounced to be infected with the errors of Valentinus and Apollinaris, him they cherished as a victor of the faith, and threw themselves at his feet, and begged for pardon, and called him Spiritual Father, › etc.

This great and vehement rebuke strikes either one—especially Basil, bishop of Seleucia, an old and intimate friend who was present at both the Council of Flavian and of Dioscorus, and who betrayed his faith in God and his friendship toward Theodoret, shifting his appearance like a chameleon.

358 ADMONITION TO THE READER.

That we may provide credit to page 133, we append those long observations, which Garnerius (previous ed., p. 53 sqq.) appended to the epistles first edited in the *Auctarium*. See these epistles in the place immediately after those which Sirmondus had already provided, in vol. IV of our edition, p. 1279 sqq.

Epistle 148, Cyril’s Commonitorium given to Posidonius, sent to Rome.

I. Since the epistles of Theodoret, which we are adding, ^D all pertain to the matters of Nestorius, it seemed good to prefix Cyril’s *Commonitorium*, which until this day, was not edited: so that, since it provided the beginning for the entire judgment held against Nestorius, it might bring light to the following parts, in which, as it were, the process or at least the series of the business is contained.

II. Cyril...

^A had been urged to correct his error and to calm the disturbances aroused by his sermons: he responded to both, indeed, but contemptuously to the first, and contumaciously to the second. Cyril, seeing that he was wasting his effort, believed that he should warn the Supreme Pontiff to restrain the bishop of New Rome by apostolic authority; he therefore sent Posidonius to Rome, to the holy Celestine, who might procure a remedy to be brought to the evil. He was the archdeacon of the Alexandrian Church, a man primarily Catholic, and industrious and energetic in carrying out affairs. Subsequently made a presbyter, he was sent again to Rome by Dioscorus, newly ordained, that he might inform Saint Leo of the ordination: he was sent, I say, in the year 444. III. To him as he was leaving, Cyril gave a Commonitorium, in which Nestorius’s faith is exposed—briefly, indeed, but clearly: he also gave five tomes composed by himself against Nestorius, where the blasphemies of the sermons held at Constantinople, and reported to Rome by the illustrious man Antiochus, are recounted and refuted. IV. The Commonitorium was dated in the month of April, 430, in which year, on the 3rd of the Ides of August, the letters are inscribed by which Celestine, after the council at Rome had been gathered and the cause of Nestorius had been duly examined and judged, responds to Cyril. V. That this document is genuine, and in no way suspect, I for my part have no doubt: for it agrees, first, with the history of the times and the circumstances of the Nestorian business; then with the habits of Cyril, who was accustomed to teach by his own commonitoria; thus he taught the apocrisiarii dissenting at Constantinople, and Eulogius tarrying in the same place; later with the doctrine 359 of Cyril, [which exposes] the same chapters of the Nestorian error that are noted here, in the tomes; finally with the second letter of Nestorius to Cyril, where talk is made of clerks condemned in the assembly for Manichaeism. VI. From it are understood many things useful to history: for mention is made of Philip the presbyter, who argued against Nestorius, of Caelestius being suborned by Nestorius to impose a crime upon Philip, of the assembly held by Nestorius, and of the sentence passed against Philip, and of the tomes, concerning which it is worth the effort to observe something individually. VII. That Philip, the presbyter, had once been a man of great reputation in the Church of Constantinople. At the urging of Chrysostom, he wrote a Christian History ^D while he was still a deacon; he was made a presbyter by Atticus, upon whose departure from the living, he contended for the patriarchal seat, but in vain, with Sisinius: upon whose death he came again into contention with Proclus, which was the cause why, with the clergy split into parties, Theodosius did not summon Nestorius from Antioch: he also argued among the first against Nestorius, and, after the heresy was exposed, made a discession from him; whence the exacerbated Nestorius procured that a calumny be plotted against him by Caelestius, and a lawsuit be brought in his own synod, and indeed even malignly condemned him, having accused him of the insanity of Manichaeism.

308 VIII. That Caelestius, the administrator of Nestorius, was without doubt none other than the associate of Pelagius, ^A leader or instigator of the bishops who were exiles from Italy on account of Pelagianism: he had not yet been ejected from the royal city at that time, along with Julian, Persidius, Florus, Orentius, and Marcellinus. But he had influence with Nestorius, inasmuch as he felt the same as he did, although not for the same reason, regarding the mother of Christ: for both did indeed deny that she was the Theotokos; but Nestorius, because he did not believe Christ to be truly God; Caelestius, because, although he confessed Christ to be truly God, he nevertheless contended that He had received divinity not from birth, when He was first formed, but from merits, when He had become an adult. Moreover, at Constantinople, the impure eunuch was doing what he was accustomed to do everywhere; for he knew those who were defenders of original sin, and he accused them of Manichaean impiety. IX. The assembly or synedrion, which is the subject of discussion, is that very synod which Nestorius calls "holy" in his second letter to Cyril. See our long annotation on that matter regarding the letters of Nestorius, Part II of the Works of Marius Mercator, page 62 and following. X. Furthermore, concerning the sentence against Philip and other clerics addicted to Cyril, those words of Nestorius in the letter I have mentioned are to be understood: "Know that you have been misled by clerics who are perhaps of your own disposition, by those kept here by the holy synod, as thinking the things of the Manichaeans." ^C XI. In the same synod, that canon was ratified by which anathema was pronounced upon anyone who would affirm that the soul of Adam died in sin, since the devil does not enter into the heart of man. 360 See in that same place the entire history of this canon, brought forth from its darkness against a popular error. XII. Finally, the tomes "having the chapters of the blasphemies of Nestorius" are that very thing which is the "Five-book Refutation against the blasphemies of Nestorius." For this entire work is divided by Cyril into five books, which he himself inscribed *Tomes*. Mention of the same work is made in the commonitorium to Eulogius: for it was one of the works which the Magnificent Prefect had requested to be given to him: "one, against the blasphemies of Nestorius." Mention is made likewise in the letter to Acacius of Melitene, where he reports the conditions of peace proposed by the Orientals: "For I wished to cease from all things written by me, in letters, and in tomes, and in books." He speaks of three or four dogmatic letters, of five tomes against blasphemies, and of scholia. For all these things were edited directly against Nestorius. XIII. I am not unaware that the name *tomes* is general, and is sometimes used for *codices*: thus it was used by Andrew of Samosata, in an objection to the third and fourth anathema, to signify the letter of Cyril to the monks of Egypt, and a homily.

^A Paschal 18. But Cyril in his response abstained from the name of "tome," and spoke of the epistles which Andrew had called tomes. Then, with both places cited, Cyril, having made mention of the tomes, either distinguished them from the epistles or inscribed them with the same name by which he titled the contradictions *against the blasphemies of Nestorius*.

XIV. From these things many matters, which were hitherto either unknown or obscure, become clear. 1. That Philip clung to Cyril along with other clerics, whom Nestorius, addressing Cyril, calls "the clerics of your *diathesis*." 2. That Philip accused Nestorius of teaching heretical doctrines, and was the leader of that secession of the clerics of the church of Constantinople from their bishop, a matter of which Cyril makes mention whilst writing to Celestine, as does Celestine in his letters to the clerics of Constantinople. 3. That the same Philip was the author of that protest which is read in the first part of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and by which the agreement between Nestorius and Paul of Samosata is exposed. 4. That the same Philip celebrated synaxes at his own residence. 5. That the same man was hostile to the Pelagians and defended original sin. 6. That the Pelagian bishops, along with Caelestius, were still at Constantinople at the time when Nestorius held the synod of which there is mention in the *Commonitorium* and in the second epistle of Nestorius to Cyril. 7. That the synod was held in the autumn season of the year 429; for in this year, towards the end, he presented his *Commonitorium* to the emperor M. Mercator, by which, once it was read through, Caelestius was expelled from Constantinople with the Pelagian bishops. 8. That the contradictions, or tomes ^B against the blasphemies of Nestorius, were carried to Rome, and that from them an exercise of judgment concerning Nestorius was formed. 9. That this work was composed by Cyril at the beginning of the year 430; since it is handed down that Posidonius went to Rome at the beginning of April of that same year. 10. That Caelestius used the same arts at Constantinople as he had at Rome, whence he secretly withdrew, as he had nowhere to defend his cause. 11. That there was a great agreement between Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia: for those things which Cyril recounts concerning Nestorius are read in the same way in the fragments of Theodore, which Leontius brings forward from the fourteenth book *On the Incarnation*. 12. That it cannot be known more certainly and clearly from any other source what the heresy of Nestorius was, and in what it properly consists. For who is more sharp-sighted than Cyril in perceiving the opinion of Nestorius? Those who prefer to believe that Nestorius erred in word rather than in fact prefer Socrates to Cyril—a writer of the court to one of the most learned men of his own age. 13. That from this *Commonitorium* light is cast upon the five books of Cyril against the blasphemies of Nestorius, and conversely the *Commonitorium* is illustrated by them: for it is a certain compendious collection of them.

Epistola 149, written by John of Antioch to Nestorius.

I. It is not obscure, nor is it uncertain, when this epistle was written, for ^C what cause, and to whom, it was written, nor by whose counsel. There is this twofold doubt: whether it was composed by Theodoret in the name of John, as I opine; or whether it was composed by John with the counsel of Theodoret, as is commonly said.

II. It was written, without doubt, after Posidonius, deacon of the Alexandrian Church, returned from Rome to Egypt, and delivered three letters sent by Saint Celestine on the 13th of August: one to Cyril of Alexandria; others, having set out for Palestine and the East, to Juvenal of Jerusalem and John of Antioch. Since, therefore, this epistle was given after the receipt of the other three, it must pertain to the end of October or the beginning of November of the year 430. For Posidonius set out for the East before the Egyptian synod had convened, as is gathered from the epistles of Cyril to John and Juvenal. Indeed, the synod convened at the beginning of November, as has been shown in the second dissertation on part 11 of the Works of Marius Mercator.

III. The cause for writing it has been stated sufficiently in the argument. Saint Celestine, having received Cyril’s letters through Posidonius, and the cause of Nestorius having been judged in a synod at Rome, had taught John and Juvenal by his letters what he had decided concerning Nestorius, unless he should revoke his error; and what he had commanded Cyril, who was to perform his duties in this business. John, having received the letters of the supreme pontiff and of Cyril, and having composed the epistle in John's name, meant for Theodoret to dispel the storm hanging over the head of Nestorius, and to persuade his friend that he should adopt the judgment of the supreme pontiff and confess the Virgin as *Theotokos*, which was requested as the one or ^D principal proof of the orthodox faith.

IV. It is written to Nestorius, who, when he had stirred up disturbances in the Church with his sermons, would not, by reason of his pride, appease them with the one word by which he might confess the *Theotokos*; nay, rather, trusting in the favor of the nobles and the court and his own arts, he raged at Constantinople and despised the other Churches.

V. It is inscribed in the name of John of Antioch, with whom Nestorius had all the necessity of friendship, long cohabitation, communion of religious life, a society of studies, the same teacher, the ministry of the same Church, and the same position finally attained after the ministry. Theodoret was bound to John by these same ties.

VI. The doubt is: who wrote it—John himself, or Theodoret in the name of John? Two prejudices assign it to John: namely the inscription, which acts as a public document, and the custom of speaking thus, which appears to be a certain prescribed possession. For Theodoret, it acts first that both prejudices are fallacious, or most especially because infinite epistles bear the name not of the writer himself, but of the one commanding it, and they are cited by the name by which they are pre-noted. Of such a kind is the second epistle of Pelagius to the Illyrians, written by Saint Gregory. Then, that...

SCHULZ'S NOTES

if this epistle is compared with those which John or Theodoret wrote, it appears that the style differs from them but accords with the latter. Furthermore, whenever common letters were to be sent by the bishops, of whom one was Theodoret, the task of writing was imposed upon him, as one admirably skilled in this matter. Indeed, he was one of the seven bishops who were with John when he was writing to Nestorius. Add that in other places ^A Theodoret uses the same arguments—or even almost the same words—to treat the same subject: the Virgin Mother of God; see epistle 16. Finally, that Theodoret himself seems to claim this for himself when he wrote to Domnus of Antioch, shortly before the predatory synod, and enumerated the synodical writings against Cyril.

VII. It should be noted in this regard, first, what is said about Irenaeus the Count: for from this, the conspiracy of the same with Nestorius and the Orientals is understood. Next, what is related regarding Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the saying for which the hearers were offended, which he retracted: concerning which matter see, besides Liberatus, the excerpt from the documents presented to Proclus by the presbyters and deacons of Greater Armenia and Persia, Syn. V, coll. 5. For in that place is cited the part of the discourse which was the cause of the offense. Moreover, with what reverence the decree of the Supreme Pontiff was received, even by the patriarchs of the East themselves. No presumption of authority was objected to them in those times, but they were obeyed as a legitimate power, 363 when the Supreme Pontiff, out of his council of the West, deposed the patriarch of the royal city, and gave a command to another patriarch to execute the sentence. Fourth, what is said that this one thing is required of Nestorius: that he confess the blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God; for from this it is known that at that time this was the way of professing the Catholic faith regarding the Incarnation. Cyril in his Apology and Theodoret in epistle 16 both testify to this.

Fifth, what is said concerning Nestorius, that he holds the same thoughts as the Fathers on the mystery of the Incarnation: this was either a certain dispensatory flattery of friends, by which they might more gently influence the man's mind; or an admirable blindness, after having read the letters of Nestorius; or an imprudent confession of agreement with Nestorius. Finally, regarding the error which crept into the later editions of the councils, where the name of Paul is read instead of Theodore: although it is found neither in the Greek edition of Commelinus nor in the Latin of Contius; it is truly wonderful that this was not noticed by the learned editors.

Epistle 150, of Theodoret, which he sent to John of Antioch.

Celestine, the Supreme Pontiff, had written letters to Cyril and Nestorius, in which he commanded Cyril to write the form of faith, and on the other hand commanded Nestorius to subscribe to the prescribed form, under threat ^B of deposition from punishment, unless he repented within ten days of the denunciation. Cyril comprised the form of faith in twelve anathemas, and sent them to Nestorius by four bishops from the Egyptian synod. Nestorius evaded the mandate by procuring the proclamation of a general council; indeed, he opposed to the anathemas of Cyril an equal number of different ones, and requested furthermore his friend John of Antioch to see to it that they be refuted by Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, the most learned bishops of the whole East: both complied, and Theodoret prefixed this epistle to his refutation.

I. The epistle must have been written in the year 431, around the month of February, and before the beginning of Lent, which fell on the fourth day of March: for it could not have been written either earlier or later. Not earlier: ^B for the letters of Cyril to Nestorius sent from Egypt, to which the anathemas were subjoined, were signed on the third of November; and delivered indeed at Constantinople by the bishops to Nestorius on the 7th of the Ides of December; wherefore they were sent from Constantinople to Antioch some time later, that is, around the end of December: and sent also from Antioch to Cyrus to Theodoret some days afterwards. Theodoret spent some time in composing the refutations, and once composed, he finally wrote back to John. Not later, since to the refutations taken from Cyrus to Antioch, from Antioch to Constantinople, and from Alexandria to Constantinople, as is reasonable to believe, 364 Cyril responded, before he thought of Ephesus after the completed Paschal feasts, and thus indeed in the time of Lent: for immediately after the feast was over, he set out on his journey.

II. With what affection Theodoret stood against Cyril, and with what words the epistle was composed, is clearly understood from the fact that his impotent mind heaped abuse upon the second prelate of the whole Church, indignities entirely unworthy to be uttered, I will not say by a bishop, but even by a Christian man. For who could bear that the most holy defender of Christ be represented as "a pastor who tears apart with more savagery than wild beasts the sheep entrusted to him": as a doctor "who introduces latent error into those who obey him, and lays snares under the guise of friendship": as a bishop ^D "who, standing under the name and figure of piety and in the dignity of a pastor, erupts into heretical and blasphemous words": indeed, who "renovates the long-extinguished, vain, and impious doctrine of Apollinaris," etc.

III. Someone might perhaps object two things: first, that when Theodoret was writing to John, he was writing as a friend familiarly to a friend, in which kind of writing the license is greater and less guilty; second, that what was entrusted to a faithful friend was not for publication, nor was it done by the counsel of Theodoret, but through the imprudence of John. But the objection is futile: for Theodoret wished the refutation of the anathemas to be published, as he clearly indicates when he mentions the reader, and he connected the end of the epistle with the refutation in such a way that the epistle is a necessary preface to the refutation, which is evident to anyone observing.

^A [IV.] To the invectives of Theodoret, Cyril responded with nothing but the sterner laws of modesty; but, having offered thanks to God with an evangelical spirit and having prayed for aid, and having praised Theodoret for his eloquence and no mean knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, he took exception to this one thing: that he seemed to be a detractor, or to have not grasped the meaning of the anathematisms, or rather to have feigned ignorance so as to indulge the studies of others. Although he jests urbanely at the end about the apple of discord which Theodoret had brought in from fables, for it is not fitting for one dealing with theology to occupy himself with fables.

[V.] Furthermore, this epistle ought not to be read listlessly, since it contains the source whence the bold defense of some on behalf of Theodoret can be refuted. For when arguments from ancient monuments that are in themselves irrefutable are brought forward against Theodoret, they do not blush to use the exception of supposititiousness, against even those monuments that are brought forward, however ancient they may be; nor do they prove this supposititiousness, which is mere confidence, from any other source than that, if they were received as genuine, it would have to be admitted that Theodoret had hurled invectives unworthy of a bishop of his name. But what finally could he have ever hurled that was more atrocious than these?

365 *Epistola 151, which Theodoret wrote against Saint Cyril to the monasteries.*

[I.] Whatever this inscription is, the same is read in the Acts of the V Synod, collation 5; in which place are produced excerpts from those books of Theodoret which the holy synod condemned as being adverse to the faith and injurious to Cyril.

[II.] Where it was written to the monasteries, is not revealed by express words, neither in the Acts of the V Synod, nor in Hugo Etherianus, who cites a fragment; yet the Greek manuscript codex LVII of the Imperial Library of Vienna openly teaches it, in which is contained the epistle to the monks of Euphratesia, Osrhoena, Syria, Phoenice, and Cilicia, with this title: *Theodoret, TO THOSE IN EUPHRATESIA, AND OSRHOENA, AND SYRIA, AND PHOENICE, AND CILICIA, MONKS.* The beginning, however, is: *"Observing the state of the Church at the present time,"* etc.

[III.] Theodoret was indeed writing an encyclical epistle of this kind to the eastern monks, so that he might turn them away from the parties of Cyril, just as Cyril had led the Egyptians and the Constantinopolitan monks themselves away from Nestorius.

[IV.] And hence the time, when it was sent, is not improbably inferred, namely, when the reproofs came into the royal city regarding Nestorius; that is, in the year 431, about Lent. He proves this inference by the reason for writing, which is soon brought forward, and by the series of excerpts produced in the fifth synod: for they are brought forward in their proper order of time.

[V.] Nothing more insulting can be said against the person and doctrine of Cyril; for Cyril is called an impious and malicious Egyptian: his doctrine, however, is marked as if it had "sprung from the bitter root of Apollinaris, of the same blasphemy as Arius and Eunomius, not differing from the madness of Valentinus, Manes and Marcion, the offspring of Macedonius," etc. Clearly, four anathematisms are mostly impugned, in which Theodoret seemed to himself to see various errors of the heretics: namely, in the first, that of Apollinaris; in the second, those of Arius and Eunomius; in the fourth, those of Valentinus, Manes and Marcion; in the ninth, the heresy of Macedonius concerning the Holy Spirit.

[VI.] There will perhaps be—or rather in truth there was, as I hear—someone who, wondering at such great invectives against Cyril and the ignorant reprehension of the anathematisms, might believe the epistle to have been falsely attributed to Theodoret: but five arguments stand in opposition 366 to this. 1. The authority of the ecumenical council which condemns Theodoret from these instruments. 2. The constancy of the sentiment concerning the meaning of the anathematisms, wherever they are treated. 3. Theodoret’s blind love for Nestorius, and his almost frantic rage against Cyril. 4. The testimony of Hugo Etherianus, who reports a fragment from it concerning the Holy Spirit. 5. Such a consistency of the epistle with the reprehension of the anathematisms that it does not appear to be anything other than a certain contraction of it itself.

Epistola 152, Relation of the Orientals to the emperor.

"Not even of the holy Pentecost," etc. There is no question here of the Orientals, but of the companions of Nestorius. They indeed arrived long after Pentecost, they [others] before. But why no temple was open to the Nestorians, while it was open to the Egyptians and the others, is an obscure cause. Is it because the Nestorians were debarred from communion as heretics? But they were not yet condemned. Is it because the people, wonderfully addicted to the cult of the Blessed Virgin, hated men hostile to the Theotokos? But the Nestorians complained of nothing of the kind. I suppose that Memnon, for the sake of protecting the prerogative of his own see, was unwilling to agree with Nestorius: for Nestorius, relying upon that contentious right of his own see, would have attempted to preside in Asia, as if in the Church of his own diocese: which if Memnon had suffered, he would have abandoned the ancient right of his own autocephaly, formerly attempted by Chrysostom; which, although he could hardly have retained [it] with all his might alone, he could now easily prevail in this state of affairs.

*Candidianus, etc. That count of the domestics was joined in friendship with Nestorius, and therefore not sufficiently impartial to the Catholic cause. For even when he was speaking about the business of the deposition of Nestorius before the Orientals,

he told many lies, and obstructed the closed roads, so that letters from the Catholics might not reach the Emperor; and he reported falsely to the Emperor himself: which was the reason why, after the truth was recognized, he was expelled from the court.

"Your decrees having been trampled upon," etc. What astonishing audacity from the Orientals! In what respect did the Fathers of the ecumenical synod violate the decrees of the princes? A day had been agreed upon, the Feast of Pentecost. Three patriarchs had gathered—Cyril, Nestorius, and Juvenal—and more than two hundred bishops were present. They waited beyond the appointed time for fifteen whole days; the Antiochene was delaying on the road with malicious intent, and the arrival of the Westerners was uncertain because of the inconstancy of the sea. After John's reply, in which he advised the Fathers to do what they thought should be done, the synod was initiated, while Nestorius indeed prevaricated; but, in the manner of the guilty, he declined the judgment.

"He was waiting," etc. Cyril was in fact waiting with the Catholics for fifteen days; but he understood at the same time what the delay of the journey, affected by the Orientals, was aiming at—namely, to perturb everything, and by hook or by crook to usurp the presidency of the synod.

367 "The others to excommunication," etc. In order that John might preside over the synod, and, having gained the mastery, might manage everything at the whim of the Orientals, he dragged out the delay on the road until Nestorius was deposed; having been deposed, he flew in immediately so as to anticipate the arrival of the legates of the Apostolic See. Having reached Ephesus, before the dust had even been shaken off, he conducted a nocturnal and hasty trial in his very lodging, lest anyone should have the right of presidency by virtue of either patriarchate or autocephaly; he subjected the rest of the Fathers to excommunication, lest they be able to restore those who had been deposed.

"Of Apollinaris and Eunomius," etc. Consult the refutation of the anathemas and the letters in which Theodoret speaks about those same anathemas, and you will easily perceive that this conjunction of heretics is peculiar to Theodoret, and as it were his own [characteristikēn phrasin] (characteristic phrase).

"As for the fact that he was slow," etc. The Orientals, so as not to appear to have done everything with malice and fault, tried to excuse the lateness of their journey; but they used open lies or certainly futile reasons. See Chapter 5 of the Life of Theodoret. There were, however, some who wished those whom Cyril had convicted to be defended. But in this argument they have struggled so unhappily that, besides certain assumed facts and vitiated testimonies, they have brought forward nothing.

*Epistola 153, Relation of the Orientals to the Queens.*

To the queens, Pulcheria and Eudoxia; but to Pulcheria especially, as she was the most powerful in affairs.

Relation. When one writes from those of lower rank to princes concerning certain proceedings, it is a relation; when to others, it is a letter. Furthermore, that this relation is the work of the same ^A author as the preceding one, and thus that of Theodoret, there is no place for doubt, if one employs the [kritēria] (criteria) that are usual, and makes a comparison with the sermon held at Chalcedon by Theodoret, in which the same passage of Isaiah was treated.

"To await our arrival," etc. This was written to the Orientals by Cyril in the name of the rest of the Fathers, so that they might be urged to speed up their journey; for the appointed day had passed long ago. But Theodoret is silent, craftily, in this and the preceding relation, about the fact that John had written to Cyril through the two metropolitans whom he had sent ahead, so that, meanwhile, while the Orientals were coming, it should be done that seemed necessary.

"A three days' journey," etc. There is mention of a two days' journey in the upper relation, but by a common [pleonasmon] (pleonasm).

"They have broken the eggs of vipers," etc. This passage, compared with the aforementioned sermon, clearly betrays Theodoret.

*Epistola 154, Relation of the Orientals to the Constantinopolitan Senate.*

[Hagion kai kallinikon martyron] (Of the holy and victorious martyrs), etc. A phrase familiar to Theodoret, and perhaps peculiar to him alone.

368 [Eusebestaton kai philochristōn basileōn] (Of the most pious and Christ-loving kings), etc. And this phrase also betrays Theodoret.

*Epistola 155, Of John of Antioch to the Constantinopolitan clergy.*

"To be the web of a spider," etc. This expression indicates Theodoret as the author.

"To the judges," etc. This letter, therefore, is placed in the general councils with the order disturbed, before the letter to the senate.

*Epistola 156, Of John of Antioch and other bishops to the Constantinopolitan people.*

"Fifty Egyptian bishops," etc. Who they were, and of which city, or whom Cyril had led out of Egypt, or whom Memnon had called forth from Asia, is easily discerned from the list of bishops who were present at the first action or subscribed to it. Where note that among the metropolitans no Egyptian is reckoned. Which is an argument that at that time there was no metropolitan in Egypt ^B except the Alexandrian.

*Epistola 162, which Theodoret wrote to Andrew of Samosata.*

"To Andrew," etc. He is the one who, in the name of the Orientals, wrote the objections against the twelve chapters of Cyril, which he did not immodestly at first; but afterward, in order to defend Theodoret against the accusation of Cyril, who was defending his own chapters, he wrathfully published a book, a fragment of which Anastasius Sinaita reports in the *Hodegetes*, chap. 22. See what we have noted regarding this fragment in the first part of the Works of Marius Mercator after the objections of the Orientals.

SCHULZ'S NOTES.

^A Writing from Ephesus. Before Theodoret was to depart from Ephesus, about the twenty-seventh day of August, on which date seven legates from both parties, the Catholic and the schismatic, were summoned by the Emperor.

*Beatifico infirmitatis*, etc. By which Andreas, whether hindered, was unable to come to the council, or, if he had the opportunity, did not wish to.

*Insanit iterum Aegyptus*, and he makes war with Moses. Nestorius, in sermon 12, number 5, against Cyril: "And Moses taught me not to be disturbed, if you have received an experience of the aforementioned prophet, [regarding] the Egyptian despair."

*Illi qui depositi sunt*. Cyril of Alexandria, and Memnon of Ephesus, bishops.

*Sacerdotalia ministeria peragunt*. The schismatics complain of this same thing fastidiously to the Emperor: they use almost the same words as this Theodoret [did] before the prefect and the master: "The canons of the holy Fathers have been trampled upon 369; they do not fear to minister in sacred things, being excommunicated and deposed, pouring forth their impious dogmas profusely to the people of God, while we, in the meantime, are miserably shut up here." It is not a wonder that there is such consistency: for both these and those letters were written by the same Theodoret, but these in his own name, those in the name of the Oriental synod.

^B *Aegyptii*, etc. In the report to the Emperor by Palladius, the crowd of Asiatics and Egyptians is called "ignorant." Soon, for the sake of odious contempt, they are enumerated: "There are fifty Egyptians, under Memnon, the leader of the tyranny, forty Asiatics, and also twelve heretical Messalians from Pamphylia, called by name, besides others adhering to the same metropolitan (Amphilochius, bishop of Side), and others excommunicated and deposed by synods or by bishops in different places; who assuredly are nothing other than a crowd of men ignorant of divine dogmas."

*Occasus*. Three were sent from the West, Philip the presbyter, and the bishops Arcadius and Projectus; so that the presbyter might function in the embassy of the supreme pontiff Celestine, and the bishops in the name of the Western council. They entered the synod on the 10th of July, on the following day they confirmed the deposition of Nestoruis, and five days later were present at the restoration of Cyril and Memnon.

*Quales mimi*. Compare this passage with the prologue letter to the sermons of Eutherius, and see the consistency, not only of the exaggerated lamentation but of the very words themselves.

*In tempore impietatis*. When emperors who were enemies of Christian piety were ruling. That remark was made to the invidious [disadvantage] of the reigning Theodosius the Younger, who was ceasing to favor the schismatics.

From these it is certain that the letter was given around the end of July or the beginning of August in the year 431, after, of course, Cyril and Memnon were restored on the 16th of July, and before Theodoret was to depart from Ephesus around the twenty-seventh day of August.

*Epistola 169, written by Theodoret to Alexander of Hierapolis.*

I. That Alexander of Hierapolis, to whom the letter is written, held the primacy of the province of Euphratensis, in which Cyrus is located, and was one of the two metropolitans whom Cyril relates had been sent ahead by John of Antioch, to announce the coming of the Orientals and at the same time to warn the Fathers gathered at Ephesus to delay doing for the time being that which seemed necessary to be done.

II. He was the first to subscribe, before Dorotheus of Marcianopolis, to the mandate given to the schismatic legates, although after him one reads that he subscribed to the decree of damnation made against Cyril. The cause of this matter is not entirely clear: I think it happened because he held the place of John of Antioch, seeing that he was the first metropolitan of the Oriental diocese; but Dorotheus, although he was a metropolitan, belonged to another diocese, namely the Constantinopolitan.

III. After the council he did not survive for long: for John, his successor, makes mention of Panolbius, who succeeded him, as having long since died, in the council at Antioch held at the end of the year 444 regarding the cause of Athanasius of Perrha: nor did John himself hold the episcopate for long, since Stephanus, the successor of John, sat in the robber council in the year 449 and in the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451.

IV. In his place Theodoret was sent to the Emperor, as is evident from the inscription of the mandate given by the Orientals to their legates: in which inscription I observe that all who are chosen are metropolitans or in the place of metropolitans, except for Paul of Emesa, who acts in the place of Acacius of Beroea, although he was not a metropolitan; such was the reverence of the Orientals for the old man [Acacius], and, if one may speak so, the dean of bishops.

V. In the fifth synod, a fragment of a letter is read, which was sent by Nestorius to this Alexander: where the abominable heretic openly reveals the impiety which he otherwise conceals: from which, not improbably, it can be believed that he wrote it to his partner in error.

VI. From those things which are told in the letter regarding the conversation of the Oriental legates with the Emperor at Rufinianum, the time notation is clear: for it is shown to have been given before the mandate was given for the Orientals to depart and for the Catholics to enter the city to ordain a bishop. It was written, therefore, toward the end of September or the beginning of October.

VII. There has recently been found one who would want it to be believed to be supposititious, or rather would wish it; for he felt it to be vehemently detrimental to his own affairs; but lest he appear alien to common sense because of what was certainly going to be,

^A he chose to call it useless—to that end, because of which he was moving toward achieving it, namely, to convict Theodoret of adherence to the errors of Nestorius. He confesses, however, that in it two dispositions of the author are signally revealed: one of love toward Nestorius, another of hatred toward the chapters of holy Cyril, which he calls heretical. So says he. But, I think, he will persuade no theologian of his opinion: for how could a man not very slow-witted, of which sort Theodoret certainly was not, after the third set of chapters from Cyril were set forth, have failed to notice that the Catholic faith was contained in them, if only he felt that that faith was the Catholic one, which confesses a physical and [hypostatic] union? But if he did not feel that faith to be Catholic, how is he not guilty of the Nestorian error?

VIII. It is to be noted that these things are openly revealed by Theodoret in this letter: how he was disposed toward the Ephesine Fathers, whom he calls impious and adulterators of the faith; how likewise toward Nestorius, whom he calls friend and father; how toward the sacred ^B consistory and the princes of the court, whom he writes were corrupted by gold; how finally toward the Emperor, with whom he shows an immoderate quarrel.

IX. It is to be noted likewise what he narrates: 1st, concerning the favor and the multitude of the people, flocking by sea to his sermons; 2nd, concerning the place where he delivered the sermon; 3rd, concerning some of his own party, who, having returned to a saner mind, were withdrawing to the Catholics; 4th, concerning the churches closed by the Chalcedonian bishop so that they might not be open to schismatics; 5th, finally, concerning the zeal of the clerics and monks of the royal city. The leader of the clerics was the presbyter Philip; of the monks, the holy Dalmatius.

X. It is to be noted also that the consonance of this letter and the sermon delivered at Chalcedon is so great that one confirms the faith of the other; both certainly breathe sedition and clearly demonstrate Theodoret as the author.

XI. It is to be noted finally what Theodoret says, that the Orientals had indeed gathered at Chalcedon, but outside the church, and in that congregation there were prayers, yet they did not have either the reading of the holy Scriptures or the offering; because it was forbidden at that time to perform both, unless in a church. Whence Nestorius brings it as a great crime against Philip the presbyter that, after the withdrawal made by the clerics fleeing their own bishop as a heretic, he had held gatherings and the offering at his place. Whence also Theodoret himself used a singular dispensation, when, in the hut of Maris the hermit, using the hands of deacons in place of an altar, he performed the holy mysteries 7.

Epistle 170, of the Orientals to Rufus. I. That this is his, I do not doubt. For first, the inscription displays the name of Theodoret along with the other names of the legates. And Theodoret was one of the Orientals, and both in the synod and in the legation, he was not only the mouth when it was necessary to speak, but also the hand when a letter had to be written. Then, the style immediately reveals Theodoret to a reader not a stranger to the works of this author. Add that the identity of the phrasings and of the senses shows this in such a way that he would be almost blind who does not see that Theodoret, wishing to be clear by his name, words, style, senses, disposition of mind, and the narration of his own affairs, is the one.

II. That which Baronius 8 objects, that mention is made of Martin, bishop of the Milanese, when no one by this name governed the Milanese Church at that time, is not of great moment. Since it could easily be that Theodoret himself, a man positioned far away, said Martin, who was truly Martinianus; or the copyist, the name Martinianus being abbreviated, wrote Martin.

III. It was given at that time when the Oriental legates, having arrived at Chalcedon, were ordered to stay there, or rather after the fifth command of the Emperor had set out for Rufinianum: yet before they had been ordered to return to their own churches.

IV. The purpose of the writing was indeed that the prelate of a certain great province might be drawn to the side of the Orientals, and that Flavian, bishop of the Philippians, to whom he had committed his duties, might not be allowed to have faith in the judgment of the holy synod for Cyril: and this is the reason why the opinion of Cyril is mendaciously, the affairs of the Orientals boastfully, and the acts of the holy synod invidiously exposed.

V. From this letter four things are revealed or at least confirmed for us, from which no small light is brought to ecclesiastical history. 1. There is mention of a certain Julian, bishop of Eridica, as it is in the published codices, to whom Rufus had written concerning the Nicene faith to be retained as sufficient to show the truth, and to be defended in the synod. Gerardus Vossius 9 thought this was Julian the heretic, who, when expelled from Italy, had fled to the Asiatics, and from them had obtained either the true honor of the Eridican episcopate or at least the title for the sake of honor. Holstenius shows the falsity of the opinion, when he corrects the error of the common codex, and in place of τῆς Ἐριδικῆς Ἐκκλησίας reads τῆς Σαρδικής Ἐκκλησίας.

2. It is said that Cyril was deposed, not as a heretic, for whom a return was open through repentance; but as a heresiarch without any hope of restitution: which the ancient discipline of the Church sanctioned.

3. It is not without suspicion, that which is said, that the Emperor had commanded the Catholics either to reject the chapters of Cyril as contrary to the faith, or at least, having received them into their...

defense in the contest, to show openly that they were consistent with the confession of the holy Fathers. If Theodosius had ordered anything of the kind to the Catholics, he would not have received into the imperial city the bishop [appointed] to succeed Nestorius, before they had condemned Cyril’s chapters, which they certainly did not condemn. For if they had condemned them, why is no mention made of this condemnation in the conditions of peace? Why was it petitioned for so insistently by the Orientals? Why does Cyril so assertively contend that nothing was written by him that needed to be obliterated? Why did Theodoret, when he mentions Cyril’s chapters elsewhere (and he does mention them as often as the occasion arises), not object to this condemnation? Why did Cyril, when Acacius of Melitene, who was one of the legates of the Catholics, complained that he seemed to have retracted his former opinion when he approved the faith of the Orientals, not reply that something worse had been done by him, seeing that he had reprobated the chapters before the emperor and in the presence of the Oriental legates as witnesses? For this reason also, that Imperial Letter of Theodosius ^B, which recently came to light, dismissing to their own Churches the bishops gathered at Ephesus, is not undeservedly called into doubt: for it contains the same falsehood. Wherefore, if anyone thinks that the Letter was forged by Theodoret, or by a partisan of Theodoret, he will perhaps not seem to be far from the truth.

4. It is strange that the Euchites and Enthusiasts are said to hold the same opinions as Caelestius and Pelagius, since the Pelagians used to object the same agreement with the Euchites and Enthusiasts to the Catholics. Theodoret himself removes the cause of wonder in another place, when he teaches that the heresy of the Euchites had two parts: the one, in which they said that a man, when he was born, was subject to the power of a demon; the other, in which they asserted that baptism was of no benefit to those who received it. The former the Caelestians ^C objected to the Catholics; the latter the Catholics objected to the Caelestians. Although it seems more probable that it was not so much a fellowship of dogma as a fellowship of communion that was objected to on both sides.

Epistle 171, which Theodoret wrote to John of Antioch

I. In the Acts of the Fifth Synod, col. 5, there is read nearly the middle part of this epistle, but in Latin only: Leo Allatius edited it at greater length, in Greek and in Latin, in 1661 in his *Vindiciae synodi Ephesinae*; Cotelerius also recently edited it in his *Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae*; but both are still mutilated in the final part, if we believe the Vatican manuscript, of which we have a copy, although I fear the manuscript is not worthy of credence.

II. That it is not that of Theodoret alone, but of the entire Euphratensian synod, in whose name Theodoret wrote to John, is proved first by this expression *en koinēi*, in the assembly: then by the plural number used everywhere: finally by those things which are in the epistle to Himerius, which is synodical itself, as will be demonstrated in its proper place, ^A and was sent by the same synod at the same time.

III. The inscription teaches that it was given when the conditions of peace were being treated 13 in the council of John of Antioch at Acacius of Beroea, after the form of faith which Cyril had transmitted was accepted by the Orientals, and before the business of peace was concluded—it was indeed concluded at the beginning of the year 433, but the form of faith was sent about the month of September of the year 432. It is necessary, therefore, that this synod was written towards the end of September or in the month of October, at which time the autumnal synod was celebrated by the Euphratensians according to the prescription of the Nicene canon.

IV. Moreover, Theodoret commanded the minds of the Euphratensians in such a way 374 that he drew them to his own side, to whatever direction he wished; whence it is no wonder that John of Germanicia, Andrew of Samosata, Alexander of Hierapolis, and other prelates of Euphratesia favored Nestorius: nor is it a wonder that a synodical [letter] was not sent from the Euphratensian province to Emperor Leo twenty-five years later, when he was inquiring for the opinion of the bishops concerning the matters of the Council of Chalcedon: for at that time Theodoret had either not yet died or had died only recently, and his spirit still held the province.

V. Nilus of Thessalonica and Joseph Bryennius abused this epistle when they were disputing about the procession of the Holy Spirit, and strove to prove by the testimony of Theodoret that the doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, which Cyril had delivered in his anathematisms, had been retracted when peace was entered ^B into. Leo Allatius, in his *Vindiciae synodi Ephesinae*, in order to dilute this proof, offers two exceptions: first, that the epistle seems to him to be supposititious; second, that Cyril complained to John of Antioch about Theodoret on the occasion of this epistle.

VI. Neither he nor they are to be hearkened to. For first, the testimony of a man who is irascibly slandering is inconsiderately brought forward by schismatics. Next, Allatius, when he says that Cyril complained to John about Theodoret on the occasion of this epistle, sins against the logic of time; for this epistle was given at the end of the year 432; but the epistle in which Cyril complains [was written] in the year 438, as quickly as possible. Finally, the exception regarding its being a fabrication is made without any suitable reason: for the arguments that Allatius brings forward are futile.

VII. He offers three in total. 1. That epistle seems quite similar to one which is cited by Theodoret at the death of Cyril, written indecorously, not to say atrociously. Since, therefore, many think the latter is supposititious, the same judgment seems to be borne for the former. 2. Leontius warns that many letters exchanged between Nestorius and Theodoret were fabricated by heretics: why should these not be one of them? 3. Cyril complains that there is circulated ^C

among men of great, that is to say, of great authority, letters in which it is said that he had sung a palinode: for he does not assert that these which bear the name of Theodoret are fabricated, but others which were inscribed under his own name. In truth, Theodoret, a man most renowned throughout the entire East, boasted of this regarding Cyril in three other letters, the first to Andrew the monk of Constantinople: "Behold those who had confounded the natures of the Savior Christ with impious reasoning, and had dared to preach one nature, and the rest," which are contained in almost the same words as these. It is helpful to compare the two writings, and at the same time to remember that authority is lent to the former by the latter, and to the latter by the testimony of Marius Mercator. The same thing is found in the second letter, to Himerius of Nicomedia, and the third, to Andrew of Samosata. Moreover, I have no doubt that Cyril referred to this synodical letter, but not to the three aforementioned—since those were private, while this one was synodical.

*In the assembly, etc.* That letters from Egypt, of which there is talk, were read and accepted in the synod is established by the three other letters we mentioned above.

*The consonant opinions of all, etc.* In Greek, *συμφώνους ἀλλήλοις τὰς πάντων ἔδειξε γνώμας*. Allatius translates: "consonant wills of all." Cotelerius: "he made the opinions to be in agreement with one another." Neither seems to have expressed the whole meaning: for Theodoret signifies that the consensus of Cyril with the Orientals, and of the Orientals with Nestorius, was made so manifest—a point he sets forth more openly when writing to both Andrew—that is, to the monk of Constantinople and to the bishop of Samosata.

*Having become flesh carnally, etc.* Chapter 1: ^A *Γεγένηκε γὰρ σαρκικῶς σάρκα γεγονότα τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον, etc.*

*And the union according to the hypostasis, etc.* Chapter 2: ^B *Union according to nature, etc.* Chapter 3: *If anyone does not confess having been united to flesh according to hypostasis, the Word from God the Father, etc., for one Christ, divides the hypostases after the union, connecting them only by junction, according to dignity, or authority, or power, and not rather by a union according to nature, let him be anathema.*

*First-born from the dead, etc.* Chapter 12: *If anyone does not confess* ^C *the Word of God to have suffered in the flesh, and been crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, and having become the first-born from the dead, according to which He is life and life-giving.*

*Division of the words, etc.* Chapter 4: *If anyone distributes to two persons, that is, to hypostases, the expressions in the evangelical and apostolic writings, whether spoken by the holy men concerning Christ, or by Him concerning Himself, and applies some as to a man, specifically understood apart from the Word from God the Father, but others as becoming to God only to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.*

*Finally, the Holy Spirit, etc.* ^D This is the place which has been so contentiously vexed by schismatics and Catholics arguing about the procession of the Holy Spirit, and which gave Allatius the occasion to write the *Vindiciae synodi Ephesinae* with no mediocre effort. But, in my opinion, there was no cause why so great a struggle should rage here and there over this passage between the schismatics and Allatius. For the synod was not concerned with the procession of the Holy Spirit when it approved the chapters of Cyril; nor did Cyril have much need of the procession of the Spirit from the Son; but rather he needed only the [doctrine of] consubstantiality to refute the error of Nestorius, who wished Christ to be aided in the performing of miracles by the Holy Spirit as if by an extraneous and superior power.

*Epistle 179, which Cyril wrote to John of Antioch 15.*

*Epistle, etc.* It was given around the year 439; for it could not have been written later or earlier. Not later, because John of Antioch departed from this life in the year 440. Not earlier, because they exchanged letters when Cyril published books against Diodorus and Theodore, and Theodoret refuted those published. Indeed, Cyril wrote after the books of Nestorius were burned by command of the emperor in the year 435. Therefore the defense of Theodoret against Cyril seems to pertain to the year 436 or 437. See what we have said at chapter 10 of Liberatus.

*By the example of the most holy, etc.* The Eastern diocese, which had accepted the conditions of peace.

*This your holiness to me, etc.* Intending to reproach John for his overly soft indulgence toward Theodoret, he prudently removes the envy of wounded charity.

*If what I have learned is true, etc.* These were all true.

325 DE LIBRIS THEODORETI.

fully, and because of the disturbances which Theodoret did not cease to stir up as he went about, he was ordered in the year 445 to confine himself within the borders of Cyrus, to the great sorrow of his heart. See chapter 8 of the *Life*.

*Epistle 180, which Theodoret is said to have written to Domnus of Antioch.*

I. It is inserted into the Acts of the Fifth Synod, in the fifth session, but with a corrupted inscription: for "John" one should substitute "Domnus," as nearly all learned men now know, and as the series of the Acts demonstrates. Indeed, it was written immediately upon the arrival in the East of the news concerning the passing of Saint Cyril; wherefore it pertains to the month of July of the year 444; since, according to the opinion of the Greeks, which is the more probable, Saint Cyril departed this life on June 9.

II. From this it also becomes known at what time the assembly was held, a fragment of which Marius Mercator possesses, and which is also inserted into the Acts of the same Fifth Synod: for it followed the epistle, and thus it ought to be referred to the time of the regular Antiochene synod, to which Theodoret came in the autumn season.

III. Cardinal Baronius ^A considers it supposititious for three reasons. First, because it is inscribed to John, even though he had been dead for four full years before Cyril. Second, because it is the work of a Nestorian man, as one who disputes those who assert that God suffered. Finally, because he treats Cyril with such great, and such atrocious, and even abject contumelies, that they can hardly appear to have been able to proceed from a bishop like Theodoret.

IV. Before Baronius, so far as I know, this opinion of its being a forgery had occurred to no one; nevertheless, after he stated his opinion in the *Annales*, it pleased many merely to follow him as their leader, without almost any investigation; and it did not merely please them, but they added words full of angry indignation. For, to say nothing of others, Christian Lupus (for so he speaks) called it "infernal, and, indeed, words worthy of the devil alone," and said that it was not the work of Theodoret, or of any Christian bishop, but of the foulest buffoon, of a profligate, and of a scoundrel.

V. Furthermore, there was found recently one who, in a preface to a French version of the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, wishing to add something of his own to the arguments of Baronius, asserted that John had died seven years before Cyril, in which ^D anachronism he sinned not lightly: for Cyril most certainly died in the year 444, and John in 440 or 441.

VI. But having dismissed this author with his anachronism, and having also dismissed Lupus with his angry words, let us examine what the author of the *Annales* objects.

VII. It must be admitted that in the common manuscripts the name ^A of John is inscribed: but almost all learned men agree in this, that what is clear is the case, namely, that a mistake has crept into the inscription, and the name of John was put in place of Domnus by an unskillful copyist. No prudent man, however, would say that for this reason the epistle ought to be rejected. For who would think that Theodoret’s epistles 117 and 139 ought to be repudiated, even if the inscription of both is false? For it was not given to Florentius the bishop, nor was the latter given to Aspar the consul; since the former is to many, and the latter is to Avienus the consul, as the writing is presumed to be either in the year 449 or 450. Certainly Aspar did not hold the consulship at the time when Theodoret could have complained of the injury done to him by Dioscorus.

VIII. It must also be admitted that this epistle is the work of a Nestorian man; but from this the reasoning of Baronius is undermined: for it was inserted into the Acts of the Fifth Synod for the very purpose that Theodoret might thence be convicted of agreement with Nestorius: and in truth, the fact that the writer disputes those who assert that God suffered works against Baronius, so that this might be abhorrent to the view of Theodoret ^B, as this same reproach occurs everywhere throughout his writings.

IX. Finally, it must be admitted that in it Cyril is mocked with atrocious and abject contumelies: but even this does not support Baronius: for Theodoret, having collected bile over a long time, and having suppressed it through fear, at last—when he permits it to exude first freely, though ineffectually, in friendly letters, as happens, to a private friend, about a fierce and, as he thought, common enemy, about a man who was plotting a new—and even worse than the first—accusation against both of them at Constantinople—laying aside the sentiment of his mind, he rejoices and congratulates himself that victory was given by God after the enemy was laid low. It is not therefore surprising, but rather credible, that on account of an experience as unhappy as it was daily, a man otherwise good succumbed to human failings, and, powerless because of wrath over frustrated hope of glory and joy over the removal of an adversary, let fall what was unworthy of a bishop.

X. But what, finally, were the insults Theodoret here leveled at Cyril, to which he did not pour out more atrocious ones against the same man and other most holy men in his undoubted books? He calls this man wicked and miserable, "whose malice seemed to have been imputed to the Church by God as a plague." For toward this everything falls back.

XI. But in the epistle to John of Antioch ^D prefixed to the critique of the anathemas, he calls the most holy defender of the divinity of Christ a shepherd "who more cruelly tears apart his sheep, who under the name of piety preaches heresies and blasphemies, who renews an impious doctrine, whose chapters contain a heretical meaning," etc.

^A XII. And in the letter to Rufus of Thessalonica, he calls him a "heresiarch, the author of perverse dogmas, who corrupts the orthodox faith, whose chapters are proposed for the ruin of the Church." Here, therefore, I would gladly ask those who reject the letter: is the heresiarch not worse than the bad man and the miserable man? Is impiety, heresy, and blasphemy not more detestable due to malice?

XIII. But with what insulting epithets does he pursue the Ephesian Fathers, that is, the doctors of the Church and teachers of holiness? He calls them "men bereft of their wits, self-appointed blind men and slaves of envy, fighters against God, shepherds who surrender the flock to the wolves, who proffer poisonous herbs to the sheep," etc.

XIV. But perhaps someone will object: "Theodoret wrote these things in the first period, when he had not yet perceived the catholic meaning of the chapters: he wrote before the peace of the Churches, when minds were hostile, or certainly when he had not yet been reconciled with Cyril." I admit this, indeed; yet not even in the year 449 had he laid aside his opinion concerning the chapters, when, writing to Domnus, he said things full of venom. Never, unless worn down by evils—which happened after the year 447—was he seen to consent to the peace of the Churches; he was never sincerely reconciled to Cyril, as Cyril complains when writing to John.

XV. But so that it may be more manifest on how slight conjectures the opinion of those who repudiate the letter rests, it is worth the effort to consider it a little more attentively. It consists of five parts in total, of which the first praises the hidden and benign providence of God, which sometimes grants a short life to the good and a long one to the wicked: to the former, so that they may be freed quickly from evils; to the latter, so that they may obtain a place for repentance. The second and third contain an imitation of passages which Lucian sprinkles in his Dialogues of the Dead, and especially in the one which is inscribed *Tyrant*, in which Megapenthes is brought before Rhadamanthus and, with the philosopher Cyniscus accusing him, pays the penalty. The fourth is full of the testimony of Christian piety, although it has something mingled of bitterness; for Theodoret grieves for the fate of the dead, and requests that prayers be offered to Domnus on his behalf, and Christian duties, although the business of death was near to both of them. The fifth is historical, and teaches, which is also known from elsewhere, that Cyril, a little before his death, had brought complaints about the bishops of the East to the emperor. ^B

XVI. What does the first part contain, if these words are excepted: "a bad man, unworthy of a bishop"? The second and third have, I admit, something jocular and humble, but even grave men sometimes use this genre of writing, when they take something from comedies or other such scripts to express their own feelings among intimates. The fourth contains no other bitterness than that which indignation against the woman—which Theodoret had borne for a long time—had already collected. So far is this from supporting the conjecture of a forgery that, because of its consistency with the undeniable documents of history, the judgment of the author of Theodoret is certain; for it teaches the same thing as Cyril in his letters to Maximus the deacon, to Acacius of Melitene concerning Maximus, to the clerics and Lampo the presbyter concerning the complaints of the same Maximus, to Proclus of Constantinople, and what Theodoret teaches in letters 84, 85, etc.

XVII. To these things, which have been said thus far to defend the Acts of the fifth synod in which the letter is inserted, we add first that nothing of dogma is objected to Cyril, except that which is wont to be objected everywhere by Theodoret: "namely, God having suffered, wrapping the immortal nature in death." Then, if there had ever been any species or shadow of forgery, the schismatic defenders of the Three Chapters certainly, when they inquired more curiously into the Acts of the fifth synod, in order to detract from their authority, would have excepted against the letter on the grounds of forgery—a thought which, however, did not come to anyone's mind before Baronius.

XVIII. From this it is certain that there was no fault in the inscribed name in the ^C previous codices, but only in the more recent ones: for how would the schismatics have remained silent? But how was it not detected by the learned ancient editors of the councils? For it could easily have been detected from the following fragment, had not the custom of reading averted the mind: since it is evident that both the letter and the fragment of the oration are of the same subject and the same manner, so that they are almost of the same time; yet the inscription of the oration presents the name of Domnus.

XIX. After the truth of the letter has been asserted, it remains to amend something which is read partly through the carelessness of the interpreter, partly through the fault of the copyists, in the edition of both the Councils and Baronius. That, indeed, is not troublesome, although the Greek text has not yet been edited, or indeed it is uncertain if it lies hidden anywhere. Therefore, with the name of Domnus restored in the inscription, certain things pertaining to the syntax of the words had to be corrected ^D: first, that they may take, learn, and give, instead of *capere* (to take), *discere* (to learn), and *dare* (to give). Then, it did not relinquish to the example of others, instead of: *nor did it relinquish to the example of others*; finally, the Cynic of Lucian instead of, the Cynic of Cilicia.

XX. There are those who interpret these words: "Attempting greater and worse things, he has died; for he dreamed, as they say, both to disturb the royal city and to accuse your holiness," etc., in such a way that he wishes Cyril to have come to Constantinople shortly before his death, and there with Proclus to have examined the cause of Athanasius, the bishop of the Perrhenians, and from there to have given letters to Domnus, from whom Athanasius had appealed. For to this they draw the words of Athanasius related in action 11 of the Council of Chalcedon: "This (the cause...

they heard, both Cyril of blessed memory and Proclus, and they wrote certain mandates to Domnus, who was bishop of Antioch, and he promised to fulfill them; but when he learned of the death of the blessed Cyril, he drew back and summoned me to judgment." By the name of "mandates" (τύπων), he understands the letters of both prelates to Domnus, both of which are inserted in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon in the cited action. But I do not see what shape of truth exists in this conjecture. For the words of Athanasius signify nothing else than that the individual prelates, whom he visited while they were resident in their own cities, wrote to Domnus. Furthermore, what cause could have been ^B so grave as to compel Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, broken by old age—as he was over seventy—to undertake such a journey in winter time upon a tempestuous sea? Certainly so great a cause would not have escaped the writers of that time, who were otherwise diligent searchers into the affairs of Cyril. What of the fact that it is incredible that two patriarchs, who were contending with each other for primacy, should have convened in one synod, unless forced by some most grave authority or cause, which can be offered by no one in a probable way? Add to this that the letters of both patriarchs to Domnus are distinct, nor do they make any mention of any common synod; and in this way they indicate not obscurely that they were sent from different places. Nor, indeed, ought it to disturb anyone that they are of almost the same form; for each one held to that mode of writing which Athanasius had extracted from both, by both his complaints and his prayers. Finally, Cyril speaks of the Constantinopolitan synod as if he knew of it from the account of Athanasius alone; nor does Proclus speak of the letters of Cyril as if they were common (for they are different), but as if they were to be delivered at one time to Domnus by Athanasius, who came by a certain immense journey from his own province to Constantinople to the emperor and Proclus, thence to Alexandria to Cyril, again from Egypt to Constantinople, and finally from the royal city to Antioch, with the writings of the emperor and the patriarchs.

XXI. But that I said the second and third part imitated the jests of Lucian, no one will disagree who has read the dialogue ^C *The Tyrant*, and compared it with these words: "This one, however, indeed has another silence: for the naked facts of his bind his tongue, obstruct his mouth, restrain his sense, make him silent, and compel him to incline to the earth." An allusion is made, then, to both the denudation of Megapenthes, by which his deeds are made manifest, and to his silence, because of the testimony of conscience and eyes cast down to the ground through shame, etc.

But these words, "He cast dung into his mouth, and a bridle upon his lips, and turned him unto the earth," are an allusion to that which is in Isaiah, ch. xxxvii, 29: 'Εμβαλῶ φιμὸν εἰς τὸν ῥῖνά σου, καὶ χαλινὸν εἰς τὰ χείλη σου, καὶ ἀποστρέψω σε τῇ ὁδῷ, ᾗ ἦλθες ἐν αὐτῇ. "I will put a ring in thy nose, and a bridle on thy lips, and I will turn thee away by the way ^D by which thou camest." Furthermore, the interpreter of the epistle did not very learnedly retain the Greek name *phimon*, nor did he write *phimum* in Latin, which the copyists perverted into *fimum* ("dung").

Epistle 181, to Bishop Abundius

I. Abundius, as he is in his *Life* by Mombritius, took his origin from Thessalonica; thence he went into Italy and attached himself to Amantius, bishop of Como, by whom, on account of his exceptional virtues, he was ordained and set over the Church of Como, which Amantius, when dying, did not wish to leave a widow.

II. Theodoret sent this epistle to him, situated at Constantinople while he was discharging the embassy of St. Leo, in the year 450, at the beginning of autumn, from the monastery near Apamea, into which he had withdrawn, having been ejected from his see.

III. The cause for sending this embassy was this: when St. Leo could not prevail upon the Emperor Theodosius that a synod be held in Italy which might amend the Acts of the Robber Council of Ephesus, he directed into the Orient, with letters to Theodosius, four 382 men skilled in both languages and industrious, namely two bishops, Abundius of Como and Asterius of Venusia, and also two priests, Basil and Senator. He directed them, indeed, that they might test the faith of Anatolius; for it was deservedly suspected, since he had been created bishop by Dioscorus's agent for the Church of Constantinople.

IV. The legates sent from Rome arrived on July 16th at Constantinople while Theodosius was not yet dead: for he died on the 29th of the same month. Having found the minds of the Emperor Marcian and the Augusta Pulcheria tractable, they obtained without much difficulty that Anatolius should receive the letter of Leo to Flavian, and that, with a synod convened *ἐνδημούσῃ* (resident), he should take care to have it received both by other bishops then existing in the retinue, and by the archimandrites and priests of the royal city.

V. That this epistle is genuine, let no one prudently doubt, for it is consistent with the history of the times, the letters of St. Leo, and epistle 107 of Theodoret, which we shall show in its place to have been written either to the Roman clergy or rather to the Occidental synod.

VI. Theodoret gave himself a reason for writing, partly that he might exhort the legate of the Roman See to manage the Catholic cause strenuously in the royal city, and to repair the damage to the faith brought about in the Robber Council of Ephesus; partly that he might give the firmest and most holy testimony of his own faith, and that of his two friends Ibas and Aquilinus, to the prince of the apostolic embassy. For to his own letters he subjoined the letter of Leo to Flavian, approved by his own subscription and that of his friends.

VII. Of the see of Asterius, the writers are silent: I think he had presided over the Church of Venusia. Nor is it indeed alien to the truth that that admirable Asterius of Venusia, who in the year 493 was present at the dedication of the church...

of Saint Michael on Mount Garganus, had performed the embassy of Saint Leo in the year 450, when he had already been bishop for four or five years. For from this, the sole conclusion would be that he died as an octogenarian, or slightly older, having presided for about 45 years: which is neither insolent nor incredible.

VIII. Nor does it stand as an obstacle that John, to whose see Asterius is said to have succeeded, is said to have lived under Leo I in the year 443, and to have performed many illustrious deeds during that time, such as when he encountered Attila as he was attacking Venusia with his clergy and a cross, and repelled the barbarian's onslaught, so that the barbarian army, catching sight of the image of the Mother of God from heaven, retreated with their task unfulfilled. For besides the fact that Attila never ^B retreated from Venusia, and that the accounts of John encountering him are not very consistent, Asterius could certainly have succeeded into John's place in the interval of time that elapsed from the year 443 to 450, as is manifest from what has been said.

IX. There are items worthy of note here. 1. By the name of the new heresy 383, Theodoret is to be understood as referring to that which he indeed attributed to Cyril, but which Eutyches actually upheld. 2. How much weight he attributed to the letters of the supreme pontiffs in the cause of faith; for speaking of the letter of Saint Leo to Flavian, he says this: "To which I have subscribed, and from this I have proven that I follow the apostolic rules, that is, true dogmas." Among the Westerners, as it were, through these, even the Easterners preserve the true religion of the sacrosanct Church.

CHAPTER VI. A review of the works which are contained in Volume IV of Sirmond’s edition.

The fourth volume comprises the four books of the *Eranistes* or *Polymorphus*, five books of the *Heretical Fables*, ten sermons on *Providence*, twelve books on the *Curing of Greek Affections*, and an Appendix.

§ I. The Eranistes or Polymorphus.

I. The *Eranistes* or *Polymorphus* is contained in four books, the first three of which have the form of dialogues. The fourth is titled *Demonstration by Syllogisms*; for those matters that were discussed more fully and rhetorically in the dialogues concerning the immutability of the Word, the non-confusion of the natures, and the impassibility of the divine nature, are condensed into syllogisms, so that the force may be both clearer and more effective.

II. Photius also mentions this work in codex 46, where, having spoken individually of the twenty-seven books which he attributes in their entirety to Theodoret, he adds that in the same volume he also read three books of his that are larger than the former ones. They bear the title *Eranistes*, or *Polymorphus*: the first of these teaches that God ^A the Word is immutable; the second, that the union is unconfused; the third, that God is impassible. A fourth is added, in which these same matters are pressed by syllogisms.

III. Nicephorus also mentions it in lib. XIV, cap. 54, where, after he has reviewed many of Theodoret’s works, he ends his enumeration with these words: "Three books on divine dogmas written in dialogue form. I have also read his more than five hundred letters, composed in the Greek language most excellently."

IV. Theodoret mentions this in two places, namely in epistle 16 to Irenæus, where he brings forward the reason why, among the testimonies of the Fathers that were to be subjoined to the individual dialogues, he had made no mention of Diodorus of Tarsus, nor of Theodore of Mopsuestia; and in epistle 85 to Dioscorus, high priest of Alexandria, when he wished to testify to his own respect toward Theophilus and Cyril, the predecessors of Dioscorus, he has this: "But that we also, having used the writings of the blessed Theophilus and Cyril, silence those who dare to gainsay, the letters themselves bear witness; for those who deny the difference between the Lordly flesh and the divinity, and who sometimes say that the divine nature has been turned into flesh, and sometimes that the flesh has been changed into the nature of divinity, we endeavor to cure with the medicaments of these wonderful men; for they clearly instruct us in the difference between the two natures, and they proclaim the immutability ^C of the divine nature, and they call the Lordly flesh divine, as having become the flesh of the God Word, but they denounce as impious the idea that it has been changed into the nature of divinity."

That we also use the writings of the blessed Theophilus and Cyril, to beat back men who have dared to disagree, the books themselves testify. For we strive to cure with the medicaments of these wonderful Fathers those who deny the difference between the Lordly flesh and the divinity, and who say that now the divine nature has been turned into flesh, and now the flesh has passed into the nature of divinity. For they clearly teach us the distinction of the two natures, and they proclaim the immutability of the divine nature, and they call the Lordly flesh divine, as having become the flesh of God the Word: but that it had been converted into the nature of divinity, they reject as impious.

384 V. Regarding both of these epistles of Theodoret, it is worth noting: 1° That the one which is inscribed to Irenæus was written in the year 449, toward the end of April, at which time the Sacra of Theodosius—summoning the metropolitans to the second council of Ephesus—had reached Antioch, since it is read to have been given at Constantinople on the Ides of April, after the consulship of Zeno and Postumianus. 2° That the epistle sent by Theodoret to Dioscorus ^D in the year 448 was not much affected, before, that is, he was publicly anathematized by Dioscorus in the Church of Alexandria.

3° That mention is made of the *Eranistes* as a widely circulated work, and one already known in Egypt; yet could it have been divulged and reached such a remote region, unless it had been composed and published some two or three years before? From this I conclude that it ought not to seem unreasonable to anyone that the judgment of Gennadius or others, who believed the work praised by Theodoret when he was writing letters of apology to Dioscorus was written against Dioscorus himself, might appear astonishing. Indeed, Theodoret would have been the most impudent of men, had he appealed to the Bishop of the Roman Church ^A to read a work in which he was being ridiculed under a persona; or the most imprudent, had he wished to clear himself before one whom he himself was accusing; or the most senseless, had he sought the friendship of a man whom he was mocking.

VI. By no ancient writer is this work favored with any particular praise, although it is mentioned by some, such as Photius and Nicephorus: a fact which should not be passed over without observation, especially since the propensity of both these authors for praising Theodoret is otherwise profuse: Nicephorus calls it only a book, and Photius praises nothing else than what is common to all his other works, namely, the perspicuity and purity of his language.

VII. Not only did the ancients not praise it, but they even held it suspect under the name of heresy: for which cause ^B it was consigned to the flames by a dual edict of Theodosius; the emperor issued the first at the end of the year 447, which is found in part III of the Council of Ephesus, ch. 47; he gave the second in the year 449, when he was approving the Ephesian Council.

VIII. These are the words of the former: "Since, however, it has reached our pious and sacred ears that certain doctrines have been written and published by some that are ambiguous and not fully and openly in accordance with the orthodox faith set forth by the Council of holy Fathers gathered at Nicaea and Ephesus, and by Cyril of pious memory, formerly bishop of the city of the Alexandrians: we command that writings of this kind, whether they were composed before or at this present time, be burned and utterly abolished, so that they may in no way be available for anyone to read; ^C those who have dared to possess or read such writings or books among themselves, being threatened with the ultimate punishment."

IX. These are the words of the latter edict, by which the Ephesian Robber Council is approved: "Whoever shall possess books containing the forbidden faith of Nestorius and Theodoret, or their interpretations, or what are called 'allocutory sermons' or 'traditions'; let him be subjected to the same torments: even if the things composed by them have been inscribed with another's name."

X. Regarding both sanctions, these six things should be observed: 1. The prior sanction was published in the year 447, for it was read in accordance with the decree of the praetors in the church of the monks dwelling in the deserts on the 23rd day of the month of Pharmuthi, in the first indiction, in the year 164 of Diocletian; that is, on the eighteenth day of April of the year 448, when the desert dwellers had gathered to celebrate Easter, and were soon, having finished the feasts after the *nea kyriake*, to have returned each to his own place. However, the sanction could not have been conveyed to Palestine from Constantinople, and even to the deserts of Egypt, without having been given some months earlier, and thus towards the end of the year 447, in the month of December, I suppose, or even November: for if it had been given sooner, it could have been read in the church of the monks gathering to celebrate the birth of Christ. ^D Moreover, it was read on the *nea kyriake*: for in the year 448, Easter fell on the 11th of April, and consequently the *nea kyriake* fell on the 18th of April. It was read to the monks because of those who were stirring up factions even in the very deserts of the East, as we learn from the Sacred [Letter] of Theodosius, who was summoning Barsumas, the leader of the monks of the East, to the second Ephesian Council, so that he might sit among the Fathers on behalf of all.

2. The second sanction, although it possesses no temporal mark, yet from the things it contains, it sufficiently demonstrates the year 449, towards the end, or the beginnings of the following year: for it confirms the II Ephesian Council held on the 10th of August of the year 449.

3. These words of the prior [edict]: "that some doctrines have been written and published which are ambiguous and not fully and openly in accordance with the orthodox faith set forth, etc." manifestly designate the dialogues with the *Eranistes*: for in them the Catholic faith is ostensibly [put forward], [but] in reality Nestorianism is traded; yet it is artfully concealed, as will be said later. Certainly, all things can be interpreted in either direction according to the affection of the mind, so that neither a Catholic nor a Nestorian would strongly abhor the words of the dialogues.

4. These words likewise of the prior [edict], "or if they were composed at this present time," are without doubt to be understood of books recently composed, which would stir up disturbances in the East, which would foster Nestorianism, which would carry the name of some man who was great among the monks. But these things apply perfectly to the dialogues of Theodoret: for they were written even before the deposition of Irenaeus, as is established from epistle 16, and were being circulated throughout the entire East; and with the name of Theodoret inscribed, they were read the more detrimentally, the greater was the authority of so great a man, and the more they seemed to be confirmed by the testimony of many doctors of the Church.

5. The latter is a confirmation—or rather an exposition—of the prior; for the books which were condemned before with the author's name being silent and his own [name omitted], are now called Theodoret's, and are called "allocutory sermons" or "traditions"; that is, dialogues, whose doctrine would be confirmed by the judgment and testimony of the Fathers from all parts of the world.

^A 6. This latter inscription is not unhelpful for the history: "An interpretation of the law promulgated by Theodosius the Younger, when he had been seduced by Chrysaphius against Flavian and his associates, in favor of Eutyches, which the law of the most religious Prince Marcian subsequently destroyed." Which inscription appears to have been added by the deacon Rusticus, or by some other transcriber.

XI. I have heard some who, out of the partiality they bore toward Theodoret, vehemently contended for three things: first, that the latter sanction is doubtful, as it is not read in Greek, for which reason the act of the Council of Chalcedon concerning Domnus is wont to be rejected; second, that the name of Theodoret ought not to be read in it, but that of Theodore, by whose teaching Nestorius learned his heresy, and whose writings were refuted by the holy Cyril and Proclus, and condemned by Theodosius along with the works of Nestorius, by a sanction inserted into the Acts of the fifth council, collation 5; lastly, that the sanction of Theodosius, even if it be true, is nevertheless of no moment, because it was stolen from the imprudent emperor by the arts of Chrysaphius, and rescinded by Marcian after the matter was debated more accurately.

XII. These three points are altogether trivial; and the vanity of the first is apparent from the fact that many things once written in Greek are now read only in Latin, or even in the Council of Chalcedon itself. Certainly, the fifth council is not to be despised on the ground that the Greek Acts have perished. As regards the second, the sanction of Marcian proves the attempt at emendation by that admirer of Theodoret to be an act of rashness: for when it rescinds the Theodosian law, it makes manifest mention of Theodoret. Finally, as to the last point, that the sanction was stolen by the arts of Chrysaphius, while this may prove that it is not free from vice, it does not prove that it was null; but if it was anything at all, it is certain that what was to be demonstrated has been: namely, that the dialogues of Theodoret had been consigned to the flames. Furthermore, as to what the emperor said—that in the dialogues ambiguous, etc., doctrines were published; and what I have added, that the Catholic faith was held in name while in reality Nestorianism was handed down—anyone who reads through the whole work with eyes both learned and curious will easily perceive it: for it does not appear to differ in appearance from the opinion of the Fathers, whom he praises in great numbers, regarding the conjunction of natures in Christ, but he speaks with those words which Nestorius used, and which were at that time deservedly suspect: for he mentions only *enoikēseōs*, *antilēpseōs*, *proslēpseōs*, and *lēpseōs*.

XIII. Indeed, he even artfully insinuates, or even proves, Nestorianism: for since it is confessed that the Catholic dogma is contained within the understanding of that admirable saying, "The Word was made flesh," and the sentiment of John cannot be understood, if the error of the Docetae is rejected, except in five ways, by which it can truly happen that one substance is said to become another. 1° By information, in the manner that ^B the soul becomes man by union with the body. 2° By transmutation, in the manner that that which is said to be water at the marriage feast, was made wine by the working of Christ. 3° By confusion and mixture, as to how elements become a mixture. 4° By the hypostatic union of two natures, in what manner an individual of one nature can be thought to be able to become another. 5° Finally, by a mere *schései*, in the way that a man and a wife become one flesh and one person morally. Theodoret rejects the first and second in his first dialogue, which is called "The Immutable"; the third in the second, which is "The Unconfused"; the fourth in the third, which is "The Impassible." For it is certain that, in the first, whatever begins to be informed or mixed is subject to mutation; secondly, that its own operation is not retained by that which is confused; thirdly, it is a consequence of the fact that the Word is united to human nature *physikōs* and *kath' hypostasin*, that he is truly called God, having suffered, died, been buried, and raised from the dead; which locutions he rejects as abhorrent to right reason. It remains, therefore, that both natures of Christ come together into one only by *schései*, which is pure Nestorianism.

XIV. But after he has pursued these things at greater length, and having appeared to himself to have completed them in three dialogues, he accomplishes the same—or, as he confidently says, demonstrates it—in Book IV, more pressingly in the manner of dialecticians with forty syllogisms. And certainly he believed he had scarcely produced any work more elaborately; wherefore, when Eranistes had once warned him to produce the demonstrations he had promised, he induces Eranistes, who was admiring the strength of his demonstrations, as a witness, from which it is to be gathered how firmly and how long he adhered to his opinion ^C concerning the *schetikē* union of natures.

XV. Moreover, that such was the mind of Theodoret, as we have said, Marius Mercator, not only of the same age, but also an associate in the same combat, though on the opposite side, evidently proves by the testimony brought from the sixth book of his *Pentalogius*. What the Lord says concerning husband and wife, that "they are no longer two, but one flesh," the natures without doubt remaining, but having a distinction: and just as there the number of two is no obstacle to their being called one flesh, so here also the unity of person is no obstacle to the difference of natures. Finally, when we distinguish the natures, we call the nature of the Word of God whole and the person without doubt perfect: for it is not lawful to assert a substance without a person; we likewise confess the human nature to be perfect with its own person; but when we look toward the conjunction, then we name God one person. He says *prosōpon*, which is a moral word; not *hypostasin*, which is physical.

XVI. Marius Mercator thus thinking of Theodoret ^D

^A makes it credible; Gregory the Great, when writing to the bishops of Istria under the name of Pelagius II, attributes the same things to Theodoret as Mercator; and not only the same things, but in the same words, which he transcribed from the work of Mercator.

XVII. I know that Leontius and the excerptor of the Fifth Synod attribute these words to Theodore of Mopsuestia: but there is nothing at all to wonder at in the fact that Theodoret received something from Theodore, at the time when as a disciple he was defending his master, just as he borrows words and sentiments from Chrysostom in his Commentaries on the Psalms. See what we have said regarding the cited excerpt in the latter part of the Works of Marius Mercator, and what is said in the review of the Commentaries on the Psalms.

XVIII. From these things which have been said thus far 389, it is evident that the *Eranistes* was written before the year 448, in which year Theodoret wrote to Dioscorus: for how could he have challenged him to that work in the year 448, if it had not then been published even in Egypt? And how could it have reached Egypt, and be held there as a kind of well-known and recognized thing, if it had not previously appeared in public? It is also certain that it was written after the death of Cyril, whose testimony as a deceased person is cited in the second dialogue. I say "deceased," because the authority of no one who is alive is used. It must therefore have been written in the interval of time which elapsed from the year 444 to the year 448.

XIX. But at what definite time? Perhaps immediately after the death of Cyril? The letter sent to Domnus at that time certainly, and the sermon delivered at Antioch before the same prelate, incline the mind not lightly to that conjecture because of the similarity of the subject matter: but the Emperor's words, the history of the monks, and what was said, seem to bring the matter to a fixed point, and thus suggest that this work was completed by Theodoret around the year 446, after he was ordered by the Emperor to remain within the confines of Cyrus. He was ordered, however, in the year 445, as is finalized from epistle 81 to Nomus the consul.

XX. But so that what has been said about the time of the composition might be understood more plainly, it is necessary to inquire a little more diligently into the occasion upon which Theodoret published the *Dialogues*. But for this to be done, it must be observed whom he proposes to himself as adversaries to be refuted: for he depicts them in his own words in more than one place. And first, indeed, in the Preface, he says that there were men of no name, similar to Alexander the coppersmith, who gave trouble to the apostle Paul; and to Shimei, who gave trouble to David; and to Manes, who gave trouble to the Church, on account of a desire for vain glory. This very thing, he says, some do even now, who, fleeing the glory of virtue which is to be sought on account of the labors which precede it, have brought upon themselves a most shameful and miserable reputation: for when the patrons of new dogmas ^B desired to exist, they amended their impiety from many sects, and forged this pernicious heresy.

Then he reproaches them for fabricating slander against the Orientals; for after the testimonies brought forward from Athanasius, who was Alexandrian; Gregory Nazianzen, who was Asiatic; Ambrose, who was Italian: in order that he might praise the bishops of the rest of the world, he mentions the Orientals or Antiochenes in these words: "After these it is right to hear the teachers of the Orient. For this is the only part of the world that remains to us, and it was fitting for these first to provide testimony to the truth, who were the first to embrace the apostolic doctrine: but since you have sharpened your tongues against the first-born sons of piety, applying the whetstone of falsehood 390 to them, we have given them the last place, so that, when you have heard others first, comparing their sayings from then on with the words of these, you might marvel at the concord of all, etc."

He reports thereafter that they were accusers of Theodore and Diodorus. "I would also bring forward to you the explanations of Diodorus and Theodore, those most strong defenders of the truth, did I not see that you have an antagonistic disposition toward them, and that you have succeeded into hatred and malevolence against them in the manner of Apollinaris; you would have seen that these also wrote in consistency with the rest, and drew streams from the divine fountain, and that they themselves also existed as rivers of the Spirit: but I will pass over these, because you have undertaken an implacable war against them."

He also makes the followers of Apollinaris witnesses. "But I, in turn, will apply an unexpected remedy to you; for I will bring into the middle one admirable doctor of your heresy, Apollinaris, and I will show that he understood 'the Word was made flesh' in no other way than the holy Fathers."

Finally, he addresses them as disciples of Arius, in the part in which he agrees with Apollinaris. For after the citation of the testimony of Eusebius of Emesa on behalf of the impassibility of the Word: "You have also seen," he says, "another class of your masters, from which you thought that we had learned that the divinity of the Only-begotten had suffered; [I will show that we] execrate this blasphemy, and preach the divinity as impassible, and scatter the crowd of those who dare to attribute passion to it."

It must be observed likewise whom he himself passes off as adversaries, the same ones namely whom Diodorus and Theodore [opposed]. This is evident from the passage of the letter to Irenæus, to which mention was made before.

XXI. From these things I seem to be able to conclude that the adversaries whom he sets against himself to be refuted ^C were in appearance monks, whether those whom Liberatus mentions as Armenians, or those who later stirred up Phoenicia and Palestine: for they were of obscure name; and they slandered the Oriental bishops; and they branded the writings of Diodorus and Theodore as heretical; and they followed the parties of Apollinaris and Arius; and in the royal city they led Eutyches and his monks into error; and [inflicted harm] upon Theodoret and Ibas through...

the power of Chrysaphius, of which they availed themselves, and they made the clergy of the province of Osroene a matter of business. When he was in retreat, then, and his sick soul could not digest the injury it was constantly suffering, but was eager for vengeance, he undertook—as though they were enemies of the faith—to destroy these men, with a deceptive zeal.

XXII. He labored, then, on the *Eranistes* in the time immediately following the emperor’s command, that is, in the year 446. He labored on it, I say; for he used the full strength of his mind, and all the art in which he excelled greatly, by a certain sweet and easy conversation to first, as it were, bewitch the minds of his readers, and then to entrap them with his syllogisms, so that they might appear to themselves not to be led by any alien reasoning into the parties of those conversing, but to be coming there of their own accord. ^A

XXIII. Furthermore, the method of the entire work, which is completed in three dialogues and one book of syllogisms, is as follows, as has already been partly stated. Since he had proposed to himself three dogmas—not only to prove them, but also, as he himself says, to demonstrate them—concerning the immutability of the Word, the unconfused union of the natures, and the impassibility of the godhead, he confirms each in its respective dialogue first by reason, then by the authority of the Fathers, so that he appears to be delivering not so much his own doctrine as that of the whole Christian world. For he brings forth Fathers who have illuminated all parts of the world, and adds to these even Apollinaris, the teacher of his adversaries; finally, what he had discussed in a more expansive style in the dialogues, he compresses in the fourth book into syllogisms, by which he resolves the matter completely, as indeed he believes himself able to do.

XXIV. Among the ecclesiastical writers whose authority he uses, he does not enumerate Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, although they were celebrated at that time, and he himself regarded them in the place of masters. He brings forward the reasons for this fact, as we said, in Dialogue 1 and in epistle 16 to Irenaeus, who was wondering at this same thing. ^B

XXV. From these letters shines a light by which not only what we have said becomes clearer, but also certain other things appear, and indeed things worth knowing: 1° That the *Apology for Diodore and Theodore* was written before the *Eranistes*. 2° That the *Dialogues* were published before Irenaeus was cast from his see, which happened in the year 448. 3° That the occasion for writing arose from an accusation. 4° That Theodoret suffered common adversaries with Diodore and Theodore. 5° That the cause of the accusation was born from this, that he had defended both masters, as if he himself held the same opinions as they, that is, that he divided the Son into two sons. 6° That the emperor indeed already had in mind from the year 447 the plan of convening a general synod, but had laid it aside until in 449, after the disturbances stirred up by Eutyches, he resumed it: concerning which matter the epistle to Domnus should be read.

XXVI. From those things which have been established regarding the time and causes of the *Polymorphus* or *Eranistes*, there follow in order those things which should be noted in these dialogues. These are principally seven:

1. Theodoret does not demand, whether he is writing to Pope Leo or to the presbyter Renatus, that judgment of his faith be exercised from this book; for he could be condemned from it, since he vehemently and almost angrily impugns the four propositions asserted by Cyril and received by the Church: *God has suffered, he has suffered in the flesh, he has suffered willingly, he has suffered impassibly*, and others besides, which are common and ubiquitous. What reason was there, then, why Gennadius once called his writings "fortia" (forceful)? Why in the age of the Fathers did Gentianus Hervetus call it a work to be deferred to no other? Why do others now extol it as an outstanding specimen of the Catholic faith? ^C

2. One must not defend the opinion of Baronius, who seems to think that this work was published after the Council of Chalcedon, celebrated in the year 451.

3. One should not listen to those who think that the sentiment of Eutyches should be understood to be in these books, when in them Theodoret objects almost nothing else to his adversary than what he formerly found fault with in Cyril, whether in his censure of the *Capitula* or in his other writings.

4. One should not listen likewise to Gennadius, who relates that those writings which he calls "fortia" were against Eutyches: for when they were being published, the impiety of the delirious old man had not yet been revealed, not even in the royal city itself; certainly it had not come into the public eye before the death of Proclus and the ordination of Flavian, which occurred toward the end of the year 446.

5. It is a wonderful thing in what manner those two, Albertin and Blondel, the Calvinists, are mistaken, who, regarding the testimonies of the Fathers which Theodoret cites—the same as those which are read in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, subjoined to the epistle of St. Leo to Flavian—do not blush to say that they were taken by Theodoret from the epistle of St. Leo. For nothing could be said more ignorant or more impudent. For the *Eranistes* was circulated, even in Egypt, before the epistle of St. Leo was conceived and sent, since it was given in the year 449, on the Ides of July, in the consulship of Asterius and Protogenes; the *Eranistes* was written, at the very latest, in the year 446.

6. That the recent editor of the *Works of St. Leo* imprudently adhered to these two Calvinists, and rendered an opinion according to them, in order to condemn me in the notes to the 11th part of the *Works of Marius Mercator* for having spoken casually about these testimonies. How undeservedly he did that, we shall say toward the end.

XXVII. After having spoken of the time and causes of the *Polymorphus* or *Eranistes*, it follows next to indicate what observations should be made regarding these dialogues. These are principally seven: ^D

1. Theodoret does not demand... [the text repeats the starting point of §1].

2. In the time of Photius, three works were bound together in one volume: namely, the five books of Theodoret against the holy Ephesine synod and the holy Cyril, the sermons of Eutherius, and the *Eranistes*.

^A Is it not permitted from this, without the vice of rashness, to conjecture that after the books of Nestorius were burned and the excerpts of Theodore and Diodorus were proscribed, this volume existed as a sort of symbol of those Acephaloi factionists, of whom Liberatus makes mention, and of whom he says that Theodoret was the head?

5. The cause, why he was silent about Diodorus and Theodore, he brings forward at the end of the first dialogue, where, after having adduced the testimonies of the Fathers, he addressed the Eranistes: "I would produce," he says, "for you the commentaries of those most powerful defenders of the truth, Diodorus and Theodore, were I not to see that you are ill-disposed towards them, and that you have succeeded into the hatred and malevolence of Apollinaris against them: for you would have seen that they also wrote in harmony with the others, and drew their streams from the divine fountain, and were themselves also rivers of the Holy Spirit: but these, indeed, I shall pass over, because you have waged unceasing war against them."

4. Theodoret is either not the author of the *Exposition on the Song of Songs* which is now extant, or he has monstrously changed his opinion about Theodore, or he was a most mendacious and obvious histrion, such that he could call the same man, now, "a most powerful defender of the truth" who "spoke in harmony with the teachers of the faith" and "drew streams from a divine fountain" and "was a river of the Holy Spirit"; and now, "a weaver of fables," not worthy even of old women, "an author of false and pernicious opinions," a man of "unwise heart" who "brings calumny upon the Holy Spirit," who "vanishes in his own thoughts" and "is ignorant of the custom of divine Scripture," etc.

5. In the first dialogue, there is the place concerning the Eucharist, which Sacramentarian heretics are accustomed to adduce for themselves, while Catholics strive to show it is free from heresy. It will be discussed more lengthily in the following dissertation, chapter 3.

6. There is also, in the third dialogue, the place concerning the cause of why both the just and sinners die, which appears to favor the Pelagian error regarding original sin. But this, in like manner, will be treated in the following dissertation, chapter 4.

7. So great is the harmony of Theodoret’s dialogues with the sermons of Eutherius that both appear, by a prearranged conspiracy, to have attacked certain opinions which Catholics, and especially Cyril, had used in the business of the incarnation for the purpose of clarifying their own intent. ^B

Before an end is put to these observations, the case of the recent editor of the Works of Saint Leo must be addressed, who opined that the *Eranistes* was written by Theodoret after the Council of Chalcedon, that is, after the year 451; in which opinion he followed Albertin the Calvinist, who himself, without consultation, was led into error from those things which Baronius recorded in his *Annals*.

• "It is lost, it is uncertain by what accident, this fragment of this disputation."

§ II. The Five Books of Heretical Fables.

I. There is nowhere any open mention of this work, except in the first question on Leviticus, where Theodoret, inquiring why God willed that sacrifices be offered to Himself, says: "Concerning these, we have spoken in many places, both in those things which we wrote against the Greeks, and in those which we wrote against the heresies, etc." ^C Such silence about a work so elaborate should not seem wonderful, if only Theodoret wrote it after the Council of Chalcedon; but this must now be investigated.

II. He certainly wrote it after the edition of the *Exposition on Daniel and the Apostle*: for in book V, chapter 23: "These things," he says, "we have learned from divine Scripture concerning the Antichrist; but we have written summarily concerning those things which pertain to him, because we spoke more lengthily about his advent while interpreting the prophet Daniel and the Apostle, and it is easy to approach those commentaries, if anyone wishes, and to find in them if we have omitted anything in this place." The one work pertains to the year 429, the other to the year 433. He wrote, therefore, after the year 433.

III. He did not write before the end of the year 449: for he makes no mention of these books in his letters to Saint Leo, which he would certainly have done if they had been composed by that time; since in the fifth [book] he most openly professes the catholic faith concerning the incarnation, as we are about to show.

He wrote after he had composed the *Ecclesiastical History*, for in book IV, chapter 1, when writing about Arius and briefly recounting his death, he says: "But since I have written these things copiously in the *Ecclesiastical History*, I think it superfluous to say them here." And in chapter 2, where the discourse is about Eudoxius: "I made mention of all these things in that work." Therefore, he wrote after the year 450.

IV. He did not write before the Council of Chalcedon, if the last chapter of the fourth book, which pertains to Eutyches, is not supposititious: for the whole dispute is easily decided from that point. For Theodoret in the Preface to the entire work pledges that he will "demonstrate in the fourth book the more recent heresies of Arius and Eunomius, and as many as emerged after them, up to this final one, which the Lord has suddenly rooted out entirely." ^D By which words he can be seen to have indicated the Eutychian heresy, which he names as the last of all at the beginning of the thirteenth chapter, and which he calls the "new heresy" throughout his letters, and he refers to it by no other name.

^A And this could be believed to have been rooted out by Theodoret after the Council of Chalcedon.

V. But let no one conclude from this that this final chapter of the fourth book is supposititious, as the twelfth is, which concerns Nestorius; or that the words with which it ends do not correspond perfectly to the preface of the whole work. But since I have already written much on this matter, I have deemed it superfluous to prolong the discussion for the present: especially since, God willing, I shall speak of these things in the fifth book as well. "Therefore, putting an end to this fourth book, I shall endeavor, according to my ability, to demonstrate the excellence of the evangelical doctrine. For many of these things clearly point toward the Eranistes, and other things written against the Apollinarians."

395 2. That these same words harmonize with the greatest part of the fifth book. 3. That the heresy of the Messalians, which is dealt with in the eleventh chapter, can by no means be accommodated (to the text): for he made no other mention of that, and certainly did not write much about it often.

VI. I approve these three reasons, and therefore I think the argument should be drawn up in this way. This work was written after the Eutychian heresy had been extirpated, as it seemed to Theodoret; therefore, after the Council of Chalcedon, which was completed on the first of November in the year 451.

VII. It is inscribed to Sporacius, who, however, is not called consul. It was not, therefore, published in the year 452, in which year Sporacius held the consulship, but in the following year, so as to be as soon as possible, that is, in the year 453.

VIII. But if this mark of time is certain, as it certainly ought to be, it follows that Theodoret’s expositions on the Octateuch pertain to even later times, since this work is cited in them.

X. He wishes, as is stated in the History of his life, to know from Theodoret "what paths, branching off on either side from the straight way, have been innovated by some, the end of which is the abyss of destruction." He had conceived this desire, however, not so that he might hear of these most wickedly fabricated fables, exhaling a foul odor; but so that he might teach those who do not know what the royal way is, adorned with apostolic and prophetic footprints, and having ^B the kingdom of heaven; and then, in turn, the paths of the heretics, which bring destruction to those who walk along them.

Indeed, such was Theodoret; but in truth, the intention of both men was different. Sporacius, surely, wished that Theodoret, while writing against all heresies, should by the very work itself repel the calumny which he was suffering from many, as if he did not sincerely follow the orthodox faith; but Theodoret, as he was ill-disposed toward the Cyrillian chapters, cunningly and secretly endeavored to show, by his exposition of the heresies he was recounting, from what sources the heresy concerning the "one nature" seemed to have arisen—which, because of certain ambiguous and equivocal words, seemed to him to be visible even after Cyril's exposition.

*IX. Sporacius, to whom the work is inscribed, was a count of the domestics, who, as Theodoret writes, while he was accustomed to wearing the sagum and belt, and fulfilling the military service committed to him, and was compelled to attend at the palace on its account, nevertheless preferred the knowledge of divine things and the doctrine of truth. For that reason, in the year 451, by the Emperor Marcian, he was sent as a judge to the Council of Chalcedon, along with other most illustrious men; in the year 452, which was the next after the council had been held, he served as ordinary consul with Herculanus. Mention is made of him in the Acts of St. Matrona of Perge, according to Metaphrastes, on the 8th of November.

396 XI. When he reviews in the Preface the names of the authors ^C from whom he benefited, he mentions no Latin, but neither does he mention the Greek Epiphanius; although both he wrote not incuriously, and the latter most diligently, about heresies. Regarding the Latins, I am not at all surprised: for their books may not have been widely known in the East. Regarding Epiphanius, whose name was more famous and whose work was widely known, a greater wonder seizes me. Or did he not wish to praise him, with whom he had had very serious business along with Chrysostom? For Theodoret cherished Chrysostom to a wonderful degree.

XII. It may be asked why Theodoret did not utter even one word about the Pelagians and the Pelagian errors—whether those who oppose the grace of God, or those who oppose original sin. Nor does he mention them—which has come into the mind of more than one—by the name of Euchites or Messalians. Is it because such a heresy was unknown to him? Why then, in the Council of Ephesus, at which he was present, did one party object to the other concerning the Caelestian heresy? Is it because no disturbances had been stirred up from it in the East? From where, then, was the name of the Caelestians invidious in the East? Furthermore, the Donatists had stirred up no movements in the East; yet mention is made of them in the fourth book. Finally, disturbances of no small magnitude were made by Pelagians and Caelestians at Jerusalem, Ephesus, Constantinople, Antioch, and in Cilicia; and these, on account of the proximity of the places, could not have remained hidden to a man as inquisitive as he was. Or is it because there was no synod in the East in which this kind of heretic was struck by anathema? But it was condemned at Diospolis in Palestine, at Antioch in Syria, at Anazarbus in Cilicia Secunda, at Constantinople in the royal city, and at Ephesus in the general synod. Or is it because the Caelestians derived their origin from Theodore of Mopsuestia, and had used the patronage of Nestorius, and taught such things, especially concerning original sin, from which Theodoret himself did not ^D abhor? A probable cause, concerning that part which regards Theodore and Nestorius; but as to what concerns Theodoret—

it must be debated more diligently in a dissertation on his faith.

XIII. But why, moreover, does Theodoret in this work ^A mention neither Origen nor the Origenists, whose errors he nevertheless knew had been proscribed by Theophilus of Alexandria in his paschal homilies; by Anastasius, the supreme pontiff, in letters sent to the East; and by the emperors in edicts published throughout the Roman Empire? Truly, mentioning none of these, any more than the Pelagians, would have served his purpose, which, as we have said, was to criticize secretly and bring into disrepute the Cyrillian chapters and the whole doctrine concerning the one nature after the union: a doctrine whose two parts he was never able to distinguish in such a way as to separate the Catholic part, which is Cyril’s, from the heretical part, which is that of Apollinaris or Eutyches.

XIV. This work appeared in the year 1545, first in Greek at Rome under the care of Cardinal Ardinghelli; then, translated into Latin by Gentianus Hervetus, it was rendered into Latin speech by Victorinus Strigelius, and his version was used by Marcus Beumler in his logical synopsis, by which he set out the individual arguments of the three dialogues in syllogistic form, so as to manifest their force more clearly. He undertook this labor so that he might resist the Ubiquitarians and other heretics, being himself a Zuinglian or Lutheran, who were either pulling Theodoret toward their own sense or slandering him.

§ III. The Ten Orations on Providence.

1. Nothing in this work, which is completed in ten orations, has been edited on this subject—I will not say by Theodoret, but ^B by any other writer, even one of the more fortunate Greeks—that is either more eloquent or more admirable; so that the author seems in it to have wished to show how much he excelled in the art of oratory, and how much he could move any of the most eloquent men to envy: perhaps his own indignation aided the writer.

II. Theodoret claims this for himself in Epistle 143: “I have written some things against the Magi who are in Persia, others on universal Providence,” etc. He also claims it in his commentary on Psalm LXVII, where, as he was dealing with the unjust death brought upon Christ by the devil, he says: “This injustice did indeed overthrow his empire, but it opened up the underworld to men, even as it was said in the discourses on Providence in many words.” Finally, he claims it in Epistle 82: “The Mystical book has also been written by us, and another book on Providence,” in which, indeed, he had collected ten sermons.

III. From these, two things are constant: first, that this book differs from the one which is called mystical; second, that it was written before the commentaries on Psalm LXVII.

IV. Truly, that the time may be established more certainly, we must reason thus. The book was certainly written before the year 438. For it is numbered by Theodoret among those which he asserts he composed twelve years before he sent his letters to Saint Leo in the year 449. It was also written before the interpretation of the Psalter, as is evident from the quoted testimony. Therefore, it was written before the year 453, the year in which the interpretation of the Psalter was composed. It pertains, therefore, to that class of books which Theodoret, in his epistle to Saint Leo, says he produced fifteen or even eighteen years before.

V. Wherefore it may be deservedly believed to have been written, at least in part, immediately after the Council of Ephesus, after the Eastern bishops, by the command of the emperor, had each returned to their own Churches: for then it seems, because of the outcome of events contrary to his wish, that Theodoret attempted to soothe the sickness of his soul with words and deeds.

VI. I said, at least in part, namely in the last two sermons: ^C for the preceding eight cannot be thought improbably to have been made before the synod; and perhaps this is the reason why, in the beginning of the ninth, Theodoret recalls to his listeners, lest time should have erased it, what topic had been handled before. “Eight sermons,” he says, “we have already measured, while we argued against the blasphemy of the ungrateful.”

VII. The tenth sermon, certainly, which is on the patience of the good, whom divine Providence exercises, and on the incarnation of the Word, shows not obscurely the time in which it was composed, and the place in which they were all said—for he casts what was said to the people in one way or another, partly from the solemn glorification by which individuals are finished, partly from the peroration by which the sermon is converted to the listener according to custom, and finally partly from the mode, or the magnitude commensurate with the assembly.

VIII. They were therefore said at Antioch, in the primary city of the East, which, because it was most cultivated in Greek letters, or rather a most abundant fountain of letters, could have a sense of such delights, which the rudeness and almost barbarity of the Cyrenians did not grasp.

IX. Of these sermons especially, because of their admirable eloquence, I interpret the words of Theodoret concerning John of Antioch, when he said, applauding him: “He was so affected when we were discoursing, that he often could not hold his hands, and would rise from his seat,” etc.

X. Items to be observed, which are treated in the tenth [sermon] partly concerning the patience of the saints in enduring adversities, partly concerning the incarnation of the Word. These indeed, as being related, or rather almost the same as those with which Theodoret later consoled himself after having suffered hardships from Dioscorus at the second Ephesian synod, reveal the soul of a man complaining about the adversities which followed the first Ephesian synod: these, as they differ little in the tenor of their words from the Nestorian sermons on the incarnation, show how he was then affected in his soul when he wrote. Anyone who wishes to compare other things with these will easily understand the whole of this.

§ IV. The Twelve Books on the Curing of Greek Affections.

I. Theodoret acknowledges twelve books of this sort as his own, both in his epistles to Saint

Leo and Renatus, and then in the question regarding Leviticus, as to the reason why God commanded sacrifices to be offered to Him, where he makes mention of four other works. “Of these,” he says, “we have spoken in many places, as well in those which we have written against the Greeks, and against the heresies, as in those which we have written against the Magi, furthermore in the expositions of the Psalms, and in the commentaries on the Apostolic Epistles.”

II. It is indeed a strange matter that neither by Photius 66 nor by Nicephorus is a work so exquisite and comprised of so many books enumerated: but it could have happened that it was not in everyone's hands, because of its recondite pagan learning; and those two writers only mentioned the works which were commonly known.

III. It was published before the year 438, if indeed it is reviewed by Theodoret among the works composed twelve years before he wrote to Leo the Great: but he wrote in the year 449.

IV. Therefore, the opinion of the most illustrious author of the *Annales* cannot stand, who thinks that it was composed after the law of Theodosius against the Gentiles, given in the year 439, on the day before the Kalends of February at Constantinople, to Florentius.

V. Baronius seems to have formed his opinion from the fact that Theodoret says, towards the end of the seventh discourse, while exhorting the Gentiles that, having rejected their sacrifices, they should offer the sacrifice of praise to God: “Let not the laws of princes, nor the fear of punishments, persuade you to do so, but the power of truth, which is already known to the inhabitants of sea and land.” But as to which laws of princes are understood, we shall say shortly: for they are far different from those which are brought forward by the most learned Cardinal.

VI. At what time, therefore, did Theodoret definitively write? I have heard one who conjectured that this work was worked out around the year 453, or 434; as if at that time Theodoret, after he read the books elaborated by Cyril against Julian, wished also himself to give a specimen of learning, in refuting the Greeks, that is, the Gentiles, who, under the reign of Julian, had regained spirit against the Christian faith with calumnies. ^B

VII. This conjecture was aided by the final words of the Preface 67: “I would wish, however, whoever may happen upon the lucubrations of others, that if all things which are written are well-founded, they should praise God, who gave the faculty of writing well, and should pray well for the writers themselves; but if some things seem to be desired, they should not for these reasons condemn all, but rather from those things which they have seen written correctly, they should gain some benefit for themselves.” ^C

VIII. But the conjecture is weak: for its entire moment depends on that sole word, “the lucubrations of others”; for whence otherwise? But Acciajolus the translator does not seem to have had a copy expert in the vice, or [he] followed the sense of Theodoret in translating. For he reads: *Τοὺς δὲ τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις ἐντυγχάνοντας πόνοις παρακαλῶ*, etc., when the more emended reading of Fulvius Ursinus has *τοῖς δὲ τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις*, etc. He also translates this word *ἀλλοτρίοις* as “others”, when he should have [translated it as] “things foreign to the purpose of life”: for Theodoret uses the excuse that he, a theologian, is so versed in external and profane literature, [having been] nourished, as he himself says elsewhere, from childhood in the Sacred Scriptures. And indeed, what follows should have moved Acciajolus from his 400 opinion. For these are the solemn words of a man speaking of his own work, not of another’s.

IX. Another might perhaps prove the weakness of the conjecture from the fact that Theodoret himself mentions another occasion for writing in the Preface of the work. “It often happens,” he says, “that some of those who are held in suspense admiring the fables of the Greek Gentiles, having conferred more familiarly with me, both derided our Christian faith, asserting that we suggest nothing else than mere credulity to those who we receive to be imbued with divine things; and then indeed they even accused the apostles of ignorance, calling them barbarians for this reason, because they lack every ornament of elocution; nay, they even said it was ridiculous that we should pay honor to martyrs; and that it is of signal folly if living men contend they gain any advantage from those who have finished their lives. They also added other things of the same kind, which this book will instruct in their proper places. But I indeed then explained to them what ought to be brought forward to resolve the slanders. But I considered it to be nefarious and impious if I allowed men of a simpler mark to be deceived by their wiles.” ^D

X. This excuse is indeed specious, but it does not infringe the conjecture, since often someone else is pretended, while another affection of the mind impels [the author]. But this [has] nothing to do with the time, which must be investigated by some surer reasoning.

XI. Cardinal Baronius, however, leads the way, when he says that Theodoret wrote on the occasion of a law enacted by Theodosius against the pagans: for since that law, which is referred to the year 439, cannot be understood, some prior one must be sought, with which the words of Theodoret agree, and which the emperor might decree as capital punishment for those sacrificing to the pagans. Now there are two of such a kind, which Baronius inserted in his *Annales*: one in the year 423, to Asclepiodotus, the praetorian prefect: another in the year 428, to Isidorus, likewise praetorian prefect. The later one, by which not only are sacrifices prohibited, but shrines, temples, and fanes are also ordered to be torn down, is mentioned by Theodoret in lib. v *Histor. eccles.* cap. 36, in these words: “He ordered the very fanes of the idols, which were remaining, to be razed to their foundations, so that no trace of the former error should remain for posterity.”

He inserted this opinion into the law written on this matter.

XII. Gothofredus, in his notes on Law XXII, *De paganis*, interprets the words of Theodoret as referring to the earlier law. But he is refuted by this one fact: that the twenty-second law contains not a word about the destruction of temples, of which the later law is almost entirely composed.

XIII. From this I am led to believe that Theodoret wrote *The Cure of Greek Maladies* in the year 427, so that whereas the emperor had terrified them with his laws, he might lead them by reason to the Christian faith, the conqueror of gentile superstition.

XIV. If this opinion is true, it follows that the work in question should be counted among those which Theodoret writes to Saint Leo in the year 449 that he composed twenty years prior; at which time, still full of secular letters, he wished to engage in a subject in which he could display his own erudition to the gentiles, and contend for praise with other learned men of his age who loved to treat the same material. But enough of the time, now for the argument and method.

XV. The emperor Julian, when he had fallen away from the Christian faith, whence the name "Apostate" attached to him, gave the reasons for his defection in a written book and formed a new gentilism, the more harmful than the old in proportion to how artfully he tempered the religion of many secondary gods with the worship of one supreme being: for he disapproved of the wicked absurdities of the Greeks and the ancient barbarians, and attacked the Christians, and even the Jews, from their own books, so that he might make room for his own philosophical religion.

XVI. This book of the apostate emperor, which on account of the impiety with which it is riddled was not published by Petavius among the works of Julian, but is found almost complete in Cyril: this book, I say, the gentiles opposed to the Christians as a shield, and the Christians thought it must be attacked with all their strength, as long as any part of gentile superstition remained to be feared; indeed, it survived until the Novel of Theodosius, published in the year 439, and entrusted to the provincial governors for execution. Wherefore, for the space of seventy-seven years they were ^A engaged in this subject, many in sermons to the people, but only two, so far as I recall, in treatises: Theodoret and Cyril; for Nazianzen, in his two invectives against Julian, pursued the person more than the book.

XVII. Which of the two authors is better, let the judgment be that of the readers. Certainly, Cyril has less art, Theodoret more: for the former, subjoining a response to the individual *perikopai* of Julian's book, follows the man closely even where he wanders off; the latter, having collected Julian's objections into a harmonious order, repels them one by one in such a way that ^B he produces a work flowering from twelve parts.

XVIII. Moreover, so much learning, especially external, is brought forward by Theodoret against a man who accused Christians of ignorance, that Sylburgius, having curiously counted the authors who are explicitly named, enumerated one hundred and nine, besides the sacred ones.

XIX. He expounds at length on the partition of the whole work and the argument of each of the twelve parts in the Preface, which he exhibits more concisely toward the end, where he also shows the method of writing which he held: “I have written these twelve disputations for you, O men, and I have shown what the Greek philosophers thought about God and matter and the creation of the world, and about virtue and vice, and what the sacred Scriptures have taught us concerning these same things, and how all their things have now been extinguished and wrapped in the mist of oblivion, while ours on the other hand flourish and thrive, and are frequented by countless hearers through individual cities and provinces, etc.”

XX. At the beginning of the previous century, Zenobius Acciajolus translated it from Greek into Latin and gave it to be printed by Henri Estienne, by whose labors it was first published at Paris in the year 1519, though in Latin only. About eighty years later, Friedrich Sylburgius added the Greek, having recognized and, as he puts it, emended the Latin text, exacted against four Greek codices. Fifty years later still, Sirmondus brought both together into a collection of the Works of Theodoret, having emended the version of Acciajolus and Sylburgius, and having cut out the notes and dissertations of Sylburgius: although he had included these, being numerous and approved, he nonetheless wished them to be published by Fulvius Ursinus: for he had made many variant readings, conjectures, and annotations when he arranged for this work to be copied to be stored in the Vatican library; these, received from the Vatican library, we now bring into the public domain.

CAPUT VII.

Works which are contained in the Appendix edited by Sirmondus.

I. Five works have been placed in the appendix: *Oration on Charity*; *Book to Sporacius against Nestorius*; *Epistle to John, Bishop of Germanicia*; *Arguments of the twenty-seven books against the Eutychians*; and *Reprehension of the Anathemas of Cyril*.

II. Of these, Sirmondus replaced the *Oration on Charity* and the *Epistle to the Bishop of Germanicia* here, because they had been omitted through the carelessness of the workers. He wished the *Reprehension of Cyril* to lie hidden, as if in an extreme corner, because it harmed the name ^C of Theodoret. The other two, being suspect, he rightly rejected outside the order of the better works.

III. We have reviewed the *Oration on Charity* in its own place ^D after the *Religious History*; we have inserted the *Epistle to the Bishop of Germanicia* among the Epistles, by the prescription of Sirmondus.

IV. Concerning the book against Nestorius, and twenty-seven others against the Eutychians, we shall speak shortly, while dealing with the supposititious works.

V. Concerning the *Reprehension of the Chapters*, a more extensive discussion can be seen in the second part of the Works of Marius Mercator, who was the first to translate into Latin the Greek altercation between Theodoret and Saint Cyril regarding the twelve anathemas.

VI. In that place, we have demonstrated on what occasion, at whose request, and by whose command the *Reprehension* was written by Theodoret, and who first translated it into Latin; how much suspicion of collusion with Apollinaris Theodoret brought upon Cyril by means of it; how much odium Cyril, in turn, stirred up against Theodoret from it regarding the Nestorian error; from whose impugnation of it Andreas of Samosata came to pursue Rabbula of Edessa with hatred; and finally, what was extracted from it, and what Vigilius condemned in his *Constitutum*, and what the Fifth Synod condemned in its fifth session.

VII. I adduce one piece of testimony regarding the time of the writing of Theodoret's *Reprehension*, from which many ancient and recent authors are convinced to have erred in asserting that this *Reprehension* was written after the Council of Ephesus, at which time the peace between the Churches was being negotiated.

VIII. For Theodoret, in the Preface to his *Pentalogium*, or the five books against the blessed Cyril and the holy Council of Ephesus, says: "Before," he says, "the assembly at Ephesus was celebrated, we resisted the twelve chapters briefly and openly, so that their meaning might be understood beforehand, even by the unlearned and those lacking in reason. But because he who put these forward revealed himself in the Council, and many of those who had gathered, being rather unlearned and not imbued with any knowledge of doctrine, thought these things pious, it seemed worthwhile to struggle against them again, to extend the discourse, and to refute the truncated blasphemy in multiple ways, so that we might more evidently prove to the ignorant how the things currently brought forward most intensely by them are declared to be contrary to the Gospels."

IX. Nothing is more potent than this testimony for establishing the matter; nothing is more evident for demonstrating how much light Marius Mercator, in his *Collectanea* or *Works*, has brought to ecclesiastical history, insofar as it pertains to the Pelagian and Nestorian cause.

CHAPTER VIII. Works attributed to Theodoret.

These five are considered supposititious: namely, the five books of the *Histories*, [attributed to him] in the age of Gennadius; the epistle or book *On Nestorius, to Sporacius*, [attributed to him] by men of the sixth century; the twenty-seven books or sermons on diverse heresies, [attributed to him] by Photius; the ascetic book [attributed to him] in the Philadelphian codex; and the book *On Formulae*, [attributed to him] by Brassicanus.

§ 1. 404 The five books of the *Histories*, supposed in the age of Gennadius to be Theodoret's.

I. Gennadius says in the eulogy of Theodoret: "He also has," he says, "ten books of Ecclesiastical History, which he wrote imitating Eusebius of Caesarea, writing from the end of the books of Eusebius up to his own time, that is, from the vicennalia of Constantine up to the empire of Leo the Elder."

II. It is established by the most evident arguments that Gennadius was deceived: for he alone among the ancients, and being a Latin man, wrote thus concerning Greek history. No Greek, whether a contemporary or later author, makes mention of this, although anyone would have had every reason to do so, if the matter had been as stated: they would have had to do so, I say, not only because of the name of the author, most celebrated throughout the entire East, but also because of the events, which he alone of all would have known best and committed to writing.

III. Certainly Evagrius makes no mention of it, although he was accustomed to rely upon the testimony of preceding writers: Theophanes does not mention it, nor Cedrenus, nor Zonaras, nor Photius, nor Nicephorus, nor any other Greek historians who might exist.

IV. Indeed, Evagrius expressed a contrary opinion in open terms: for he records that Theodoret's *History* reached only to the times of Theodosius the Younger; Nicephorus also said this, who reports the same as Evagrius; Photius also said it. "Theodoret," he says, "began his history from the heresy of Arius, and he himself continued it to the times of Theodosius the Younger, and up to the passing of Theodore, when Sisinnius was the bishop of the sacred rites at Constantinople."

V. Theodoret himself, when he was putting an end to his *History*, testifies in the clearest and most express words that he had limited it to certain periods of time. "I," he says, "making an end of the *History* here, pray the readers to compensate for our labor with their prayers. For this *History* embraces a period of one hundred and five years, beginning from the madness of Arius, and ending at the death of those praiseworthy men, Theodotus and Theodore." Both of them died in the year 427.

VI. But it is so far from the truth that he carried the *History* down to the empire of Leo the Elder, that, unless one were the most ill-advised or most impudent of men, one would not wish to maintain such a thing, nor would he have had any need to. For what ecclesiastical events would he have followed? Nestorian, surely, Ephesian, Chalcedonian, and consequently those concerning himself, Cyril, Ibas, and also Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia; of which, if he had written the truth, he would have rendered himself and his friends accused before the Church of all subsequent centuries; which, had he committed to writing what was false, would have been the act of one inconsiderate, for the whole world, conscious of the events, would have protested, and some portion, or the memory, of such a tumult of protesters would have reached us.

VII. If beyond the times of Sisinnius of Constantinople,

that is, beyond the year of Christ 427, he had extended his History, ^A 405 without a doubt the Fifth Synod would have taken from it those things which would have contributed most to the case it was conducting. For if he had condemned Ibas and Theodore, it would be said that he had brought a prejudice toward condemnation; if he had defended them, he would have been rendered a defendant by his own testimony.

VIII. While these things are indubitable, someone contentious could nevertheless object two things: one from Theodore the Lector, the other from Damascenus. For Theodore, in book 11 of his Collections, says: "Peter, it is said, dug up the remains of Timotheus Salophaciolus; Theodoret also writes the same." And a little later, "He says that Calendion was ordained at Constantinople, agreeing with Theodoret." Damascenus indeed, in book 111 of *On Images*, produces more, from the third and fourth books of the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret.

IX. But learned men have long since corrected the passage of Damascenus, and in place of Theodoret, they have restored Theodore—that is, the Lector: for Damascenus mentions things which Theodoret, even if he had been a centenarian, could not have known, such as that which befell the Arian Olympius in the year 498. The same reasoning refutes likewise that which has been brought forward from the *Collectanea* of Theodore: for Timotheus Salophaciolus passed from this life about the year 481, at which time Calendion was appointed over the Church of Antioch. If Theodoret had written these things, he would have written them when he was over ninety years old.

X. But, so that no scruple may remain, it must be revealed who that Theodoret is, the writer of History, whom Theodore the Lector mentions. Indeed, nothing can be said that is truer or certainly more probable than what the illustrious writer of the *Annals* maintains: namely, that there existed two Theodorets: the one the elder, who was the Cyrenaean; the other the younger, who continued the ecclesiastical History of the Cyrenaean. The younger added five books to the History of the elder, in which he encompassed whatever ecclesiastical affairs were conducted from the year 427 to the beginnings of the Emperor Justin; and just as that one took his beginning from the madness of Arius, so this one took his from the heresy of Nestorius.

XI. But if it is permitted to use conjecture in a matter very remote from our times, and obscure because of the silence of the ancients, that younger Theodoret ^B does not seem to be other than the bishop of Alinda in the province of Caria, who in the year 536 attended the Council of Constantinople under Mennas: for the time, the name, and the learning agree.

XII. In the catalog of Hebed-Jesu there is mention of a certain History, which in five books would encompass the ejection of Nestorius, and all things which were done in those regions. The author is said to be Irenaeus of Tyre, and he is hinted to be an equal to Theodoret by the very order of the table of contents. Perhaps it may have come into the mind of someone ^A that these five books are not distinct from those which we attribute to Theodoret the Younger. But it stands in the way that Theodoret the Younger was most hostile to Nestorius; Irenaeus, as is clear from the Acts of the Ephesian Synod, was *most addicted to him. See what will be said in the following paragraph. What if Hebed-Jesu put the name of Irenaeus in place of the name of Theodoret?

§ II. Epistle to Sporacius concerning Nestorius.

I. What book Sirmondus called a book, Baronius calls an epistle; the former contemplated its form, the latter its inscription: whatever that may be, Sirmondus, as he was a sharp and prudent estimator of things, neither placed it among the epistles, nor in its order among the books, but as a sort of trifle in the Appendix of the Works. ^B Baronius writes, however, which is marvelous, that this epistle was placed before the others in his manuscript, as if it were the faith of Theodoret and a public renunciation of the Nestorian society; but I think that was done by someone who was more of a lover of Theodoret than of the truth.

II. In the common books, in its middle part, it completes word for word chapter 12 of the fourth book of the *Heretical Fables*, which is titled *On Nestorius*; and it has nothing more, except for a long dispute with Nestorius himself, to whom the speech is turned; than which conversion there is nothing more insolent in Theodoret.

III. But whoever the author is, he wrote after Nestorius, not only deported to the Oasis but also miserably perished on his return: for he makes mention of the deportation and the ruin: he wrote therefore after the year 447, in which ^C year it is shown by clear testimonies, or certainly by arguments, that Nestorius perished.

IV. No ancient, as far as I know, mentions this epistle, in so far as it differs from the eleventh chapter already mentioned. For Leontius in the work *On Sects*, and Theodore the Abbot in the argument of the Ephesian Synod, and Photius in the *Codex*, mention only the fourth book of *Heretical Fables*, in which it is inserted.

V. And indeed the writing, which Sirmondus rejected into the Appendix, shows some semblance of declamation or history, but none of an epistle. For, 1° It does not have an honorific salutation of the man to whom it is written, which Theodoret is not accustomed to omit in epistles to magnates. 2° It lacks a friendly closing, which Theodoret ^D likewise scarcely ever omits. 3° It contains a long preface, and a "commonplace," as they say, than which nothing is more absurdly sinned against in the art of the epistles, which was religiously observed by Theodoret. 4° That tiresome preface is nothing else than a certain imitation and amplification of the prologue prefixed to the fourth book of the *Heretical Fables*, which is a childish fault. 5° The speech is turned to Nestorius himself, of which sort there is [none] in the epistles of Theodoret.

d to the fourth book of the *Heretical Fables*, which is a childish fault. 6° It is teeming with phrases ^A taken childishly from Gregory the Theologian, which is unworthy of Theodoret. These are clearly taken from the Oration in Athanasium: "Changing from one land to another, just as some Egyptian scourge has descended upon the great city of the Antiochians, in this [city] having participated in liberal speeches." And shortly after: "Here, then, I have the visions, of which the whole earth and sea is almost full. For when he occupied that most great throne, having snatched the oversight of the high-priesthood like some tyranny." From the Oration to the Arians: "For the most part staying at home with books, and in quietude being with himself." The writing, therefore, of whatever sort it is, is spurious and supposititious.

VI. But that the twelfth chapter of the fourth book of the *Heretical Fables* is also spurious, and falsely attributed to Theodoret, is ^B invincibly proven if one compares what is found within one and the same work of the *Heretical Fables* with what the author and his interpolator write concerning Nestorius and the bishops who condemned him.

For what? Does the author of the epistle not say that to anathematize his doctrine is the same as to condemn piety itself; that he was unjustly and unfairly condemned at Ephesus; that his fellow pastors killed him unfairly with pens; that he himself will never commune with his condemnors, even if he were torn limb from limb? But now, if he be the author of the epistle in question, he calls the same man a madman, an Egyptian scourge, an instrument of the father of lies the devil, a Christian more in appearance than in reality, an affecter of tyranny, impious, a blasphemer, a raving fool, one who calls foolishness wisdom, who has troubled our simple and artless faith with Grecian arguments, who has been cast out by divine suffrage through the holy men gathered at Ephesus, who has been ordered by an edict of the emperor to inhabit the Oasim, who has taken from thence the beginning of the future punishment of the impious, having become the laughingstock of his own madness. Who would believe that these are the words of one man, even if at different times? Who would believe the words of that man who, not even at the Council of Chalcedon, however much both powers urged him, would condemn Nestorius of his own free will, but only when compelled by force?

VII. Theodoret in the preface of the five books of the *Heretical Fables* promises that he will argue in the fifth book against those whose errors he had set forth in the others. Wherefore he urges those who are to read them in that same place to compare each of the heretical dogmas with the doctrine of truth, for which purpose the fifth book was written: they would indeed see that the one follows the oracles of the Holy Spirit, while the others are the inventions of ^C perverse thought. And yet, book V, chapter 11, which is "On the dispensation of the Savior," although it lists the names of the heretics whose errors regarding the mystery of the incarnation he had previously recorded—for he names Cerdo, Marcion, Manes, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, the Theodotians, the Artemonians, the Photinians, Arius, Eunomius, and Apollinarius—he does not even mention or point to Nestorius by a single word. Yet he ought to have done so, if he had previously counted him among the heretics.

VIII. Furthermore, it is not credible that Theodoret, who was accustomed to boast magnificently of3 his constancy in holding to his principles, and who confidently denies that he is like the polyps and chameleons that change their shape to fit each body they cling ^D to, would have later—after having extolled Nestorius with immense praises, and those public ones, with the whole Orient called as witness—broken out against the same man with unbridled license, without any prior admonition that might provide reasons for the changed opinion to the readers who would charge him with inconsistency.

IX. Nestorius had certainly been previously called by him not once "the most pious and venerable bishop, a most holy man, and the supreme priest of God, who knows nothing but sound doctrine" and has taught it; [or rather, those who condemned Nestorius, whom the author of the epistle calls holy and says are moved by the divine Spirit—Theodoret calls "killers of a fellow pastor, corrupters of the vineyard committed to them, defilers of the Lord's portion, devastators of the field of Christ, apostate sons, whose hands are stained with blood, whose mouth has meditated iniquity, and whose tongue has spoken injustice"; and in another place, "voluntary deaf and blind men, bereft of mind, heralds of Apollinarian impiety, slaves of envy, who prefer their own passions to the truth, and who, because of human altercations, have dared to wage war against God," etc. I say again, who would believe that these things were said by one and the same man, and one indeed who loves a reputation for consistency, without being shown in a single word what so great a cause there was for a change of opinion in such a great matter?

X. But let us compare the author and Theodoret himself even more closely. The author says he does not know in what studies Nestorius was nurtured. Theodoret knew well that he was nurtured in the studies of Theodore of Mopsuestia: for he was a fellow-student of John of Antioch, and John [was a fellow-student] of Nestorius under the master Theodore. The author says that Nestorius went from one region to another and finally burst into great Antioch. Theodoret knew that he had lived in the Laura of Saint Euprepius near Antioch, and indeed had been baptized in Antioch while he was still a boy. The author says that Nestorius showed in the beginning what he was going to be like for his whole life. Theodoret calls this man everywhere, throughout, "most holy," and almost "piety itself." What more is needed? The author names and con…

...at times appealing to him; 409 and nowhere, or almost nowhere, does Theodoret speak of him otherwise than honorifically. Indeed, in the 85th chapter of his fifth book, when he was enumerating heresies against the faith of the incarnation and listing the authors and most vehement defenders of each, he did not mention Nestorius; yet he ought to have done so most especially, when treating those who called Christ a mere man.

XI. Yet someone might say: Photius and Theodore the Abbot, authors who are without doubt grave and ancient, attribute to Theodoret the twelfth chapter of the fourth book of the *Haereticarum fabularum* [Compendium of Heretical Fables], which does not differ from the letter; furthermore, Leontius and Theodoret urge that it be recognized from this how much Nestorius was detested by Theodoret: add to this that very learned men of later times, whose opinion it is no light task to overturn, have followed their promptings.

XII. This reasoning, I confess, held me for a long time in suspense and doubt, and does not even now allow me to be completely certain, although so many and such great arguments press in the opposite direction. But I cannot be moved from my opinion by the authority of these or those; for I see in what part it is being set aside: for men of the succeeding age believed Leontius, Photius, and Theodore: yet Leontius wrote almost two centuries later, Photius three, and Theodore even later; they could have been deceived without great difficulty by this appendix, which had long since been added to the fourth book of the *Haereticarum fabularum* by some devotee of Theodoret.

XIII. But when was the fraud committed? About the time of the fifth synod, I believe, in which Theodoret was condemned; perhaps someone might have wished to provide proof of consensus with Nestorius, and to persuade others—who were not very inquisitive—that there was no other cause for his condemnation than that he had contended injuriously with Cyril, as happens in the heat of a dispute. I believe it was forged then, so that, with this consensus being easily proven by the letters of Theodoret cited in the fifth synod, the friends of Theodoret might proclaim these, forged by heretics, to the public. This rumor misled Leontius, who was writing his book on sects about fifty years later.

XIV. But someone will object: If the popular opinion collapses and is overthrown, and that addition to the aforementioned book is supposed to be spurious, the credibility of the history concerning the character and life of Nestorius led at Antioch, which is believed to be learned only from there, will waver: for how can certain faith be credited to an uncertain author? But although Theodoret is not the author of the addition, the things that are recounted in this place about the life of Nestorius will not immediately be unknown: for, first, the things that are true—such as his extraordinary eloquence, his faculty for extemporaneous speaking, and his abstinence, which were the conciliatory means by which he obtained the emperor's favor—are known from Marius Mercator, who was of the same age as Nestorius, 410 and also from Socrates. ^A

XV. Furthermore, even if Theodoret of Cyrrhus did not write the History of which we treat, another person—neither ignoble nor of another name—could be called its author. Certainly, in the age of the Fathers, John Damascene and Theodore the Lector, and indeed Baronius at the year 494, no. 60, produced another Theodoret, who composed an Ecclesiastical history, and who differs greatly from the one of Cyrrhus, since he narrates events that occurred while Anastasius was emperor. Those two ancients call this man simply Theodoret; Baronius calls him the junior, and he openly proves that he differs not only from Theodoret of Cyrrhus, but also from Theodore the Lector, in whom he rightly castigates the scholiast of Damascene, as the one who ought to have been carelessly occupied in the place of Damascene, if indeed he thought it should be amended and that the name of Theodore should be substituted for the name of Theodoret. For how great is that carelessness of amendment, when Theodore praises this Theodoret? The learned man Henry Valesius writes in agreement with Baronius in his Notes to the *Collectanea* of Theodore. ^B

XVI. I believe, therefore, that the whole of that 87 which is contained either in the letter or in the twelfth chapter was composed by Theodoret the junior, and attributed to the one of Cyrrhus. The reason for this opinion is that three things show that the addition of which we are speaking was part of a History: the beginning, the middle, and the end. For it begins thus: 'After the world was slowly falling, and hastening toward the dissolution of this universe, each one considered himself a suitable teacher of piety, since because of the pride of ignorance no one would endure to learn, the murderous demon, the father of lies, the sower of tares, no longer moved arms against the Church through external and manifest enemies, but having found an instrument which, so to say, could suddenly take up his entire art, under the guise of right opinion, brought in the negation of the divinity and humanity of the Only-Begotten, disturbing our simple and artless faith with Greek subtleties.' ^C Then, with the name of Nestorius being called upon, and the lesser [deceptive] arts described and narrated by which, as he says, he obtained the leadership of the Church of Constantinople and therefore of the whole world: 'Thenceforth for me,' he says, 'is an account of the tragedies which have almost filled the earth and sea.' Then he explains how and of what kind was the heresy that Nestorius spread; then he adds: 'These things are said by me briefly out of many, while the speech hastens to what follows.' Presently, after briefly relating the deposition of Nestorius by the Ephesine Fathers, his deportation by order of the emperor to Oasis, and his horrible death, he proceeds in these words: 'Which, because they have been related by others, it is fitting to omit. Let us come to that which belongs to history.' From these words, which, because they have been related by 411 others, a manifest demonstration of the supposition is supplied; for Socrates and Sozomen are silent about the death of Nestorius and the manner of it: yet they could not ^D

^A have failed to mention the victory won over Nestorius, when they were praising a man so noble and so religious?

XVII. It is therefore credible: 1° That this addendum is nothing other than the preface of the History composed by Theodoret, whom we have called the younger. 2° That the history was continued by this younger writer, which the older one had carried for a hundred and five years, from the Arian turmoils to the times of Sisinnius (whom Nestorius succeeded). 3° That the younger writer took his starting point where the older one had put an end, namely from the ordination of Nestorius, or rather from the turmoils stirred up by him, and from there pursued the events which occurred up to the reign of Justin, for 90 years, adding five books to the same number of books by the older writer. 4° That from the fourth book, Damascene took those fragments which we mentioned earlier.

XVIII. Perhaps, because of a preconceived opinion, I shall persuade few; but I believe I shall give more learned men no light cause for suspicion or inquiry; although to my mind, the arguments thus far brought forward possess the force of demonstration.

XIX. Since, however, we have condemned the supposititious letter, in vain shall we have inquisitively sought its date, in vain the causes of its being given, and the manner of its writing; rather, from that point we shall again convict its author of falsehood by three arguments.

XX. For why, in the first place, would Theodoret send a letter to an illustrious man, to whom he was sending a book in which he treated the same argument in the same words; and yet not bring forth any reason for an act so insolent and so indecorous?

XXI. Next, I appeal to those skilled in the Greek tongue as judges, as to how much the style of the letter differs from Theodoret’s most pure diction, so that by this one argument alone the matter might be settled entirely.

XXII. I ask afterwards, of the defenders of the letter, at what time after the year 447 do they think it was written; before or after the Council of Chalcedon? If before: why did the Fathers petition with such display that Nestorius be condemned by Theodoret, who in a public writing had so openly disclosed his mind? Why, when he was being tried as a defendant, did he not use this public and most powerful instrument of his cause? Why did he prevaricate in execrating him whom he had called an instrument of the devil, an impious man, a madman, and one who, by the holy men gathered at Ephesus, had been deposed from the pontificate by divine suffrage? If after: why was he silent about the Council of Chalcedon, when he had spoken magnificently of the Ephesine [council], and in both he was silent about the Fathers, the opponents of the Nestorian heresy, although he was accustomed to celebrate by name the tamers of other heresies? Could there have been any place for celebrating more opportune or more illustrious? Why, writing to Sporacius, one of the illustrious men of the Council of Chalce- ^B -don, did he not make mention of the victory won over Nestorius, when he was praising a man so noble and so religious?

Why, if the letter or the twelfth chapter existed before the fifth synod, were neither the one nor the other brought forward in favor of Theodoret by his defenders, Facundus and Liberatus, nor by Pope Vigilius in his *Constitutum*, nor by the Fathers of the fifth synod who were lovers of the truth? Why did Gregory the Great, writing to the bishops of Istria on behalf of Pelagius II, when he wished to show that Theodoret’s faith after the Council of Chalcedon was pure, not use this testimony, so evident and so explicit? Why, when his accusers were attacking the Council of Chalcedon for having received Theodoret, was it not immediately replied that no writing was required by which he might prove himself an alien to Nestorius, for it would not have been necessary to demand a work from him who had already published one so clear and so manifest? What more? Do not the circumstances of the matter declare it to be a supposition?

§ III. Twenty-seven sermons against various heresies attributed by Photius to Theodoret

I. Photius, in codex 46, has these words: “There were read the seven and twenty books of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, against various propositions,” etc.

II. His own codex, consisting of three parts, deceived Photius: the first of which comprised the six previous books; the second, twenty-one sermons; the last, the *Eranistes* or *Polymorphus*. For although the first and third undoubtedly belong to Theodoret, Photius attributed the middle one to him as well; in fact, however, it is by Eutherius, bishop of Tyana, as the manifest authority of Marius Mercator proves, as we shall demonstrate in [our section on] Eutherius, where we shall also weave the history of the Tripartite Codex.

§ IV. The Ascetic Book

I. In the Greek manuscript codex which formerly belonged to Gabriel, Archbishop of Philadelphia, and which reached us through the works of Fronton du Duc, after Theodoret’s *Religious History* and his oration *On Divine Charity*, the title is read: *Toû autoû logos askētikos kata peusin kai apokrisin*. Immediately follows the discourse: *Adelphos ērotēse geronta legōn*, etc.

II. There are those who attribute this sermon to Maximus the Confessor, and under that name Bilibald Pirckheimer translated and published it at Nuremberg in the year 1580. It was also published, translated by himself, by Nobilius at Rome in 1587, and recently at Paris by Combéfis, 413, in the first volume of the Works of Saint Maximus, again rendered into Latin by him: and thus individual versions correspond to individual editions, according to the talent of the editors.

III. There are those who seem to imply that they are not altogether certain of the author. Various inscriptions support these.

^A additions of various codices, just like the one I mentioned, of Gabriel of Philadelphia, bearing the name of Theodoret; three manuscripts from the Royal Library and others support these, and, which is of greater weight, Photius in codex 193. Wherefore the former opinion prevails by the number of authors.

IV. Why the codex of the Archbishop of Philadelphia does not obtain much credit from me, the authority of the ancients makes clear, since no one of them attributes a work of this kind to Theodoret. That authority is indeed negative, but nonetheless of some significance in this genre. Why I should agree with those who attribute it to Maximus, the reason is the author of the four centuries on charity, who begins the book with these words: "Behold, besides the book on religious life, I have sent to you, father Elpidius, a book on charity, containing as many centuries of chapters as there are gospels." And no one can justly doubt that the book on charity is to be attributed to Maximus as its author. ^B

§ V. The Book of Formulas.

CAPUT IX. Books of Theodoret, of which only the memory seems to remain.

§1. The Mystical Work.

I. Theodoret admits that he is the author of the mystical work partly in his epistle to Eusebius: "A mystical book was also written by us, and others on Providence"; and partly in book V of the *Religious History* [Hæreticarum fabularum], when he teaches that in baptism we are buried together with Christ, so that we may become participants in the resurrection. "But," he says, "this work is rather in a mystical discourse; and since we have otherwise composed twelve mystical books, we shall refer the studious to them."

II. From this we understand that this work was comprised of twelve books and was edited before the books of the *Religious History*, indeed before the year 445, in which year Theodoret wrote to Eusebius; and even before the year 433, which is the twelfth before the date of the epistle to Eusebius.

III. Neither Photius, nor anyone else of the ancients, so far as I know, makes mention of such a great work: had it perished long ago even before the times of Photius? or is it known by another name? Eucherius of Lyon wrote an excellent work on spiritual formulas, in which he explains what is said in the Scriptures either metaphorically or symbolically regarding God and other things pertaining to the understanding of spiritual matters. When John Alexander Brassicanus took care to have this published in the year 1530, he has this to say about Theodoret in an epistle to Janus a Swolla, from which anyone might imagine that he himself had composed something similar regarding formulas among the Greeks, which Eucherius did among the Latins. "What," he says, "Eucherius did among the Latins, that most exactly did ^C that Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, among the Greeks," from whose distinguished work, which is recorded among us in ancient parchments, I am pleased to transcribe here some exceedingly learned passages, from which the dignity and utility of that entire work becomes clear. "Wine, in the case of God, is punishment." David says: "In the hand of the Lord is a cup of unmixed wine, full of mixture." Likewise: "The hairs are a symbol of death; for they are dead and do not receive the perception of pain." He urges, therefore, that those who serve God should possess true life and have nothing dead or foul. For the divine Paul teaches us this as well: "For I have been crucified with Christ, says he. And I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me. For by these," says he, "I have dedicated myself to the works." But from there ^D maybe someone might believe, though on light grounds in my opinion, that the mystical books do not differ from the work *On the Cure of Greek Affections*: for the number agrees, and what one might wonder at, Theodoret, when he mentions one work, is silent about the other, as if they differed only in name. But neither are mysteries discussed with the Gentiles, especially by Theodoret, who takes the greatest care to avoid this; nor is there found in the books against the Greeks the exposition which is mentioned in book V of the *Religious History* concerning baptism.

V. In book V of the *Religious History*, chapter 2, towards the end of a prolix dispute concerning the divinity of the Word against the Arians, these things are held: "Against these, moreover, we have recently composed twelve books, and besides these we now also show the scope of another moral theology and doctrine." 415 Within which words it seems to be indicated that the work of which we…

speak, and ours, is found under the inscription, *On the Holy Trinity*. But after I read its apograph and that one more diligently, I found that it differs nothing from the three previous chapters on divine dogmas, which pertain to the book subjoined to the four books of *Heretical Fables*. If this is the case, it should have been that the entire exposition of theology, or of the mysteries of the faith, was comprised within it. But why is it called "recently written"? Does the Greek word *πρόσην* (sic) signify not "recently," but "before"? Why also is the theological book said to have been "now composed"? Or could the Greek word *νῦν* likewise be rendered in no insolent manner as "then," so that it might be shown that both works were studied at the same time? A certain rationale demonstrates the interpretation of both words: for Theodoret composed the books of *Heretical Fables* in the year 452; yet he makes mention of theological books long before: therefore, he did not study these "recently" and "now."

§ II. Books on theology and the incarnation.

I. Theodoret relates that he composed a work on theology and the incarnation in the place just cited, and in his letters to Pope Leo: "I wrote certain things against the Arians and Eunomians; and again others on theology and on the divine incarnation."

II. He alone among the ancients makes mention of this: for neither Photius, nor Nicephorus, nor anyone else mentions it; indeed, not even any study of this name has yet appeared. Has so distinguished a work perished entirely, or has it been ascribed to another author for many centuries now? The latter seems to me more probable; for I suspect that what Theodoret says he wrote on theology and the divine incarnation in no way differs from the three books against the Pneumatomachi and the two composed against the Apollinarists, which themselves are also not different from the five dialogues that those who published his works with the Commelinus types in the year 1600 wrongly attributed to Athanasius.

V. But if anyone thinks that the epitome of divine decrees, which is subjoined to the four books of *Heretical Fables*, is what is called by the name of a theological work because of the kinship of the argument, he will have wandered far from the truth. For the books on theology are mentioned in letters written before the year 449; whereas the books of *Heretical Fables*, with the subjoined epitome of divine decrees, were not composed until after the Council of Chalcedon was held in the year 451.

§ III. Work against Marcion.

I. No one among the ancients mentions this work except Theodoret. Yet he acknowledges it in three places. Epistle 82 to Eusebius: "I composed books long ago against the artifice and madness of Marcion." Epistle 116 to Renatus: "I have written more than thirty books against Arius and Eunomius, against Marcion, etc." And epistle 145 to the monks of the Royal City: "We have never ceased to contend against those who are corrupted by the contagion of Marcion, persuading those who are insane with Marcion's fury that He is not only good, but also just; not the savior of the works of another, as they themselves fable, but of His own." I have cited these last words for the reason that this work, if it lies hidden anywhere under an alien name, as I suspect, might be detected by the argument itself.

III. I arrived at this opinion by these steps, as it were. I noticed: 1. Where the books on theology and the divine incarnation are listed, no mention is made of works against Macedonius and Apollinarius, as in Epistle 113 to Saint Leo, etc.; 2. Where the works against Macedonius and Apollinarius are listed, as in Epist. 82 to Eusebius of Ancyra and 116 to Renatus, the books on theology and the incarnation are not mentioned; 3. The ancients were accustomed to entitle books by the name of *theology* through which the *ὁμοούσιος* (consubstantiality) of the divine persons is proved; this is clear from the orations of Nazianzen; 4. Among those same ancients, the names of *theology* and *Trinity* are used interchangeably when discussing books: this occurs everywhere; and even Arius is marked in almost all codices with this title, *concerning the Holy Trinity*, to which could be added, because of the dialogues against Apollinarius, *and the divine incarnation*.

^B II. Theodoret teaches everywhere in his letters why he wrote against Marcion, and to what good result: for he narrates that in his diocese, at the time he undertook its governance, the heresy of Marcion had flourished, and it had been achieved by his own labors, and also by the prayers of the saints, that ten thousand Marcionites were converted to the faith. But in his *Religious History*, chapter 20, he relates more lengthily how, by the prayers of the saints, he carried off such a victory over so many enemies.

III. Furthermore, it should be observed that the number of Marcionites converted to the true faith is read differently in different ^C places: "Ten thousand and more" are said to have been converted in Epist. 145; in Epist. 113 to Saint Leo, only "more than a thousand." An error has crept into the latter place: for it is written: *πλείους μὲν ἢ χιλίας ψυχάς* (more than a thousand souls), instead of *πλείους ἢ μυρίας ψυχάς* (more than ten thousand souls).

IV. Some have convinced themselves that the dialogue against the Manichaeans, which is found among the works of Damascenus, and which Jacobus Billius translated into Latin, is a work claimed by Theodoret for himself: he used it, to strengthen his opinion, in more than one place, but these... ^D [SCHULTZ'S NOTES: If ever such a book of Theodoret existed, such as Sixtus Senensis commemorates in the place cited at §5, I would have thought that it should be looked for here rather than in that place. 5 See Epist. 113. He strove to adorn this opinion in the Appendix subjected to this dissertation. 7 We do not recognize an error in these words, for each word can express a large number. But the most exact computation was not necessary.]

^A III. Furthermore, I have observed that it might perhaps be helpful to point out that Theodoret followed the footsteps of his master in such a way that he left almost no argument which he had touched upon intact. Nevertheless, I am moved to believe that he did write against Origen; for he neither numbered him among the heretics—indeed, he even counted him among those who attacked heretics—nor did he pursue him with harsher words. When I inquired into the reason for this, and wondered at it on account of the state of the times and the vexation of the Origenists by the Alexandrians, I found no more probable reason than that Theodoret, as he was an ambitious friend of the monks of the East and not very patient of the authority of the Egyptian prelates, did not dare to inveigh against Origen; for he would have appeared to dissent from the monks of the East, among whom he was held in high regard, and to accede to the Alexandrians, whom he knew had fought against John of Jerusalem in the case of the Origenists.

§ VI. Books on the Questions of the Magi.

I. Theodoret mentions his answer to the questions of the Magi who are in Persia in various places, as in the letters to Eusebius of Ancyra: “Furthermore, a mystical book has been written by us, and others on Providence, and another on the questions of the Magi, etc.” And to Leo the Great: “I have things which I wrote partly twenty years ago, partly eighteen, partly fifteen, partly twelve; some against the Arians and Eunomians, some against the Jews and Gentiles, some against the Magi who are in Persia, etc.” ^B And in the *Ecclesiastical History*, book V, chapter 38: “The Persians call those Magi who make the elements into gods, whose myths we have shown in another work, in which we have brought forth the solution to their questions.” ^C II. From these things it is certain that Theodoret responded to the Magi not only before the year 450, in which year the *History* was composed, but also before the year 437, that is, twelve years and more before the date of the letter to Leo the Great, and indeed before the year 433, which is twelve years before the letter written to Eusebius.

III. What the questions of the Magi were, it is not permitted to divine; it is certain, however, that they were frequent; for both Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia argued against such Magi.

IV. I am of the opinion, however, that it was not the teachers themselves, whom I have mentioned, who were questioned by the Magi, but rather the Christians existing in Persia, who, as neophytes, when they labored at solving the questions, would consult the teachers of the East, since they were closer, as to what they ought to answer those who were asking troublesome questions. ^D

GARNERIUS'S APPENDIX TO THE SECOND DISSERTATION. CHAPTER X.

Works contained in the Supplement.

I. In order that the collection of Theodoret's works might be as complete as possible, it seemed necessary to add to the four volumes edited by Sirmond those things which were missing and which could be found. These are, in truth, of two kinds: for some have never before seen the light of day, while others have indeed been seen, but under a name not their own. ^A

II. However, a better arrangement of the Supplement could not have been made than that which was established for the works by Sirmond. Wherefore, something is added to each volume, except to the second, which includes all sixteen prophets; for the Commentaries on Isaiah, which are not held in their entirety but are collected only from the Catenae, although they have been sought with the greatest diligence, could nowhere be found. ^B

III. The remaining three volumes are therefore now augmented, but some more sparingly, others more copiously. To the latter part of the first volume is added something from the Vatican library pertaining to the Psalms; from our own collection, a mystical Commentary on the Song of Songs; to the latter part of the third volume, twenty-seven letters; and to the fourth, seven sermons and eleven treatises; not all, however, are complete, but some are only in fragments.

IV. It is not very helpful to speak at greater length about the individual additions, as has been done for other works; for it is better to place before each one its own appraisal and to subjoin notes, and thus to look after the labor of the reader, so that he may not have to search far and laboriously, whence, if the present passages should create difficulty, he might more easily understand them. It is sufficient, therefore, to provide a list of the Supplement, having reviewed one by one what is added to each volume.

APPENDIX TO THE SECOND DISSERTATION.

Concerning the seven Dialogues against the Arians, Macedonians, and Apollinarists.

420 ADMONITION TO THE READER.

It appears that it was through the fault of Hardouin that this treatise, as well as the following one which sets forth the faith of Theodoret, was inscribed with the name of a third dissertation. Steps had to be taken to ensure that traces of this error did not remain in our edition; for it was very troublesome if readers had to be referred to a third dissertation. Therefore, it seemed best to subjoin this treatise regarding the five dialogues to the second dissertation as an Appendix. The similarity of the subject matter recommended this plan. For those dialogues, which many thought should be attributed to Athanasius, Garnerius to Theodoret, and others with Petavius, Combefis, and Dupin more correctly to Maximus, must be counted among those books whose author is still under debate. In such a variety of judgments, therefore, and because Garnerius was unable to persuade the experts acting as judges in these matters of the truth of his conjecture, we thought that this path should be taken: that, having deleted the title which the previous edition had, we would inscribe this treatise as an Appendix or Supplement to the eighth chapter of the previous dissertation. The place which those dialogues held in the previous edition also had to be changed. Placed between this and the following treatise, they delayed the reader, due to their length, just as he was occupied in perusing these dissertations of Garnerius. We think their place is after the final, or fifth, dissertation. We therefore attach them to the sermons which Garnerius attributes to Eutherius of Tyana.

I. Theodoret relates that he wrote books long ago against the Arians, Eunomians, Macedonians, and Apollinarists; and when he was accused, he appealed to those books as certain witnesses of his faith. Epist. 82: "Which is by the grace of God, and I have expounded all the prophets, and the Psalter, and the Apostle, and against the Arians and Macedonians, and the madness of Apollinaris, and in each of the books the ecclesiastical dogma shines forth by the grace of God." Epist. 113: "Let your Holiness order me to come to you, and to show my doctrine, which adheres to the apostolic footsteps. For I have works which I wrote partly ^C twenty years ago, partly eighteen years ago, partly fifteen years ago.

^A And elsewhere, in the same Epistle, writing of the books against the Arians and Eunomians, etc.: "I wrote more than thirty books against Arius and Eunomius, against Marcion and Macedonius, etc." And in Book V of the *Heretical Fables*, ch. 2, which is concerning the Only-Begotten Son: "But concerning these, we have discoursed copiously in those things which we wrote against Arius and Eunomius." And in the following chapter, which is concerning the Holy Spirit, after having proved His divinity: "But indeed," he adds, "concerning the Holy Spirit, I wrote three books against the heretics who are destitute of His grace, and I consider it superfluous to produce the discourse in this place."

II. Concerning these testimonies, I observe: First, the order which is observed in reviewing the works against the Arians, Macedonians, and Apollinarists. Second, that Arius is joined with Eunomius, and Arians with Eunomians, that is, with the pure Arians, who are called Anomoeans. Third, that three books against the Pneumatomachian heretics were written by Theodoret. Fourth, that by the name "prestigies of Apollinaris" are understood the captious arguments, fallacies, and sophistic reasonings by which he was accustomed to deceive the less learned.

III. Although Theodoret speaks so openly about these books against the Arians, Macedonians, and Apollinarists, yet neither Photius, nor Nicephorus, nor any of the ancients, as far as I know, has made mention of them. Indeed, I do not remember reading any product from them, even in the *Catenae*, although they should have been most polished works, which Theodoret praises with such great circumference.

IV. When I pondered these things more attentively and wondered, it came to my mind to inquire whether they had perished entirely, so that nothing remains except the memory of them; or whether they lay hidden somewhere intact, but under an alien name. The latter seemed more credible to me, and having weighed the matter more diligently, I concluded that those seven dialogues [*], which are found in the second volume of the *Works of Athanasius*, and which are attributed by some to Athanasius, and by others to Maximus the Monk, are not different from the books which Theodoret records himself to have written against the Arians, Eunomians, Macedonians, and Apollinarists. ^{B C}

V. I arrived at this opinion by these almost-successive steps. I noted first, what questions were raised in the individual dialogues. Then, how uncertain their author has been to this very day. After that, that there is one author of all of them. Then, that this author differs from Athanasius, and also from Maximus the Monk. Finally, that he is no other than Theodoret, since all the notes which he appends in his books against the Arians, Macedonians, and Apollinarists ^D strictly conform to these seven dialogues, of which Theodore Beza made five Latin, and Scultetus two.

VI. In order that I may persuade others of this opinion of mine, six parts must be shown individually: 1. What are the questions agitated in the dialogues, and of what time; 2. how uncertain the author has been up to this point; 3. that all are composed by one; 4. that that one author is different from Athanasius [*]; 5. that the author of the dialogues is different from Maximus the Monk [*]; 6. that all the notes which Theodoret appends to his books against the Arians, Macedonians, and Apollinarists strictly conform to these seven dialogues.

§ I. What are the questions agitated in the dialogues and of what time.

I. In these seven dialogues, as is evident from reading them, four kinds of heretics are opposed: namely, in the two prior ones, Aetius and Eunomius, who are the parents of the Anomoeans; in the third, sixth, and seventh, Macedonius, who is the prince of the Pneumatomachians; in the remaining two, Apollinaris, or rather the followers of Apollinaris, whose thirty arguments are proposed in syllogistic form and solved by the orthodox.

II. In the first, the question of the Anomoeans regarding the cognition of God is briefly agitated, whether He is known to man, even to the mortal, just as He is to Himself: then it is diligently disputed *concerning the Unbegotten and the Begotten*. Which two questions without doubt look toward the end of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth: for they were set in motion by Aetius and Eunomius, the disciple of Aetius, the latter of whom died in the year 392, and whose followers were called Anomoeans. These, furthermore, Basil refuted under the name of Eunomians, and Gregory of Nyssa and Chrysostom under the name of Anomoeans. The two prior dialogues, about which there is discussion, are held with the Anomoeans; which sect was most well-known in those times.

III. In the third, sixth, and seventh, the controversy is moved *concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit*, and also *concerning the soul of Christ*. Which two questions are proper to Macedonius, as we learn partly from other writers, and partly from Marius Mercator. Now Macedonius lived toward the end of the fourth century: he was certainly deposed in the year 360, and condemned in the ecumenical council in the year 381. The heresy, however, flourished even afterward, as is evident from the history of following times, although it excited fewer disturbances after the year 450.

IV. In the fourth and fifth, the heresy of the Arians is refuted, as well as that of the Apollinarists, *concerning the divine Word performing the functions in Christ*, either of the entire soul, which is the error of the Arians; or of the mind only, which is that of Apollinaris. These two questions arose toward the end of the fourth century, and were condemned, indeed, in the council by 423 [Patres] of Constantinople in the year 381, but in books by Athanasius, Nazianzen, Cyril, and others of the fourth or fifth century.

V. I noticed then that the reviewed questions had their own age, which they bore, and for so long...

agitated more vehemently, until that massive contention over Christ ^A which Nestorius and Eutyches moved, occupied minds, and exercised the industry of ecclesiastical writers. For hardly anything was done about them afterwards, except on the occasion of the Eutychian heresy, which some have viewed as a certain offspring of Apollinaris.

VI. From this it first came to my mind to opine that the author of the dialogues wrote before the troubles of the two heretics I have mentioned, Nestorius and Eutyches, and therefore during the time that elapsed between the second council and the [Ephesian] one. Three things support this opinion. First, that the Orthodox [character] in the second dialogue, addressing Aetius, objects that certain men have "just recently" (*χθὲς καὶ σήμερον*) emerged from him, and opposes them to those who, from the holy apostles down to the present day, praise the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The second dialogue, therefore, was written not long after Aetius' books were published; but Aetius' books were published at Constantinople towards the end of the fourth century.

Another point is that in the third dialogue mention is made of a council in which something was added to the Nicene symbol concerning the Holy Spirit—if indeed it was truly an addition, and not rather an explanation against the heresy of Macedonius of what the Nicene synod had taught more briefly. Therefore, the author of the dialogues wrote after the year 381, in which year the second council was celebrated at Constantinople.

The last point is that, on the contrary, no mention is made of the questions moved by Nestorius and Eutyches concerning the incarnation of the Word, although it would have been wonderfully useful to both (I speak of the orthodox and the Apollinarist) to confirm the points of their arguments by the definition of the Ephesian council, whether the two natures in Christ were to be perfectly proven, ^B or the honor of Mother of God (*Deipara*) were to be asserted for the most holy Virgin. The dialogues were therefore written before the Ephesian council, and thus before the year 431.

What is more? The writer of the dialogues seems to have had this sole purpose: that those whom the second council had condemned in its first canon—the Eunomians or Anomoeans, the Arians and Semi-Arians, or the Pneumatomachians and Sabellians, the Marcellians, Photinians, and Apollinarists—he would partly refute by reason, and partly weaken by the solution of their objections. The dialogues were written, therefore, in that space of time which flowed between the second council and the Ephesian council. ^C This is highly supported by the fact that anyone can easily observe among ecclesiastical writers while reading: namely, that they were accustomed, after heresies either had arisen or, rather, had appeared in public, first to fight openly for the faith until the Church taught the faithful in synods and definitions and struck the heretics with anathema; then, after the synods, to write books by which they might persuade through reason the things the Church had sanctioned by its authority; and finally, that they did not cease from the task of treating one subject before another of greater moment for the time drew noble defenders of the faith to itself; such that a certain chronological judgment can be made, both of the age of heresies from books, and of the time of books from heresies.

§ II. How uncertain the author of the dialogues has been to this day.

I. That the author of the dialogues has been uncertain to this day, the different opinions of different people on that matter manifest clearly. For writers of the same age clash among themselves, and the Greeks dissent from one another, and one and the same writer does not agree with himself, attributing the same work now to one author, now to another.

II. The writers of whom I speak are of a recent age: for I know no one, neither Greek nor Latin, of the ancients who mentions the dialogues. Photius certainly does not mention them, nor does any other nomenclator of authors. Among the Latins, Beza first made mention of them, then Scultetus, afterwards Francis Combefis, who also translated this work from the Greek. Beza and Combefis were the first to translate five dialogues, and Scultetus the remaining two. Of the Greeks, no one—so far as I recall—praised these dialogues, except perhaps around the times of the Council of Florence, or certainly when the procession of the Holy Spirit was being debated more contentiously.

III. Furthermore, those three Latins whom I named, and others of no greater authority, attribute the dialogues either to Athanasius or to Maximus the monk: they do not, however, command much faith for themselves. For, first, they do so timidly, and almost only so that the work of which they speak does not appear without some author's name; then, they are spurred by the slightest and most doubtful indications. The Greek codex which Beza certainly used had the first four dialogues inscribed in the name of Athanasius, but it also had written on the margin of the first: *τὸν παρόντα διάλογον, οἱ μὲν ᾿Αθανασίου, οἱ δὲ Μαξίμου εἶναί φασιν.* The more distinguished Palatine codex, which is now in the Vatican library, offers no author's name; another one, of inferior note, adjudges a portion of the second dialogue to Athanasius; but a judgment of this kind, since it was only written on the margin by some conjecturer, is of little moment.

IV. Two Greeks, Gregory the Protosyncellus, who wrote an apology of certain ^D Fathers against the letter of Marcus of Ephesus, and Demetrius Cydonius, whose works Arcudius published, offer something, I confess, from the first and third, as if from a work of Maximus. But those men, besides being more recent than to be able by their authority alone (SCHULZ'S NOTES: 1. That this refers to the works of Theodoret, and was composed around the year 425, Garnerius has already declared above. For we think the place in Theodoret’s History, p. 149, § 13, refers to this. See Oudinus, l. c., t. I, p. 1122. But another of the Palatine codex, which exhibits these dialogues, after other works of Maximus, without a new title, is mentioned by Felckmannus, ed. Commel., p. 84. 7. Cydonius. Or Cydones, or as others prefer, the Byzantine. Published. In Opuscula of Greek theologians, Rome 1630 and 1671.)

^A to establish certain belief; they certainly relied solely on the authority of the codices, which had long been corrupt, and cited them popularly. What of the fact that both lived after the fourteenth century, at which time the supposition had long since been made? And there is no one who, as a critic, has read the Greek manuscript codices and has not perceived how corrupt they are, and how much it is their custom to interpolate the works of noble Fathers with supposititious books.

V. Combefis, prudently, in the synopsis of the works of Maximus that he edited, warned that he attributed these dialogues to Maximus because of two codices—the Roman one reported by Cardinal Baronius, and the Venetian one of Gerasimus Blachus—until someone should persuade us to think otherwise by more certain evidence. From which words it can be seen that he thinks the codices he mentions have less authority than would be needed to establish certain belief. ^B

VI. I assume that hardly anything can be gathered from more recent Greeks, since neither do they all agree among themselves, nor does one of them even agree with himself. One person attributes the same dialogue to one author, and to another, and someone else to yet another. I have certainly read, not inattentively, regarding this matter: Demetrius Cydones, *On the Procession of the Holy Spirit*; Joseph of Methone in his *Reply to the Epistle of Mark of Ephesus*; Mark of Ephesus himself at the Council of Florence; John Veccus in *Against Andreas Comaterus*, and in other works which the orthodox Greece of Allatius exhibits; Andreas Comaterus himself in Veccus; Gregory the Protosyncellus, *To the Emperor of Trebizond*; George Metochites, in his *Refutation of the Three Chapters of Planudes*. I have read, I say, and while reading I noticed that only two dialogues are cited by them: the first and the third; and the former is attributed to Athanasius by Metochites, and also by Veccus; but others [attribute it] to Veccus, and by the Protosyncellus it is assigned to Maximus; the latter, however, is claimed for Maximus by Comaterus and Cydones; [and] by Veccus to Athanasius three or four times. ^C

VII. Nor is more light to be expected from manuscript codices than from printed ones. For, in order that a judgment might be made about the rest from one best of all—which Felckmannus writes were seen by him in greater numbers—the Palatine codex, which is now kept in the Vatican library, has no author's name inscribed for any of the first three dialogues; but it has only this title prefixed to the first: *Antilogia of an Anomoian or Arian with an Orthodox*. The second bears no inscription. On the third, in the margin, it is written: *Of Saint Maximus*. The fourth is inscribed thus: *Dialogue of the same Saint Athanasius against Apollinarius*. The fifth, however: *Of the same, A summary against Apollinarius, and of Gregory the Bishop*. The two remaining ones bear the name of Athanasius.

VIII. The truth, therefore, is what I said at the beginning: that the author of the dialogues has been uncertain until now.

§ III. That one is the author of all.

1. In the three dialogues—the Arian in the first two, the Macedonian in the three following, and the Apollinarian in two—it is necessary, therefore, to show: first, that the first two dialogues were composed by one author; then, that the three against Macedonius are likewise by one; third, that the two against Apollinarius are likewise by one; finally, that all are by one and the same [author].

II. As regards the first: whoever reads the first two against the Arian heresy not inattentively will easily notice that the author of both is not different. For there is one question for both; one method of solving the question; the same style, and the same method of reasoning; the same interpretation of Scripture; indeed, even an affectation of the same kind of proverbs. The question in both is about the Unbegotten and the Begotten, and the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, and also of the whole Trinity. Because the writer uses the same words and formulas of speech in both, and maintains the same form of treating the argument—since this can be evident to anyone from the reading itself—there is no need for examples. That famous passage, *The Father is greater than I*, is explained in the same way in both dialogues concerning the Incarnate Word, etc. The same affected proverbs: *If you knew the gift of God, you would surely know*, etc. (Dial. 1). *If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that taught*, etc. (Dial. 2). What of the fact that both are cited by the more recent Greeks as if they were one? See John Veccus, caption 13, once and again. Demetrius Cydones, *On the Procession of the Holy Spirit*, ch. 5. Gregory the Protosyncellus, *To the Emperor of Trebizond*, etc.

III. Add that the second is almost nothing else than a kind of conclusion to the first, by which a few scholia of Eunomius on the epistle of Aetius, and the epistle of Aetius itself, are refuted according to their individual chapters; which was necessary for the completion of the work. For the whole question about the Unbegotten and the Begotten flowed from the epistle of Aetius.

IV. Whether, therefore, they are two dialogues, as I am more inclined to believe, or two parts of one, as seemed to the more recent Greeks, there is certainly one writer.

V. What pertains to the second, namely that the three dialogues against Macedonius are of one author, is concluded not obscurely from many, but most clearly from this: that in the third toward the end, when the Macedonian intends to withdraw and to put an end to the dialogue, he uses these words: *I am weak, but I find one able to speak against these things: Persuade my teachers, and I am persuaded.* He uses almost the same [words] in the sixth toward the end, when he wishes to terminate the dispute: *I am unlearned; I bring my teacher, and he discusses with you.* One, therefore, is the author of both. Indeed, and of the seventh; for since he takes his beginning from there: *You are not only mistaken in saying that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, but also that the Lord, when He was made flesh, had a soul.*

SCHULTZ'S NOTES.

^A Indeed, it is clear from these words, from which the beginning is derived, that the last dialogue agrees with the others against the Anomoeans. For when the Macedonian had said that the orthodox err twice—once when they call the Son consubstantial with the Father, and again when they assert that Christ had a soul—the Orthodox answers that both are asserted piously, and immediately hurls the charge back at the Macedonian. "And, in truth," he says, "you do not accomplish anything great if, after you have denied the consubstantiality, you also deny that He was ensouled. For that is the peculiar mark of those who maintain the diversity and dissimilarity of substance, that they might say the substance of the Only-begotten is capable of suffering, that they say it lacks a soul; and from this the invention of the Anomoeans originated." Therefore, the writer of all the dialogues is the same.

XI. But the whole matter will shine more clearly if the method which is observed in refuting the mentioned heresies is considered. For at first, the fight is conducted by the force of arguments, and in that, the prior dialogue is placed. Then, in the subsequent one, those things are refuted which the defenders of the heresy usually brought forward, and with which they were accustomed to ensnare the simpler folk. Thus, in the first dialogue, a dispute is instituted with an Anomoean; in the second, the comments of Eunomius and the individual arguments of Aetius are answered. Thus, in the first against the Macedonians, the heresy is attacked; in the second, satisfaction is given to the questions proposed in the document and scattered among the common people. Thus, finally, in the former against Apollinaris, the human mind of Christ is sustained by arguments; in the latter, the tricks of Apollinaris are dissolved. That unity of method can by itself convince one of one author; but joined with other indications, it demonstrates the same [author], if I am not mistaken.

§ IV. That this one author is different from the great Athanasius.

I. For if all the dialogues are to be attributed to [one person]—as they certainly ought to be—none of them pertains to Athanasius, since those three common criteria, time, doctrine, and diction, disagree. Although these, in adjudging works to some author, make only a probable conjecture, in adjudging them away they produce a certain opinion.

II. And that I may take the beginning from the time, I argue thus. Athanasius departed from this life in the year 381, in which year the second synod was held at Constantinople. Therefore, the one is different from the other.

III. The proposition is certain, since there is a constant opinion of everyone, as far as suffices here, concerning the time of the death of Athanasius. For there is usually only a question of the three-year period. For Petavius refers [the death] to the year 371, ^B others to the following, some even to 373. The assumption is concluded from this. To a Macedonian boasting that he holds the faith of the martyr Lucian, and asking from the Orthodox, who professes the Nicene Creed, what, nevertheless, ^C he would condemn in the faith of Lucian; the Orthodox answers that he condemns the fact that something had been added contrary to the opinion of the martyr, and that he can prove it. ^D

^A The Macedonian replies: "Did you and the followers of this faith not add something to the Nicene creed?" The Orthodox replies: "We certainly added something, but not things that contradict it." Then the Macedonian says: "You added something at all." The Orthodox replies: "We added, indeed, those things about which there was no question at that time, and which now have been piously explained by the Fathers."

IV. It is obvious that the subject here concerns the additions which the Constantinopolitan Fathers made to the Nicene Symbol against the error of Macedonius. For since nothing else had been placed in the symbol by the Nicene Fathers regarding the Holy Spirit, except these four words, "And in the Holy Spirit," the Constantinopolitans were compelled by the Pneumatomachi to explain that brief statement with this addition: "And in the Holy Spirit the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the holy prophets." By these six attributes, the heresy of the Pneumatomachi was proscribed, and at the same time the divinity and consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit were asserted. Therefore, the author of the third dialogue wrote after the synod [H], that is, after the year 381, which is the tenth, or at least the eighth, year from the death of Athanasius.

V. And certainly, in the third and sixth dialogues, almost nothing else is done than to demonstrate through reasoning, one by one, those six attributes ascribed to the Holy Spirit by the Constantinopolitans, by which one fact alone is irrefutably overturned, in my opinion, the judgment of later Greece which attributes these dialogues to Athanasius.

^B VI. It was necessary, therefore, for the Greeks whose names were just called, to have been neither very diligently versed in reading their own authors, nor to have known much about the times and occasions on which these questions were raised and the books on these questions were written. Otherwise, they would have understood that the question concerning the *ingenerate* and the *generate* ^C was either not much stirred or merely ventilated in the age of Athanasius, when the books of Aetius had not yet been published by Eunomius; but it was agitated pugnaciously when those very books were published. Epiphany reports that these were recently edited at the time he was writing against the Anomoeans; and he was writing in the year of Christ 375, or even 376. For he seems to have spent three years preparing his 430 *Panarion*, since, as Petavius thinks, he began in the eleventh year of Valens, which is 374, and reached the middle in the twelfth, which is 375, where he argues against the Cataphrygians. It is necessary, therefore, that the epistle of Aetius, which is impugned in the dialogue, was published in Constantinople in the year 372 or 373, which is the first or second year after the death of Athanasius, if we follow the chronology of Petavius.

VII. And this concerns the time; now for the doctrine. The dialogues deal with three heresies: the Arian, the Macedonian, and the Apollinarian. Athanasius ^D argues differently against each one, and the dialogist argues differently. The dialogist fights against Aetius and Eunomius, and barely mentions Aetius and Eunomius anywhere else. The dialogist attacks Macedonius as if he held the same opinion about the Son of God as Aetius; Athanasius never mentions the name of Macedonius, or he teaches that he held the right opinion about the Son, if the second epistle to Spiridion is genuine. The dialogist frequently calls out the name of Apollinarius expressly and says he has read his confession: Athanasius does so only once, as far as I know, and that incidentally, in a letter to the Antiochenes, when he was dealing with the subscription of the Alexandrian synod. The dialogist manifests three hypostases of the Trinity, by which statement he reveals himself to be an Antiochene, as every learned person knows; Athanasius does not say three hypostases, but only one, since he understood *hypostasis* to mean *physis* or *ousia* in the manner of the Alexandrians. See the letter of Athanasius to the Antiochenes; and the letter of Alexander in Theodoret’s history. The dialogist in all three dialogues carefully avoids even slightly indicating the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; Athanasius expressly teaches that the Holy Spirit has his being from the Son, whatever he has, and that the Son is the fountain of the Holy Spirit, in his *Second Oration against the Arians*, in the book on the Holy Spirit to Spiridion, in the book on human nature assumed, and in his oration against the followers of Sabellius. Finally, the dialogist solves thirty sophistries of the Apollinarists. Athanasius solves only five, and in such a way that he neither responds to all the same ones, nor in the same manner.

VIII. What more is there to say? It is truly very certain, as Petavius once stated when he was pressing a certain insane accuser of Athanasius, who was using the testimony of the dialogues to stir up hatred of the Arian heresy against the vanquisher of the Arians. It is very true, I say, "that no one who has read this dialogistic work, and has brought but a little learning and judgment to it, can doubt that it is entirely, in its entirety, as much as it is, and of such a kind, not the work of Athanasius." 431 It is also very true, as the same author observes elsewhere, that the diction of the dialogues differs miraculously from Athanasian 431 and inimitable oratory.

IX. From a man so remarkably learned, I may not dissent in either of these opinions; yet I cannot agree that what he adjudges away from Athanasius, he attributes to Maximus the Monk, having followed the judgment of the Greeks, as he says. But I contend that the judgment of later Greeks is of no moment in this matter, since they themselves fight among themselves, as we showed before; and they are refuted by certain demonstration, which now must be performed: if, however, a response is first made to the objection which can be brought from the Lateran Council celebrated under Martin I.

SCHULZ’S NOTES. * The argument is almost the same as the one used by the Benedictine editors, 1. II, Opp. Athan., p. 472.

^A X. In the *Secretarium* three testimonies of Athanasius are brought forward, and the third indeed under this title: "From a discourse of Athanasius, which is composed by way of question and answer with Apollinaris." But what discourse of this kind is there besides the one dialogue out of the two against Apollinaris? Truly, one must say that either the citation is faulty, or another dialogue is being praised than the one which is held to be genuine. For what is adduced in that place is found in neither; nay, not even in the seventh, which has somewhat of an affinity with the other two. Furthermore, the second testimony, which is adduced under this inscription: "Of the same, concerning the greater discourse against Apollinaris, on the faith," you would seek in vain in the three discourses against Apollinaris that are read among the works of Athanasius. Hence the opinion has arisen—and not rashly—that, first, the works of another writer are produced under the name of Athanasius; and second, that it is most certain that nothing else was written by Athanasius against Apollinaris than the epistle to Epictetus and the one discourse among the three shortly to be mentioned. But these things are by the way.

V. That the author of the dialogues is different from Maximus.

I. The reason why I do not assent to Petavius in that which I have said is that, even if I should very much wish to do so, I cannot in my thinking grasp what cause, in a man of the most perspicacious mind and exceedingly learned, drove him to give credence to Demetrius Cydones, by whose authority he is chiefly led—a man who is of recent age, as one who lived in the fifteenth century; and who, that he might have more age ^B to draw upon, speaks only of the first dialogue: when nevertheless the second dialogue is of the same author as the first, and was written as quickly as possible at the waning of the fourth or in the fifth century, that is, two hundred years and more before the death of Maximus. But that is concluded thus.

II. The two earlier dialogues were composed not long after the time when the question concerning the unbegotten and the begotten was stirred up by Aetius: since indeed the orthodox man, to Aetius complaining that he was suffering persecution from the Chronitae, 432 replies in these words: “Whom do you call Chronitae? Is it those who, even from the apostolic times down to this present day, praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Or those who, *yesterday and today*, have appeared and labor under heresy? They who have passed over the holy name of the Father and the Son, and prefer to it one who taught to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and even think themselves ^C wiser than him who delivered that the Father is Father and Himself the Son?" But for what reason should one say of men who arose three hundred years before (for so much time flowed from Aetius to Maximus) that they *yesterday and today*, from one or two days ago, have existed?

III. Furthermore, who would think it necessary to respond curiously to the individual arguments of Aetius, lest the faithful be ensnared by them, at a time when the heresy of the Anomoeans had altogether died out and its very name had almost been effaced by oblivion? Yet the dialogist nonetheless insists upon this in his two dialogues. To what end should an epistle be answered two centuries later, lest it deceive the imprudent with its novelty and harm the faith?

IV. Finally, in the age of Maximus, there flourished the two heresies of the Monophysites and Monothelites, both of which were propagated from the Eutychian sect, and which, as they had passed through various channels as it were, had obtained the names of various authors, of whom the most well-known was Severus. Against both, but especially the latter, Maximus fought with all his might, in fighting ^D doing what made his martyrdom illustrious.

At that time the principal cause of contention was the *Ecthesis* of Heraclius and the *Typus* of Constans: concernng other dogmas there was either consent or silence. To what end would Maximus have laboriously disputed with the Anomoeans and Macedonians, nay, and even the Apollinarists? Seeing that the Monothelites, by whom he was suffering most importunate and continuous vexation, together execrated the impiety of Arius concerning the Word of God, the blasphemy of Macedonius concerning the Holy Spirit, the madness of Apollinaris, and nay, the delirium of Eutyches. For they professed a consubstantial Trinity, and two entire natures in Christ—nay, they defended them as being endowed with their own individual minds in such a way that they were said, even by the supreme pontiffs John and Martin, and by Maximus the monk himself, to have agreed to some extent with Nestorius.

V. But if it be pleasing to compare the undoubted doctrine of Maximus with the opinion of the dialogist, that which we are doing will be more easily accomplished.

The dialogist takes care, as I have already said, curiously, that he may not indicate that the Holy Spirit in any way proceeds from the Son: this Maximus states openly in his epistle to the presbyter Martin, as it is brought forward in the collections of Anastasius.

433 The dialogist relates that he read the confession of Apollinaris, in which he said that the body of our Lord was *consubstantial* to Mary: Maximus, in the disputation with Pyrrhus, says that Apollinaris abused the term of "one will," so that he might show the flesh of the Lord to be *consubstantial* to the Word.

The dialogist disputes with an Anomoean at length; indeed, he spends two almost entirely intact dialogues, the first and the second, in treating the question whether the *unbegotten* and the *begotten* are *substance*. Maximus, as if it were a matter confessed by all, assumes that neither the Unbegotten nor the Begotten is the substance of God; and adds: "For who would say this?"

The dialogist, while disputing with the Apollinarists, mentions neither Eutyches, nor the Acephali, nor Severus, nor others of that sort; nay, he does not even mention any synod except the first, which is the Nicene, against the...

^A Arians, and the second, which is the Constantinopolitan, against the Macedonians; Maximus everywhere makes frequent mention of men of this sort, and of the synods in which the impiety of Eutyches was proscribed.

The dialogist speaks very meagerly of Mary the Theotokos, and in almost no other words than those which Nestorius himself would use not unwillingly; for when he had said something regarding the birth of the Virgin, to the Apollinarian who objected, "Did Mary therefore give birth to a man?" he replies: "Not a mere man, but God made man. For first the Lord was with her in a divine way, and then from her in an economic way, as a child; wherefore Mary is also Theotokos." "Not a mere man, but God made man. For first the Lord was with her in a divine way, afterwards from her, as an infant, in an economic way; and therefore Mary is the Mother of God." Against Maximus, when he had suffered the calumny as though he did not call the Virgin Mother of God, he arose having sent forth a prayer, and with hands extended toward heaven, he said with tears: "He who does not call our Lady, the most praiseworthy, most holy, immaculate, and beyond all intellectual nature venerable lady, the true, natural Mother of God, who made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, let him be anathema and separated from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the consubstantial and supersubstantial Trinity, and from every celestial power, and from the choir of the holy apostles, the prophets, and the infinite host of holy martyrs, and every spirit perfected in justice, now and always, and for ever and ever. Amen."

VI. That Theodoret is the author of the dialogues

Now truly, since the two dialogues against Apollinarius are likewise nothing other than a solution of the snares, or sophisms, by which that heretic attempted to deceive the minds of the simpler folk; and since Theodoret testifies that he solved the snares of Apollinarius in some writing, and solves the same ones, named specifically from the same book, in the Eranistes, which he does in the dialogues, where he names the same book, and delivers the same doctrine concerning Christ in the dialogues as he does in other places: it appears indubitable that those dialogues against Apollinarius, and indeed all seven, were composed by Theodoret, inasmuch as there is one author for them all, as was concluded beforehand.

Let the reader likewise attend to the method, which is kept the same in these dialogues, as is kept in the three dialogues of the Eranistes. For the same names are imposed upon the persons speaking, namely the heretic of his own name, and ^C the orthodox: which method does not seem to have been used before Theodoret. But now the collation must be instituted.

435 COLLATION I

I. The dialogist wrote against the three heresies, of Arius, Macedonius, and Apollinarius. Theodoret: "I wrote against the Arians and Macedonians, and against the snares of Apollinaris." Observe, reader, that Theodoret recounts his writings in the same order which the dialogues keep among themselves.

II. There are three dialogues against the Macedonians, the third, the sixth, and the seventh. Theodoret: "Concerning the Holy Spirit, against those heretics destitute of his grace, I have written three books."

III. The dialogist solves in books or dialogues two syllogisms, by which as if by snares, Apollinarius was deceiving the simple. Theodoret: "Against the snares of Apollinarius I composed books."

IV. The dialogist wrote after the second synod, which was held in the year 381, and before the third, which was convened at Ephesus in the year 431. Theodoret: "It is entire, to whom it may be the desire to unfold my ancient works, then..."

those which I wrote before the Ephesian Synod, and again others written twelve years after it. For by God's grace I have expounded all the prophets in commentaries, and the Psalter, and the Apostle; and I long ago composed books against the Arians and Macedonians, and against the deceits of Apollinaris and the madness of Marcion."

V. The dialogist wrote at that time when those three heresies which I mentioned were flourishing. Theodoret, explaining the subject matter of each of the five books concerning heretical fables, says: "In the fourth we shall demonstrate modern heresies—I mean those of Arius, and of Eunomius, and as many as emerged after them down to this last one, which the Lord has suddenly extirpated to the foundation." Then in a list he enumerates Arius, Macedonius, and Apollinaris, with their individual sectarians.

VI. The dialogist so fights with the Arians that he attacks specifically the Anomoeans, and the two parents of the Anomoeans, Aetius and Eunomius. Theodoret, when he names his own books, and indeed when he debates, is accustomed to join Aetius with Eunomius, and the Arians with the Eunomians. Innumerable examples are at hand.

VII. Why say more? Theodoret says that he wrote against those heretics against whom the dialogues are, and that he wrote as many books as are read in the dialogues, and that he dealt at length with what is dealt with at length in the dialogues. What certain tokens of conjecture can there be, if these are not they?

COLLATIO II. Between the dialogist and Theodoret, regarding the dialogues against the Arians.

I. In the first dialogue against the Anomoean, the dialogist immediately at the beginning refuses to speak openly regarding whatever pertains to the mysteries, unless he first knows to whom he is speaking: "But to open up what Christianity is, is not equally safe, unless I understand who is asking, lest I seem to cast what is holy to the dogs, and pearls before swine. For if you ask me, and at the same time are one of the faithful, I will gladly say who I am. But what it is to be a faithful one, I do not say, lest perhaps you, ^A who are asking me, be a Jew." This is customary for Theodoret in Dial. II against the Eranist. When the conversation had fallen upon the Eucharist, the Eranist asking: "What do you call the gift that is offered, before the priest's invocation?" the Orthodox replies: "One must not speak openly; for it is likely that some are present who have not been initiated into the mysteries." And in bk. v of *Heret. Fab.* when he was dealing with baptism: "The divine Apostle taught us to think these thoughts concerning most holy baptism, that we might be buried with Christ and be partakers of his resurrection; but here there is more need for mystical language, etc." And in question XV upon Numbers: "We discuss divine mysteries obscurely on account of the uninitiated; but when these are removed, we teach the initiated openly." ^B

II. In Dialogue I the Anomoean asks where it is written that "the Son is the stamp of his substance." The Orthodox replies: "In the Epistle of the apostle Paul to the Hebrews." The Anomoean objects: "It is not accepted in the Church." To this exception the Orthodox replies: "From the time that the Gospel of Christ was announced, this epistle has been believed to be Paul's, and in that number all the epistles of Paul are fourteen." Theodoret in the preface to his exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews: "They do nothing surprising who labor under the Arian malady, if they rave against the apostolic writings, and separate the Epistle to the Hebrews from the rest, and call it adulterous. For if they move their tongues against God and our Savior, what would they not dare against his well-wishers and the grandiloquent heralds of the truth? - Yet they ought, if nothing else, at least to have revered the length of time in which the alumni of truth have perpetually read this epistle in the churches. For from the time that the Churches of God were partakers of the apostolic writings, from that same time they have perceived the utility of the Epistle to the Hebrews." I do not remember reading any other of the ancients, except Epiphanion in heresy 69, who recorded this concerning the Arians: although there are many who feel this way ^C concerning the Marcionites and other heretics.

III. The dialogist reports by what argument the Arians rejected this epistle, because Paul's name was not inscribed in it as it was in the others. For thus the Anomoean: "Did you not notice that in the others the Apostle's name is placed in front, but in this one it is not?" Theodoret: "They bring forward this pretext for their accusation, that the apostolic name is not similarly placed in the proemium."

IV. In the same dialogue the Anomoean is introduced as abrogating the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, because an effective argument for the divinity of the Son might be taken from it, because he is called *charakter tēs hypostaseōs*. Theodoret in his exposition of the first chapter, after he has eruditely interpreted these very words of Paul, says: "When they who think with Arius saw that there was no doubt about this theology, they attempted to eject this epistle from the apostolic treasures; for that reason we show it to be in agreement with the evangelical doctrine."

Note, however, that wherever Theodoret uses this argument—and he uses it not once—that saying of Christ is added, John xiv, 9: "He who sees me, sees also my Father." Which the dialogist also does.

V. In the same place, the dialogist shows the difference of the Son from a creature, and his consubstantiality with the Father, from the fact that the Son is said to be begotten from the womb, in Ps. CIX, whereas a creature is made by command or Word. Theodoret in his exposition of Psalm CIX, on these words: "From the womb before the morning star have I begotten thee": "In this place he has also revealed the magnificence of his divinity; and to him who had said to him, 'Sit at my right hand,' he confesses the consubstantiality."

He confesses it, and proclaims the identity of [his] nature. For he demonstrates that [the Son's] existence is ^A prior to the morning star, to time, and to ages. Moreover, he teaches that [the Son] is of the same substance "from the womb," for he says he was begotten not from elsewhere, but from my nature, the womb being understood, indeed, through the analogy of the intellect. For as men beget from the womb, and those things which are begotten possess the same nature as their progenitors, so "out of me thou art begotten," and thou showest in thyself the substance of the begetter.

VI. In the first dialogue, the Dialogist expounds at length that saying of the Apostle, "For let this mind be in you", [Philippians 2:5] etc., whereby he might convince the Arians. Theodoret interprets this same place of the Apostle in his Commentaries in the same sense, and reports that Arius and Eunomius are refuted of blasphemy by the Apostle, and to the whole exposition he joins these words: "But we have discoursed copiously on these matters elsewhere." ^B *Pleistous diexelthomen logous*, "we have traversed many arguments"; by which words he signified the dissertations which are made through interrogation and response. Furthermore, that Theodoret, when he wrote those things, had directed his mind to his own books against Arius and Eunomius, is evident from chapter 2 of book 5 of the *Heretical Fables*, where, when he had disputed concerning the Son of God, he adds: *Alla peri touton pollous pros Areion kai Eunomion, en tois pros ekeinous, diexelthomen logous*. Nothing could be opposed that would not be resolved at the end of the collation.

VII. The Dialogist, in order to prove the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father to an Anomæan who is questioning him, applies the place of the Apostle, I Cor. 2:10: "The Spirit searcheth the deep things ^C of God," and discourses at length on the whole passage. Theodoret in his commentaries, when he had expounded this place, says: "But we have expounded these things at greater length elsewhere"; and presently he subjoins: "He shows that the Holy Spirit is not a part of created things, but has his substance from God."

VIII. The second dialogue is entirely against Eunomius and his teacher Aetius; the Dialogist urges at the very beginning the place of Isaiah 26:12, 13, as it is in the Septuagint, "Lord God, give us peace, besides thee we know no other": whereby he may prove that the Son is consubstantial to the Father: because the Son is not known apart from the Father, but in the Father, and with the Father, and at the same time with the Father, etc. ^D Theodoret, expounding this same place, says: "Your peace, Lord, we have embraced, lest we fall away from your providence: for we know no other God." These things convince the stupidity of Eunomius: for how can they say, "Besides thee we know no other," who call the Son a created God? But we, preaching the one substance of the Trinity, truly affirm when we say, "Besides thee we know no other."

IX. In the same place, the Dialogist, in order that he might prove to an Anomæan, who is arguing that the Son is posterior to the Father, that the Son is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, discourses copiously on the place of Paul in Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is called the "brightness of his glory and the image of his substance," and from thence concludes, "The Son of God is from God, yet not after God, nor outside God, but at the same time as God, in God, and with God. Just as brightness is from the sun, yet not after the sun, nor outside the sun, but at the same time as the sun, in the sun, and with the sun." Theodoret to the place of the Apostle: "Because, saying the Son, he called him eternal, but [this is] incredible to those who are not initiated in divine things, so that he who is the Son is not in time posterior to him who begat him, he demonstrates the truth of the divinity through a certain likeness subject to the eyes, and says, 'Who being the brightness of his glory': for brightness is both from the fire and with the fire; and it indeed has fire as its cause, but it cannot be separated from the fire," etc. When he had pursued these things with almost the same words as the Dialogist, he subjoins the words already brought forward: "When those who think with Arius saw that there was no doubt of this theology, they attempted to eject this epistle from the apostolic treasures."

X. To the Anomæan asking why he called the Holy Spirit good, and from thence might prove the dignity of the Spirit to be common with the other persons, the Dialogist answers with the testimony of David brought forward, "Thy good Spirit shall lead me." Theodoret on this very verse of Psalm 142: "From this we have learned the dignity of the Spirit: for just as God is good, so also the Spirit is named good; and just as he besought God that he should lead him, so he also prays that he may obtain the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

XI. The Dialogist responds to the individual arguments of Aetius, which Epiphanius had performed fifty years earlier; however, Theodoret perhaps may not have known the works of Epiphanius, indeed not even Epiphanius himself, inasmuch as he nowhere mentions him, even when he most ought to, as in surveying the *Hæreseologies* and in narrating the deeds of Chrysostom; [and yet] he seems to have been bound to refute the same arguments, inasmuch as he saw them inflicting harm even in his own times, as is gathered from the fact that he omits almost no occasion of teaching by what testimonies of Scripture, or by what reasoning, the impiety of Aetius and of the master of Eunomius, who was more recent, might be repressed.

XII. When Theodoret was writing concerning the baptism of Arius, he has these things: "The same one, leaving aside the laws of chanting glory which they who from the beginning had been eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word had handed down, introduced another form, teaching those whom he had deceived to glorify the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. And indeed he did not dare to change the customary invocation of divine baptism because of open transgression, but according to...

the law of baptism he interpreted it gracefully. Theodoretus says concerning these very words: "These likewise proclaim one deity. For that Christ also is named Lord by Sacred Scripture as Savior, I believe the disciples of Arius and Eunomius also would confess. But if there is no Savior besides Him, and the Savior is also called Lord, He is doubtlessly of that same nature. But if He is not, as the blasphemers say: therefore He is not the Savior either, as the prophecy speaks. But if He is the Savior, He is of the same nature as He whose property it is to save."

III. When the Dialogist presses the same argument with another divine testimony in the same prophet: *I am God, and there is no other; by myself I swear, justice shall proceed from my mouth; my words shall not be made void, so that to me every knee shall bow*, he asks the Macedonian, whose words are these? "The Son's," says the Macedonian; and he proves the saying by the testimony of the Apostle: *In the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess*, etc. And thence the orthodox one concludes: "The divinity of the Father and the Son, therefore, is one." Theodoretus on this place of the Apostle: "By these few words the divine Apostle has certainly vanquished every heresy, both those who blaspheme the divinity of the Only-Begotten, etc." And afterwards: "He shows that Arius and Eunomius blaspheme in these same words, etc." He concludes: "But we have discoursed copiously on these things elsewhere." ^B

IV. The Dialogist again proves the divinity of the Son from the fact that God addresses his people before David with these 441 words: *Hear, O my people, and I will testify to thee, Israel, if thou wilt hear me, there shall be no new God in thee, neither shalt thou adore a strange god*, etc. For he asks the Macedonian whether these words belong to the Father or the Son. Theodoretus on this place: "He commands them not to worship a strange and new God, but Him who bestowed freedom upon them. These things truly refute the madness of Arius and Eunomius. For if the Only-Begotten is not consubstantial, He could rightly be called strange; and if there was a time when He was not, He is recent, and He is not eternal. Therefore, they manifestly transgress the divine law by worshipping a strange and new God. But there is no time to refute their stupidity," since he had sufficiently refuted it before.

V. The Dialogist introduces the Macedonian denying that the "from Him and through Him" (ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι' αὐτοῦ) are the same, by which he deflects the argument of the orthodox one who uses the testimony of Paul to prove the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and who asks of whom Paul was speaking, etc. Theodoretus on the place of the Apostle: "Through these things the divine Apostle shows that he does not know the difference of the preposition 'from whom' and 'through whom'; and as for the former, because it signifies something greater, ^D

^A and for the latter, because it signifies something less, he has placed both in either person: which, whether they say that it belongs to the Father—those who think with Arius and Eunomius—they will find the preposition 'through whom' conjoined to the preposition 'from whom'; or if they adapt it to the Son, they will see the preposition 'from whom' conjoined to the preposition 'through whom'; but if the preposition 'from whom' signifies something greater, and 'through whom' signifies something less, and both are placed in one person, the same [Word] can surely be judged rightly to be greater than himself on account of the preposition 'from whom', and again lesser on account of the preposition 'through whom'. And at Chapter I of the first Epistle to the Corinthians: 'The Apostle uses the prepositions without any distinction; for here he placed the preposition "through whom," which those who think with Arius and Eunomius attribute to the Son, regarding the Father. ^B He would not have done this, if he had thought that the preposition "through whom" signifies something less than "from whom." And again, at these words, "God is faithful, by whom you were called," he repeats the same sentiment: "Here also he used 'by whom' regarding the Father, obstructing the mouths of the heretics, and teaching that it does not signify inferiority."

VI. The dialogist proves the divinity of the Word and the Holy Spirit from the fact that the Psalmist says: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were fixed, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power." He treats this passage in such a way that he says that not only is the fabrication of the heavens attributed to the Word, and the effectuation or sanctification of the virtues to the Holy Spirit, but that both arise from each other. Theodoret in his commentaries on the words of the Psalmist: ^C "True theology shows us that God the Word, together with the Holy Spirit, made both the heavens and the heavenly virtues, and prophecy anticipates the gospel doctrine. Furthermore, he does not attribute the fabrication of the heavens to God the Word, and the creation of virtues to the Holy Spirit; but he says that both the Word and the Holy Spirit effected the same things, etc."

VII. The dialogist demonstrates the divinity of the Son, with the testimony of Isaiah xliv brought forward: "One is, therefore, he says, the divinity of the Father and the Son." Maced. "How?" Orthod. "For he says, 'I am God, and there is no other.' For either you have become insane and will deny that the Father is God, or in confessing that the Father is God, and likewise that the Son is God, and hearing him say: 'I am God, and besides me there is no other,' you will confess a single divinity." Maced. "I do not refer to one deity." Theodoret on this same passage of Isaiah: ^D "If besides him there is no God, and the Son, according to the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius, is not consubstantial; how is he called God by them? But if he is God, and the prophetic speech is true which openly teaches that there is no other God; then truly the deity of the Trinity is one, even if they be unwilling."

VIII. The dialogist, towards the end of the first dialogue, brings forward something new, at which the Macedonian may not undeservedly marvel on account of his insolence, namely that by the prophet, under the name of thunder, baptism is signified in these words: "Behold I am the Spirit who confirm thunder," etc. Theodoret on these words of Psalm xxviii: "The voice of the Lord is upon the waters, the God of majesty has thundered," clearly signifies this very thing.

IX. But in the second dialogue the author reveals himself still more clearly. For when he wished to persuade the Macedonian that the Word had been subject to the Father, from the time when he took on nature; he employs the testimony of David, Psalm xxi, 11: "From my mother's womb you are my God," which he interprets concerning Christ. And soon he subjoins: "For the Word existed from the mother's womb, when the Virgin conceived and brought forth Emmanuel." Theodoret on the passage of the Psalm, which he demonstrates in the preface is to be understood of Christ: "These things also, he says, the blessed Isaiah prophesied. For when he had said: 'Behold the virgin will conceive in the womb, and will bring forth a Son, and they will call his name Emmanuel'; he subjoined, etc. The blessed David therefore, bearing the person of Christ the Lord, says: 'You formed me in the womb,' etc."

X. The very long concertation of the dialogist and the Macedonian shows the whole matter much more clearly, as they dispute about the reason by which the Son is said to be subject to the Father, and the Father greater than the Son, without detriment to the ὁμοούσιος; for the heretics always had two passages of Scripture on their lips: "The Son himself shall be subject to him who subjected all things to himself"; and, "The Father is greater than I." The Orthodox demonstrates that both pertain to the economy, by which the Word was made flesh. Theodoret in the Commentaries on the former passage: "This passage, he says, those who think with Arius and Eunomius were accustomed to have on their tongue, thinking that by this reasoning they were detracting from the dignity of the Only-begotten. But it behooved them to note that the divine Apostle wrote nothing in this place concerning the divinity of the Only-begotten; for, commanding belief in the resurrection of the flesh, he attempts to show his resurrection from the resurrection of the Lord. It is clear, however, that like is confirmed by like. A little later: "It must be known, therefore, that there are two natures of Christ the Lord, and that sometimes Scripture names him from his human nature, and sometimes from his divine [nature], etc. They act wrongly, therefore, who blaspheme, and attempt to subject him who has not yet accepted the established terms of subjection. For it is necessary to wait, and to understand the mode of subjection. But we have discussed these things copiously in our confrontations against them: ἐν τοῖς πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀγῶσιν, that is, in our dialogues against them. For the disputations which occur by dialogue are properly ἀγῶνες (struggles), in which mutual petitions and refutations occur, and by that name they are called by Theodoret himself in the preface.

After he has set forth the argument of each, he appends: "After the three struggles, we shall add other appendages as it were to the struggles."

XI. The Dialogist, in order to prove against the Macedonian the divinity of the Holy Spirit, makes use of this reasoning: "It is proved that the operation of God and of the Holy Spirit is the same. But for those whose operation is the same, their nature also is the same." And a little later: "The Holy Spirit wishes the same things as the Father and the Son, and therefore we say the will is the same; and those whose will is the same, and whose operation is the same, have also the same nature." Theodoret, in his exposition of Psalm CXXXVII: "It is to be noted, however, that he has taught that God and the Holy Spirit have the same operation. Whither, he says, shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy face? Truly, they whose operation is one, their power is altogether one; and they whose power is one, their nature is at least one. There is, therefore, one nature of God and the Holy Spirit."

XII. The Dialogist introduces the Macedonian—who denies that they are the same—arguing acutely and contentiously that no term should be used in treating of mysteries other than that which God himself has used in the Scriptures. This passage, with a few changes, he puts into the third dialogue of the *Eranistes*, that he might appear to have wished to betray himself as the parent of both works. By this one place the matter is completely established, since in the second dialogue against the Macedonians these things are discussed at length, which are touched upon more concisely in the Commentaries on the Apostle, and by the name of those who think with Arius and Eunomius, the Macedonians are meant: which no one who has read the Commentaries will deny.

COLLATIO IV. Between the Dialogist and Theodoret, regarding the dialogues against Apollinarius.

I. But now, as regarding the two dialogues against Apollinarius, which was fourth in our division, besides that in the latter the arguments of Apollinarius are solved one by one, which Theodoret writes that he has solved, in the former the Dialogist relates that he saw the faith of Apollinarius, in which he said the body of our Lord was coessential with the body of Mary; he also introduces the Apollinarist admitting that the flesh of Christ is *homoousios* (of one essence) with us, and he agrees with him who admits it. Theodoret himself reports that he had seen this very faith, and from it he brings forward testimony whence he proves that the Word assumed flesh from the holy Virgin, etc.

II. The Dialogist in the latter dialogue introduces Apollinarius using these syllogisms: 1. "If Christ were a man only, He would not stand in the midst between God and men. 5. If Christ were a man only, He would not have saved the world; and if He were God only, He would not have saved it through suffering; but Christ is both, therefore He is God and man. 4. If Christ were only man, He would not have made the dead alive; and if He were only God, he would not have made some of the dead alive independently of the Father. But Christ is both; therefore He is God and the same man. 5. The flesh of God is an instrument of life fitted to the sufferings according to the divine counsels; neither are the words proper to the flesh, nor the deeds; and being subjected to the sufferings according to what is fitting for the flesh, it prevails against the sufferings, because it is the flesh of God. The rising from the dead is of God, but the raising [of others] is of God; but Christ is both; therefore He is God and the same man. 2. If He were only man, or if He were only ^A God, He would not be in the midst between God and men. 5. If Christ were only man, He would not have saved the world; and if He were only God, He would not have saved it through suffering; but Christ is both, therefore He is God and man. 4. If Christ were only man, He would not have made the dead alive; and if He were only God, He would not have made some of the dead alive independently of the Father. But Christ is both; therefore He is God and the same man. 5. The flesh of God is an instrument of life fitted to the sufferings according to the divine counsels; neither are words proper to the flesh, nor deeds; and being subjected to the sufferings according to what is fitting for the flesh, it prevails against the sufferings, because it is the flesh of God: to rise from the dead is of God, but the raising [of others] is of God; but Christ is both, therefore He is God and the same man. 2. If He were only man, or if He were only ^B God, Theodoret reports these same syllogisms from a certain writing of Apollinarius, which he calls the *Compendiarium*, in exactly the same words.

III. Why say more? If those things which are in both dialogues are compared with those which Theodoret composed in his *Reprehension of the Twelve Chapters of Cyril*, in the second dialogue of the *Eranistes* which is [titled] *Inconfusus* (Unconfused); in the eighth chapter of book V of his *Haereticarum Fabularum* (Heretical Fables); and in book V, chapter thirteen with the following, against Apollinarius and the holy Cyril, immediately the agreement of doctrine and the same spirit will appear, and the same interpretation of the testimonies of Scripture, and often the same diction.

IV. From these things which have been said thus far, it is concluded, I think, that what was proposed—namely, that Theodoret is the author of the seven dialogues—which to this day have been attributed to other writers, is established.

V. At what time they were composed is thence to be estimated. Theodoret makes mention of them in his *Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul*, published in the year 433. They were composed, therefore, before 433. Thence, there is no mention in them of the third synod, although mention is made of the first and second; nor, however, would a place for this have been less opportune than for those, when the question was concerning Apollinarius, than when the discourse was about Arius and Macedonius. Wherefore I think they were composed before the disturbances ^C stirred up by Nestorius, and thus are to be considered among the works which Theodoret, in his letters to the holy Leo written in the year [449], says were published by himself twenty years before. For then was the occasion for treating of this subject, when indeed he was laboring vehemently—as he expresses it—to purge the field entrusted to him by God from the darnel of Arius and Eunomius.

VI. But when they first began to be attributed to Theodoret, and attributed to another, it is difficult to define. For the supposition of books is wont to happen gradually and without realization, indeed by chance for the most part: after, of course, oblivion has erased the author’s name, then the ignorance of those who transcribe them rashly substitutes another, because of some kinship of the subject with a subject which some man of great name had formerly treated. Yet it does not seem improbable to me that this happened a little ^D

another, because of some kinship of the subject with a subject which some man of great name had formerly treated. Yet it does not seem improbable to me that this happened a little after the fifth synod, when the name of Theodoret was suffering under disfavor among very many people, and whatever writing on the Trinity was produced in sweat, it was attributed to the most noble defender of the Trinity, Athanasius. Then certainly Vigilius attached his own work on the Trinity to Athanasius, etc.

DISSERTATION III. ON THE FAITH OF THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRRHUS

^A 446. The question of Theodoret's faith ought not to have been instituted before his life and books had been dealt with; for the narrative of his life, since it is distinguished by so many and such varied events, kindles the desire of knowing what, in the end, was truly the faith of a man experienced in such a great cause of religion. The examination of his books requires that the judgment regarding his faith be exercised only from suitable testimonies; for it matters from which books and at what time they were written that the testimonies are brought forward, since Theodoret's opinion is said to have been one thing at one time, and set forth in other works at other times.

^B When this question is furthermore pursued, prejudices must be cast aside on either side, and that law must be observed which Gregory the Great prudently established: "that Theodoret be accepted as one who correctly professes his faith, but condemned if he holds an alien opinion." We must, of course, avoid an extreme declaration on one side or the other, whether that of many recent Greeks, who detest the doctrine and name of Theodoret; or of certain scholars of the Latin race, who abuse their own authority or capacity of talent to repel every accusation from the head of Theodoret.

We must inquire, therefore, what he truly thought, and what not, not only concerning the incarnation of the Word, which is the only thing usually discussed, but also concerning other chapters of the faith, on account of the controversies stirred up in later times; for there were those of old who made him accused of error concerning Christ; there are still those who accuse him of many other things.

In this cause, moreover, the accused himself seems to me to be the one who should almost exclusively be heard, bearing witness regarding the question raised against him, whence he may be either acquitted or condemned at the reader’s judgment. For it is my intention to bring forward the momentum of the case in good faith, and in supporting my opinion, to act rather in the person of a narrator than of a judge, or indeed of an accuser.

Someone will perhaps think that it is not only superfluous after the life of Theodoret has been written, but even rash and dangerous, after the judgment of the fifth synod, to hold a question concerning the faith of Theodoret. For this can seem to be either doing what has already been done, or retracting the judgment of the whole Church and of God, by whose divine will the Church is governed.

But since his life is contained in narratives, the dissertation in testimonies and arguments; and since ^C the Church has rendered a verdict on only one chapter, and yet not all people agree even on that: surely it is not doing what has been done if the things that have been narrated are confirmed by testimonies; nor is anything irreligious committed if the judgment of the Church is defended against the audacity of those who bring charges; nor is superfluous labor undertaken if the remaining chapters of the faith are inquired into.

The Catholic faith, if not in its entirety, at least in large part, is contained in eight questions: 1. Concerning the divine persons, how one is adapted and connected to another. 2. Concerning Christ, by what bond of nature the two are joined in Him. 3. Concerning the life-giving flesh of Christ, how it is in the Eucharist. 4. Concerning the baptism of infants, why it is necessary for them. 5. Concerning the aid of divine grace, by which there is need for the victory of temptations and the performance of works. 6. What is the purgatorial fire. 7. Concerning the reward of a well-spent life, whether it is the vision of the divine substance itself, or something less noble. 8. Concerning the invocation and worship of the saints, especially the angels.

By very learned men, Theodoret is said to have been so involved in treating these that he could be seen as either convicted or at least suspected of error. Bellarmine and Petavius indeed accuse him of having thought heretically concerning the divine persons. Cyril, however, [accuses him] because he did not speak in a Catholic manner concerning the incarnation of the Word and the life-giving flesh of Christ, or the Eucharist. Others [accuse him] because he departed into opinions alien to the Church concerning other questions. It is worth the effort to see what the accusation is, that is, to sift the case of a man so renowned; so that, if he is free of the crime, he may enjoy his reputation unimpaired; but if he is held as a defendant, he may not be cited as a witness without caution, if ever there is need for ancient testimonies to settle a controversy regarding faith.

^D

CHAPTER I. On the faith of Theodoret concerning the question of the divine persons.

1. The Church defends many things against heretics regarding the divine persons, but three above all. The first is the true trinity or distinction of persons, against Sabellius: the second, their true equality, or, as the Fathers speak, consubstantiality, against Arius, Macedonius, and others: the last, the true procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son or through the Son...

concerning which—how many ages it has been disputed with what great contention between Greeks and Latins—no learned man remains ignorant.

II. So far is Theodoret from having clung to Sabellius, Arius, or Macedonius, that he attacked them most bitterly. This is established both by his other books scattered about, and especially by the four previous dialogues which antiquity attributed to Athanasius and Maximus, but which we finally restored, assigning them to their true author. Rightly therefore did Theodoret write to Renatus, a presbyter of the Roman Church, that he had published more than thirty books against Arius and Eunomius, against Marcion, against Macedonius, against the Gentiles, against the Jews, etc.

III. Concerning the third point, men of great name ^B — Hugo Etherianus, Manuel Calecas, Bellarmine, Petavius, and Allatius — raise a dispute, and bring forward one or another piece of testimony by which they believe it to be openly proven that Theodoret was involved in that heresy which asserts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Bellarmine adds that he was not merely a follower of this error, but also its author, in which he seems to follow Manuel Calecas.

IV. Two points therefore are called into controversy: first, whether Theodoret felt contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; and second, whether he was the author of this error.

V. ^C In order to conclude the first point, a notable passage is commonly brought forward by all from the refutation of the ninth anathema. When Cyril had composed it in these words: "If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ is glorified by the Spirit, as if by an alien power, not using His own, and as having received from Him the ability to act against unclean spirits and to perform miracles among men, and does not rather say that the Spirit through whom He worked miracles is His own, let him be anathema." Marius Mercator interprets this as follows: "If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, by the latter's power, as if by an alien one, and that He received from Him the ability to act against unclean spirits and to perform divine signs; and that it is not rather His own Spirit, through whom He wrought divine signs, let him be anathema."

VI. When, I say, Cyril had composed the anathema in these words, Theodoret bitterly argues against the final part: "That the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, if he means as consubstantial, and proceeding from the Father, we shall agree, and shall receive it as a pious expression; but if he means as having His existence from the Son or through the Son, we shall reject this as blasphemous and impious. For we shall believe the Lord who says, The Spirit, ^D who proceeds from the Father, and likewise the most divine Paul who says: We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God." Marius Mercator translates thus: "True Spirit of the Son, if he says it because He is of the same nature and comes forth from the Father, we shall agree, and receive the pious expression: but if, because He has existence from the Son or through the Son, we shall reject it as blasphemy and impiety: for we believe the Lord saying, The Spirit who goes forth from the Father; and again the divine Paul saying, But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God."

VII. Hugo Etherianus brings forward another passage from a letter to the monasteries, where Theodoret rails against the chapters of Cyril in almost the same words: "He blasphemes," he says, "even against the Holy Spirit, when he asserts that He does not proceed from the Father alone according to the Lord's word, but that He has the same existence from the Son. These are Egyptian births, and shoots worse than the bad father."

VIII. These are for the most part what are wont to be brought forward: but other notable passages also exist, such as in the letter sent to John of Antioch concerning his opinion on the faith of Cyril, written when peace was being negotiated, in which he says that the propositions contained in the anathemas were either retracted or suppressed, and especially that one which pertains to the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit, not having existence from the Son or through the Son, but proceeding from the Father; but named the property of the Son, as consubstantial."

IX. In his exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, ch. VIII, no. 11, regarding these words: "But if His Spirit, who raised Jesus from the dead, dwells in us, etc.," Theodoret comments thus: "He taught us in these words one nature of the divinity: for he called the Holy Spirit both God's and Christ's; not because, as the execrable heretics wish, He was created from God through the Son; but because He is of the same substance with the Father and the Son; and He indeed proceeds from the Father, according to the doctrine of the Gospels; but His grace is provided to those who are worthy, through the Son."

X. In the exposition of ch. II, I Cor., no. 12, regarding these words: "We have not received the spirit of the world; but the Spirit who is from God," he has it thus: "He changes the name of God into the name of Father, to exclude the procession from the Son, but the very One who proceeds from the Father, the Spirit, has taught us hidden mysteries."

XI. The things brought forward seem manifest, and indeed all the more firm for the proposed question of faith, because even the later Greeks themselves, who are separated by schism from the Roman Church, interpret Theodoret's words in their own favor: nor is this in truth

^A unmerited; for he frequently speaks his sentiment with an exclusive sense, or even an expressly negative one, *not from the Son*, from the Father alone.

XI. But if he revealed his mind less manifestly, it might perhaps be probable, as has come into the minds of some, that Theodoret spoke everywhere in the same sense in which he spoke when explaining the Epistle to the Romans; namely, that he denied against Macedonius that the Holy Spirit was created by God through the Son; and that he spoke in the manner everyone is accustomed to when heresies are flourishing—against which, even if one contradicts them with words that to the outward appearance are capable of a wider meaning, it happens by usage, however, that the meaning is contracted for the time being. For words have, like coins, their value from usage.

XIII. But now, concerning the other head of the question, whether Theodoret was the author, or only a follower of the dogma that the Greeks now defend: there were three opinions in existence before our own time or that of our fathers. For some attributed this dogma to Theodore of Mopsuestia, others to Nestorius, and others to Theodoret; but the argument common to both of the former opinions was that the author of the condemned symbol in the synod had given origin to the dogma; and some made Theodore the parent of the symbol, others Nestorius.

XIV. Those Greeks implicated in schism followed the latter, because they were ashamed to acknowledge as a parent one who was devoted by the Church with so many and such great curses, nor yet could they produce any more ancient man who had written openly as a witness for their cause; wherefore they made mention of Theodoret alone, as often as the author of their dogma had to be brought forward: for they endeavor to draw other Fathers of a superior age solely by the force of reason.

XV. That the symbol is Theodore’s, we have demonstrated in the second part of the *Works of Marius Mercator*. That the dogma brought as a crime against Theodoret is contained in it, is clear from the very words; for concerning the Holy Spirit it is read: *We think neither [that he is] Son, nor that he received [his] existence through the Son.* Which are the very words of Theodoret rebuking the ninth anathema: *Having existence not from the Son and through the Son.*

XVI. Theodore, therefore, is the author of the dogma, Theodoret is the defender. For Calecas wastes his effort when he strives to attach a Catholic sense to the impious words of the symbol: for after he had written this opinion, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, originated with Nestorius, and that it is clear from those ancients who had the care of handing these things down in writing; he proceeds to these words: ^B "For it is scarcely clear from his own symbol of faith, if anyone, content with the piety which he spoke, should wish to accept it piously; for he says: *We think the Holy Spirit [is] from God, not by way of creation, but [he has] received substance from the divine essence.*" Saying, therefore, *from the essence of God*, and *we do not think [he is] from the Son*, he gives it to be understood that he believes this Spirit is both from God and from his essence. But that he says *not by way of creation*, and adds *neither has he received substance through the Son*, he gives it again to be understood that he does not have, just as creatures are from God through the Son, so also the Holy Spirit from God through the Son: but this is true, and at the same time it is established, because he said nothing here about the fact that the Spirit is not from the Son.

XVII. He wastes his effort, I say: for the author of the symbol made two parts of his sentiment: one Catholic against Macedonius, that the Holy Spirit is from the essence of God, and not as though a creature, from art; the other contrary to the Fathers, by which he denies that the same Spirit proceeds in any way from the Son, or through the Son.

XVIII. Is Nestorius, therefore, clean of this error, you will ask? I certainly would not strongly affirm that; ^C since I lack testimonies affirming it, by which I might prove it: yet there is enough denying it that would create some opinion, at least a slight one. For when Cyril, both in the third epistle and in the ninth chapter which he appended to the epistle, had asserted the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son openly enough, Nestorius, on the contrary, objected nothing at all in his anathemas: though accustomed to criticize every minute thing if it displeased him; indeed, he speaks of something perplexed, of a certain *mesiteia* (intermediacy) of the Holy Spirit, which is toward the Word of God: which someone might draw to the sentiment of the Fathers asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, as if through a medium. See Petavius, *Dogmata*, Vol. II, lib. VII, c. 6, num. 5.

XIX. Before an end is put to this chapter, the curious examiner of ecclesiastical matters must be warned to observe these four things more attentively.

XX. The first is, that from Theodoret, if we believe Liberatus and the more recent Greeks at the same time, two sects had their origin: the one of the Acephali, ^D not indeed those most famous ones who are mentioned everywhere, but those whom Liberatus mentions; the other of the Greeks who do not think orthodoxly about the procession of the Holy Spirit.

XXI. The second is, that it was common to the entire school of Theodore of Mopsuestia to distinguish little acutely between the Catholic dogma and the heretical one; if ever, as happens, there existed a small difference, not in the thing indeed, but in words. I think this was done out of pride, which is the character of this school: for they wanted to seem to know more than the rest, and they contemned the books of the ancients, which Socrates wrote about Nestorius.

titit. Id ego factum reor præ superbia, qui character hujusce scholæ: nam et videri volebant præ cæteris sapere, et veterum libros contemnebant, quod de Nestorio Socrates scripsit. 452 Theodoret, indeed, labored under this fault more ^A often; whence he attributed two of Cyril’s opinions—those concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit and the incarnation of the Word—to the blasphemies of heretics: the former to Macedonius, and the latter to Apollinaris, on account of a certain communion of terms. See Dissertation 1 toward the latter part of the Works of Marius Mercator, where we show how great was the communion of terms between the Macedonians and Apollinarists and the Catholics, even though there was a great discrepancy of dogma; for the more those heretics appeared to depart from Sabellius and Photinus, the more they sinned by excess in their own respective questions.

XXII. Thirdly, that the accusation of association with those who deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son was not leveled at Theodoret by the ancient defenders of the Catholic faith. For, firstly, they feared to aid parties opposing them by using such a name. Secondly, before the schism of Photius, that question neither stirred up disturbances, nor indeed existed. Finally, at that time, everyone, as is the custom in times of peace, interpreted the statements of another in a favorable sense.

XXIII. Fourthly, that the more recent Greeks, when they are pressed by the Latins with arguments drawn from the authority of the Greek Fathers, defend themselves by a distinction handed down by Theodoret. They say also that, if at any time the Fathers assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, they speak not of the procession *hyparkseos* (of existence), but of *doreas* (of the gift)—that is, not an eternal one, by which He receives existence; but a temporal one, by which He is given to men. Theodoret applied this distinction in his commentaries on the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans: "Indeed, He proceeds from the Father according to the doctrine of the Gospels; but His grace is supplied through Christ to those who are worthy."

XXIV. Before this chapter concludes, some struggle must be entered into with two friends, men who are certainly learned, partly regarding the faith of Theodore concerning ^B the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, and partly regarding the name of certain Acephali mentioned by Liberatus. For that most celebrated writer of the history of the schism of the Greeks attempts to excuse Theodore, that he may not be the leader of schismatics; but the editor of the monuments of the Greek Church strives equally to defend Theodoret, that he may not be numbered among the Acephali of Liberatus. I shall briefly disclose why I dissent from both.

XXV. When that most celebrated writer whom I praised arrived at the question concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, which the Greeks raised against the Latin Church, he admitted that Theodoret had thought wrongly on that matter in his criticism of Cyril’s ninth anathema; he was unwilling, however, to admit that Theodore, the master of Theodoret, was in the same heresy, but claimed he was merely opposing the error of Macedonius in his symbol 453 when he wrote: "The Holy Spirit is neither the Son, nor does He have His existence through the Son." To me, it seems there is one cause for both—I say, for both master and disciple: wherefore either both must be excused, or both must be condemned. For each one sets forth his own opinion in the same words and confirms it by the same testimony of Scripture. "Does not Theodore," he asks, "the learned defender, teach the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father?" But Theodoret also teaches this. "Does not," he adds, "Theodore expressly declare that he is disputing against those who would count the Holy Spirit among the number of creatures?" And Theodoret himself also declares this, and indeed in clearer words: "The Apostle called Him the Spirit of the Son, not because, as the execrable heretics wish, He was created by God through the Son," etc. Clearly, each one did not sufficiently distinguish the Catholic faith from the Macedonian error. "Why," continues Marius Mercator, "when he was refuting the symbol, did he not object to Theodore that he thought otherwise about the procession of the Holy Spirit than the Church? Why," he asks, "did Cyril not similarly object to Theodoret when he was contending for the anathema?" Mercator and Cyril, of course, did what needed to be done. "Why," he presses, "in the errors of Theodore, diligently collected by the Fifth Synod, was there nothing placed concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit? Why," he objects, "was there not also anything placed by the same synod concerning the same question among the errors of Theodoret, which were so curiously sought out? Why," he urges, "do the more recent Greeks make not Theodore, but Theodoret, the parent of their error?" I reply that they were ashamed of the parent whose person the Church condemned: they preferred to set forward the name of an illustrious man, whose doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit and whose person remained untouched by the thunders of the Church.

XXVI. Now, indeed, the learned editor of the monuments of the Greek Church, when he was appending notes to the letter that Theodoret sent to John of Antioch after reading Cyril’s faith, has this to say: "Concerning the controversy between Cyril and Theodoret, Agobard speaks elegantly in his book against Felix, chapter 4. See also John of Euchaita, pp. 36 and 37, and do not think that Theodoret was the leader of certain Acephali who defended two natures in Christ; for this is not proven from the words of Liberatus."

One may see that he paid attention to chapter 9 of the *Breviarium*, where, after Liberatus had reported the fragments of the defense of the Orientals accepted by Cyril in his letters to Eulogius, Acacius of Melitene, and Valerian of Iconium, he proceeds in these words: "And these are the things which Cyril wrote in defense of the eastern bishops, for the two natures of the one Christ; whoever did not receive these at that time, I consider to be the authors of the Acephali: who, as they show, have neither Cyril as a head nor anyone else to follow." To these words of mine, "the authors of the Acephali," I wrote thus: "This should not be passed by without observation. For it makes Theodoret the leader of a certain faction of men, who were called Acephali, because..."

they did not receive the defense of Cyril for the Orientals, and did not have Cyril as their head, nor John of Antioch; who, however, were the two leaders of the contending parties," etc. I seem to myself to have constructed an opinion with this syllogism, no less certain than it is evident: Whoever not at all received the defense of the oriental bishops written by Cyril, in favor of the two natures of the one Christ, these Liberatus considers the authors of the Acephali, etc. But Theodoret did not at all receive the defense written by Cyril, etc. Therefore, Liberatus considers this man the author of the Acephali. The proposition is contained in the very words of Liberatus; the assumption is demonstrated easily from the fact that the defense, of which mention is made, is nothing other than the speech of Cyril explaining the distinction between the faith of John of Antioch, or the oriental bishops, ^B and the doctrine of Nestorius. But Theodoret contended that there was none, and therefore said that John felt the same thing as Nestorius; and he accused Cyril of having used the assertion of Nestorius, once the faith of the Orientals had been received, and of having written, in his letters, a standard diametrically contrary to those already written before. The letters of Theodoret to John of Antioch, to the monk Andrew of Constantinople, to Andrew of Samosata, and to Himerius of Nicomedia are to be seen. Similarly, those which Cyril wrote to Acacius of Melitene, to Maximus the deacon, and to John of Antioch, in which he complains in express words about Theodoret, are to be seen. XXVII. I know indeed that the words of Liberatus can be twisted so far that they do not seem to regard Theodoret, but those who were angry at Cyril, who had confessed the two natures, as if by that matter he had crossed over into the parties of Nestorius and the Orientals, whom they considered as one: for they seem to have been the authors of the first Acephali. But this interpretation is not only violent, but also little consistent with the history of the Acephali, besides that it is injurious to those holy men who admonished Cyril with zeal for the faith and an affection of charity. As if, indeed, Acacius of Melitene, Valerian of Iconium, Donatus of Nicopolis, and Eulogius, who fought strenuously for the catholic faith, were the progenitors of the impious heresy of the Acephali!

CHAPTER II. On the faith of Theodoret concerning the question of the incarnation of the Word.

ARTICLE I. — Who accuse Theodoret, and what they bring forward.

^A which he treats of Christ as high priest, he directs this rebuke toward his state of mind. But in order to dispel their lies, after he had explained the insane impiety of Nestorius in this regard, ^B "Of his madness," he says, "the excellent emulator, the good man Theodoret, does not blush to say 19: 'He assumed a human nature and raised it above the common high priests, just as Paul also says: For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may have compassion on those who are ignorant and err, since he himself is also encompassed with infirmity, and therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.' [* Heb. v, 1-3] Has he not made Emmanuel a man common to us, as far as he himself is concerned? Are not the above-mentioned notions also related to this, giving birth to the same blasphemy? What are you saying? You fear the mode of priesthood in Christ the Savior of all, and does it not seem convenient for God the Word to minister in a human manner on account of the dispensation? Reveal your face, and having laid aside your person, openly deny the incarnation of God the Word, on account of which he is named high priest." And afterwards: "Are you not permitted from the very things themselves to see that Emmanuel is at once God and man? But so petulantly and inconsiderately—nay, rather running beyond the bounds of all impiety—you say that he was brought to perfection by labors and virtue, and that he made progress, little by little, to the dignity of high priest." And afterwards: "Dared you say what is written below? Who then was made priest? Who was made perfect by virtue, when he was not perfect by nature? Who learned obedience by temptations, which he knew not before the temptations? Who lived with reverence, and with a strong cry offering up tears and supplications, when he could not save himself, but was beseeching him who could save? O most bold and wicked voice! What tears will be able to wipe away the sins of the impiously believing? etc." ^C Toward the end: "It is certain, therefore, that they simulate an acknowledgment of union, attacking the minds of the simpler folk. For they believe the conjunction to be oxetikýv (relational), and formed from without, which kind we also have, when we have been made partakers of that divine nature through the Spirit."

V. No one knows the mind of Theodoret better, because no one has investigated it more curiously and certainly. For he was also at Ephesus, when contention was raging between the Catholics and the Orientals—of whose intellect, or at least whose voice, Theodoret was the representative—and he diligently gathered the books of Theodoret and compared them with the Nestorians: and he labored vehemently at this, to lay bare the agreement of Theodore, Theodoret, and Eutherius with Nestorius: and he sent to us more works and letters of Theodoret unknown from other sources: and from thence he excerpted matters which might accomplish what he had undertaken to prove, namely, that Theodoret in reality acknowledged two persons in Christ, even if he affirmed one in words, and in no other way called it one than that by which a man and a wife are one person, one flesh. ^D These words he adduces from the fifth book of the Pentalogium, 22 which Theodoret, after his custom, received with few changes from his master Theodore: "What the Lord says concerning a man and wife, that 'they are no longer two, but one flesh,' 23 let us also reason rationally according to the logic of truth. There are no longer two persons, but one, the natures without doubt remaining, 458 but having a distinction. 24 And just as the number of two does not hinder that one flesh is spoken of—for it is certain in what way it is spoken of as one—so here, too, the unity of person does not hinder the difference of natures. Finally, when we distinguish the natures, we say the nature of God the Word is entire, and the person without doubt perfect: for it is not permitted to assert a substance without a person; we likewise confess a perfect human nature, with its own person. But when we look to the conjunction, then finally we rightly call it one person."

457 Post-peace of the Churches

^A ...remaining one with the assumed flesh, let him be anathema.

3. If anyone divides the evangelical and apostolic testimonies in the one Christ, so as to introduce a division of the natures united in him, let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ, the true Son of God and the same person as the true Son of man, had ignorance of future things or of the last day, and that he could only have known as much as the Divinity, inhabiting him as a stranger, revealed to him, let him be anathema.

5. If anyone, regarding that statement of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, *Who in the days of his flesh, offered up prayers and supplications with a strong cry and tears unto Him that was able to save him from death* [Heb. v, 7], treats Christ as if he were bare of divinity, and [pretends] that he was perfected by the labors of virtue, so that from this he seems to introduce two Christs or two Sons, and does not believe in the one and same Son of God and man, to be confessed and adored in two inseparable and undivided natures, let him be anathema.

Regarding this passage, observe: 1° That it adds great weight to the authority of Marius Mercator, as Pope Gregory the Great, when writing to the bishops of Istria in the name of Pelagius II, [notes] that the latter part of this fragment was transcribed in the same words and inserted into the epistle by which Theodoret was proven guilty of the Nestorian error. 2° That the Fifth Ecumenical Synod attributed these same words to Theodore of Mopsuestia, and from this made him guilty of the Nestorian blasphemy. ^B 3° That there is nothing that can be called clearer than the Nestorian heresy, to the extent that it is "profane to assert a substance without its own persona." 4° That this fragment is only a portion of the book in which Marius Mercator accuses Theodoret of the Nestorian error, and says that he "at the devil’s instigation wrote books against St. Cyril and the holy Council of Ephesus."

The same accuser produces letters in which Theodoret affirms that Nestorius "knew nothing but sound doctrine," as in Epistle 2 to Himerius; that "the dogma of Nestorius is piety itself," as in his epistle to Andrew of Samosata; and that "he could not have communion with those who had condemned the dogma of Nestorius," as in Epistle 1 to Himerius.

POPE VIGILIUS

VI. After the *Judicatum* was abrogated, while he was still staying at Constantinople and the Fifth Synod was being held, he was asked by the Emperor Justinian what he thought of Theodoret and the writings published by him against the chapters of Cyril. He responded, in a *Constitutum* given to the Emperor, that the writings were indeed to be condemned because they seemed to be against the faith; but that his person was not to be branded with any mark [of condemnation], out of reverence not only for the Council of Chalcedon—which had received the deposit [of faith] from Dioscorus—but also for the universal Church, in whose peace he had closed his final day. Wherefore, while praising the person, he condemned those five [chapters] which had been offered to the synod, which had been excerpted from the refutations of the first, second, fourth, and tenth chapters of Cyril. He condemned them, I say, in such a way that he ^C refers not only to the opinion of Theodoret, but sometimes to his very words.

Observe I, that the supreme pontiff, Vigilius, correctly infers from the fact that someone denies the union of the natures "according to subsistence" (*καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν*), that he believes: 1° That the Blessed Virgin is not truly, but only in name, called the Mother of God. 2° That the Word does not inhabit Christ otherwise than in one of the just, and therefore does not have one subsistence with his flesh. 3° That a division of the natures must be confessed, with the evangelical expressions being separated. 4° That the Word reveals to Christ what He wills, as if to another in whom He dwells. 5° That, in reality, there are two Christs and two Sons, since the one is said to have prayed and the other to have saved. For no Catholic fails to see that these [consequences] follow from the denial of the union "according to subsistence" (*καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν*).

Observe II, that Theodoret most clearly rejects the hypostatic union: "But the union *according to subsistence* we wholly ignore, as strange and foreign to the divine Scriptures and to the Fathers who have interpreted them." And later: "The union *according to subsistence* is therefore superfluous, which, instead of a commingling, they propose to us, I suppose," etc.

Observe III, that as often as some question is burning, and there is a dissension into parties over it, and no one can state the opinion for the truth without doubt unless it is a unique formula, he is deservedly accused of dissenting from the truth who is unwilling to use the received formula. And yet, the question raised between Catholics and Nestorians was concerning the union of the natures in Christ: no one could prove himself a Catholic by any other undoubted argument than by the confession of the union "according to subsistence" (*καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν*), or physical union, between two integral natures; for all other formulas can be drawn into a Nestorian sense. Therefore, whoever refuses to confess the union *kath’ hypostasin* proclaims himself a Nestorian.

But Theodoret refuses it in open and express words. ^A

THE FIFTH OECUMENICAL SYNOD.

VII. The Fathers of the Council, after having brought forward and called for examination many things both from the books and from the epistles of Theodoret, finally condemned these very things in the tenth canon: "If anyone defends the impious writings of Theodoret, which he issued against the true faith and against the first holy synod of Ephesus, and against holy Cyril and his twelve chapters, and everything he wrote for the impious Theodore and Nestorius and for others who held the same opinions as the aforementioned Theodore and Nestorius, defending them and their impiety, and on account of this calling those doctors of the Church impious who confess the union *kath’ hypostasin* of the Word of God to the flesh, and does not anathematize them and those who held or hold similar opinions; furthermore, also all who wrote against the faith and against holy Cyril and his twelve chapters, and remained in such impiety until death; let such a one be anathema."

In order to weigh the gravity of this testimony, it is worth observing:

1. That the Fifth Synod is all the more certain in its authority, the more deliberately it was received by the Catholic Church. For after the long and stubborn opposition of schismatics, all things being diligently examined which were raised against it, with the efforts of the supreme pontiffs, and by Gregory the Great more vehemently than the rest, it was approved throughout the world, and received by the three following oecumenical councils and by many pontiffs by name.

2. That the thirteenth canon is not something flatteringly taken from Justinian's writing against the Three Chapters, as someone has dared to suggest; nor was it rashly established, the case having been examined carelessly, as the same person rashly asserted. For in the preface to the canons, the Fathers say: "From these things," they say, "which were impiously written by Theodoret against the true faith, and against the twelve chapters of S. Cyril, and against the first Ephesine synod, and also certain things written by him in defense of the impious Theodore and Nestorius which we saw to be read and inserted for the satisfaction of the readers in the acts established among us: so that all may know that these things are justly cast out and anathematized." And indeed, in the fifth session, after these writings of Theodoret were read, "the holy synod said: From these things which Theodoret ^B impiously wrote, the precision (*akribeia*) of the holy synod of Chalcedon is to be admired. Having known his blasphemies, it indeed used repeated exclamations against him many times; but afterwards it would not have accepted him, unless he first anathematized Nestorius and his blasphemies, for which he had written earlier, defending them."

3. That the books which are named the *Pentalogion*, the apology for Diodorus and Theodore, the discourse at Chalcedon, and the epistles: from these a great weight of authority is added to the excerpts of Marius Mercator, through whose indication first we have either knowledge or fragments of such books.

4. That whoever defends the impious writings of Theodoret, etc., is struck by anathema by the whole Church: for what is it to receive a synod, which the Catholic Church has done, if not to agree with it, both in rejecting and condemning men and their books, and in receiving them? But whoever contends that nothing was written by Theodoret against the Catholic faith defends these impious writings. What, then, will become of certain idolaters of Theodoret? What of the recent French interpreter of ecclesiastical history? For there is no reason at all why they should support themselves with the example of the most learned Sirmond: for he openly confesses that the work in which Theodoret reprehends the chapters of S. Cyril is of such a kind that, even among those who might approve of the rest, it would sustain a note of censure. With which statement, that most sensible man shows that if he had seen the earlier things published after this work, he would have disapproved of them just as much as the reprehension of the chapters, which he threw into an appendix as a kind of shameful abortion of a luxuriant genius. ^C

PELAGIUS II AND GREGORY THE GREAT.

VIII. The bishops of Istria had withdrawn from the communion of the Catholic Church because of their stubborn defense of the Three Chapters condemned in the Fifth Synod. When Pope Pelagius wished to recall them to unity, he dealt with them by an epistle, by which both the Fifth Synod might be demonstrated as free from injustice, and the case of Theodoret and the other two might be agitated.

Gregory the Great wrote the epistle in the name of the pontiff, being at that time a deacon, but nevertheless the most learned of the whole Church. In this, after he had brought forward word for word the excerpts of Marius Mercator against Theodoret, he adds: "Who, most dear brothers, would not see that these things are full of every impiety? From which, however, it is plain that he later corrected himself, he who agreed to anathematize Nestorius in the holy synod of Chalcedon. Who would not see with what great rashness it is full, to defend with haughtiness the writings of Theodoret, which it is certain that he himself condemned later by professing the truth?" ^D

VI SYNOD, AND THE FOLLOWING SUPREME PONTIFFS.

IX. The Sixth Synod received the canons of the Fifth, and expressly rejected the writings of Theodoret against the chapters of S. Cyril. Thence arose the occasion for composing those professions of faith, contained in the *Libro Diurno* of the Roman pontiffs, which the supreme pontiffs would later issue at their ordination. But in these are condemned those things which Theodoret wrote against the faith and

Ephesine synod, and he published Cyril as the defender of both.

Moreover, these professions were issued by the supreme pontiffs, of whom we know there to be almost eighty, whom we can judge to be just as many condemnators of Theodoret; and they are of so much the greater authority because they made them more solemnly, before the Church, having been sworn, and rendering an account of their own faith, and by that profession, following Peter, they ascended to the apostolic see.

AUTHORS OF THE SUBSEQUENT AGE, etc.

X. I omit the authors of subsequent times, some of whom openly condemn Theodoret, others of whom thought it permissible for themselves to use no better excuse than that of ignorance, when he was attacking the truth while Cyril was speaking, or of penitence, when he acknowledged the same, once his intellect had been enlightened by distress. ^B What then? The two most effusive laudators of Theodoret, Photius and Euchaita, tempered their praise either with some accusation of error against the faith of the incarnation, as Photius did; or with an excuse of human weakness, as Euchaita did. Even Baronius himself, however much he strove to remove every stigma of heresy from Theodoret, was compelled by the truth to confess that he had inclined toward the parties and the opinion of Nestorius, and even conceded as much, at least at the time when the Council of Ephesus was celebrated.

THEODORET HIMSELF.

XI. Furthermore, Theodoret himself behaved just as if he wished to leave no room for anyone to doubt his agreement with Nestorius. For, first, he attacked the chapters as heretical, which no one who knows how to distinguish the dogma of the faith from error is unaware are Catholic. But the fact that the Ephesine Fathers demanded that they be expounded is attributed to the clamors of the mob and the importunities of adversaries who would deceive the simple-minded. ^C Then, he did not cease from criticizing the chapters, even after the third exposition of Cyril, even after seventeen years—as long as the hallucination of a man endowed with the greatest intelligence might endure—unless it resulted in an obstinate state of mind. 463 Afterward, he contended that the whole of Nestorian doctrine was sound, and he praised it as piety itself, that is, as the correct faith: for who, unless he be impudently wicked, would not be on that side in which he judges piety to be? Fourthly, with cunning and wily art, he composed the *Eranistes* dialogues in such a way that he seemed to have demonstrated his own opinion concerning the union of natures—inseparable, indeed, but purely relative [σχετικῇ]—to his own satisfaction. Fifthly, he confessed that he consented to the two heretics, Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and he certainly praised Theodore as a master of the Church, a ruler of all heresies, and a shepherd who offered nothing save good grass to the sheep of Christ, and he honored them as masters, nay, even as parents: ^A Theodore certainly as a master of the Church, and a ruler of all heresies, and a shepherd who offered nothing save good grass to the sheep of Christ. Sixthly, he neither expounded his opinion on the incarnation in other words, nor confirmed it by other testimonies of Scripture, nor defended it by other exceptions, nor called the conjunction of natures by other names than those which Nestorius used: indwelling [ἐνοίκησιν], investment [ἔνδυσιν], assumption [ἀνάληψιν], becoming man [ἐνανθρώπησιν], conjunction [συνάφειαν], etc.

But someone will object: he said that Christ is not a pure man, but God and man at the same time. Nestorius said that very thing in Sermon VII: "Not a bare man is Christ, O calumniator, but man and God at one time." He said that there is one person of Christ, and two natures. Likewise, Nestorius said in Epistle 4 to St. Cyril: "Each nature is adored because of the supreme conjunction and inconfusedness in the one person of the only-begotten Son." And in Epistle 2 to St. Cyril: "I praise the distinction made of the natures, according to the reason of divinity and humanity, and their conjunction in one person." And in Cyril’s book *On the Right Faith to the Queens*: "This name, Christ, pertains to God and man, by reason of the conjunction which gathers them into one person."

He said that Christ is not divided into two Sons or Lords, and he complained that calumny was being done to him, because he was said to divide them. Nestorius said the same thing in Sermon 12: "One Son, that which is visible and that which is invisible; one Christ, both he who uses and that which he uses: natures twofold, but the Son singular. Why do you turn the discourse into calumny?" He confessed that the holy Virgin is the *Theotokos* [Deipara]. Nestorius also confessed this in Sermon 6: "I have already said often, if there is anyone among you simpler, or among any others, who rejoices in this word *Theotokos*, there is no envy in me regarding the word, provided only that he does not make the Virgin a god." Sermon 12: "The Son of God was born, God the Word and man: therefore let her who gave birth, on account of the union, be called *Theotokos*, etc." Sermon 13: "By the same definition by which I previously spoke briefly concerning that blessed ever-virgin Mary, I now proclaim even more clearly, with a loud voice, that 464 the holy Virgin is the Mother of both God and man." Such were the words of Nestorius.

But Theodoret—which Nestorius did not do—rejected the hypostatic union in express words, as new and alien to the divine Scriptures and the Fathers who interpreted them: "But we are entirely ignorant of the union according to hypostasis, as something strange and alien to the divine Scriptures, and to the Fathers who interpreted them."

^A If the accused were to acknowledge that they were written by him, it would be as if the sentence of that position, which the great synod had carried, were abrogated by the supreme pontiff; as if the Emperor Marcian, following the opinion of holy Leo, had rescinded the law passed against the books of Theodoret by Theodosius; as if the Council of Chalcedon had received Theodoret, even before the case was heard, and had admitted him to their assembly. What of the fact that he always stubbornly denied that it was lawful to say that God suffered, etc., and that other natural properties of man could be attributed to the Word who became man? Yet this is the clearest indication that he was receiving the union of man as natural and according to hypostasis: for there is a reciprocal communication of properties of that sort, such as the union is. For physical properties are communicated—such as to suffer, to be born, to labor, to die, etc.—if the union is physical: only moral properties—such as to be worshipped, to rule, to have rights, etc.—are attributed if only a moral union has existed. But if this law of exchange, which is unknown to no theologian, escaped Theodoret, on what basis is he called the most learned of the East? If it did not escape him, how can it be denied that he openly preached Nestorianism? Let the interpreter whom I mentioned see to that matter.

ART. II. — What makes in favor of Theodoret.

XII. Everything that fights against Theodoret is indeed very grave, whether it be the authority of the accusers, the certainty and clarity of the testimonies, or the multitude of both; yet they do not detract from the weight, at least all of it, of those things which, being neither few nor light, make for the contrary.

For first, there is that great favor and applause with which Theodoret was heard at Antioch when he spoke concerning the faith before a throng of many myriads. For how could he have sown errors without reproach in a Church so learned, which could not have endured a word of Theodoret’s if it had been rashly uttered? Or how could he not have sown errors if he had set forth the things he was said to have been thinking about the incarnation of the Word? Or how could he have abstained from saying what he felt, at a time when no argument was treated more frequently or more contentiously?

^B He does, fifthly, provide that he seems to have written the same things concerning the mystery of the incarnation as the Oriental Church, and indeed in more celebrated letters, when peace was being initiated; things which the most holy martyr of Christ, Flavian, also said when he was questioned concerning his faith; things which Leo the Great also said when he was prescribing a formula of faith in his letter to Flavian. For if those three confessions are Catholic, as they truly are, on what basis should one who agrees with them not be considered Catholic? And that Theodoret did agree can be proven from this:

Cyril summarized the faith of the Orientals, and approved, nay even defended it in his letter to Valerian: "By a clear and lucid confession," he says, "they have made it plain to all that they have followed the evangelical and apostolic dogmas, and in no way oppose the confession of the holy Fathers. For they have professed, just as we have, that the holy Virgin is the Theotokos; nor did they add that she is the Christ-bearer or the man-bearer, as those say who maintain the wretched and execrable opinions of Nestorius: for they asserted in express words that there is one Son, one Lord, one Christ, who before all ages was begotten in an ineffable manner from God the Father as God the Word, and who in the last times was born according to the flesh from a mother; so that the same is God and man, the same perfect in deity, perfect in humanity: finally, they believe that there is one person of his, nor are they divided by any reason into two Sons, or two Christs, or two Lords."

^C He does, secondly, provide that, when he was accused of dividing Christ into two Sons and withdrawing from the blessed Virgin the name of Theotokos, he complained vehemently about the calumny done to him; and not only did he complain, but he issued a confession of faith to the contrary in most express words: "If anyone does not call the holy Virgin Theotokos, or calls our Lord Jesus Christ a mere man, or divides the one Only-begotten and firstborn of all creation into two Sons, let him fall from hope in Christ, and let all the people say, Fiat, Fiat."

He does, thirdly, provide that he suffered the harshest of things from the Eutychians: namely, confined in a domestic prison at Cyrrhus, devoted to the direst [fates] at Alexandria, cast down from his seat at the robber council of Ephesus, expelled from the city of Cyrrhus, without any means of life, forbidden from fire and water, his books consigned to the flames, [and] led away as a heresiarch. Is not suffering the testimony of heretics a certain token of an opposing faith?

He does, fourthly, provide that the judgment of the apostolic see, which he had invoked against the synod of Dioscorus, was so mature, so ample, and so effective that from the books which ^D the accused acknowledged were written by him, it was demonstrated; so that the opinion of [his] position, which a great synod had carried, might be abrogated by the supreme pontiff; so that the Emperor Marcian, following the opinion of holy Leo, had rescinded the law passed against the books of Theodoret by Theodosius; so that the Council of Chalcedon might have received Theodoret, even before the case was agitated, and admitted him to their assembly.

That faith, therefore, is contained in four propositions, which anyone who asserts them ought to be considered orthodox, even in the judgment of holy Cyril. 1st: The blessed Virgin is the Theotokos. 2nd: One is the Son, one is the Lord, one is the Christ, God the Word. 3rd: There are two generations of the Word, one eternal, from God the Father; the other temporal, from the virgin mother. 4th: The person of Christ is unique, and Christ is not divided into two sons. Theodoret confessed these four propositions by a single testimony. "I desire and hope," he says, "to follow the footsteps of the holy Fathers, and I study to keep undefiled the evangelical doctrine which those most holy Fathers who gathered at Nicaea handed down to us in summary: and just as I believe that God the Father is one, and that the Holy Spirit is one who proceeds from the Father, so I believe that Jesus Christ our Lord is one, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, the radiance of his glory and the image of his paternal substance, who was made incarnate for the salvation of men."

SCHULZ'S NOTES.

^A And having been made man, and born according to the flesh from the Virgin Mary: for thus the most wise Paul taught us, etc. And after the testimonies of Paul are adduced: “For this reason we call the holy Virgin Theotokos, and those who reject this name we esteem as estranged from piety: likewise those who divide our one Lord Jesus Christ into two persons, or two Sons, or two Lords, we deem as not sincere and separate them from the assembly of Christians.” And afterwards, “The Baptist cries out saying: *After me comes a man, who was made before me, because he was prior to me.* And when he demonstrated one person, he put forward both, namely the divine and the human: for *man* and *comes* are human; but *prior to me he was* is divine: yet he did not know him who comes after as another, and another who was before him; but he knew the same, as God before the ages indeed; but as man made from the Virgin after him.”

The testimony in Question 19 on Genesis is clear concerning the one person of Christ: “God, he says, who foreknows all things, which are not yet done, as though they were already done; who foresaw the incarnation and humanization of the Only-Begotten, and that he was about to assume from the Virgin the same nature, which he would coapt and unite to himself, so that it is understood as one person of God and man, and one and the same adoration is rendered to him by every creature, etc.”

Just as the faith of the martyr Flavian does not differ from the confession of the Orientals, save that mention of the two natures after the union is made somewhat more express in it, against Eutyches, and of the one person, against Nestorius; so the things that have been said concerning the agreement of Theodoret with the Orientals are of equal force for demonstrating his consistency with Flavian. Now, indeed, Theodoret revealed that he felt conformably to the dogmatic epistle of St. Leo both in writing and in speech. For in his letters to St. Leo, he says: “We have received that which your Holiness wrote concerning the incarnation of our God and Savior, and we have admired the exact diligence of the work: for indeed it declared in the same both the eternal divinity of the Only-Begotten from the eternal Father, and his humanity from the seed of Abraham and David, and that the nature assumed was like us in all things, differing in this one point ^B alone, that it remained exempt from sin, since it is born not by nature, but by free will.” 467 And these letters further contained that there is one Only-Begotten Son of God, and that his divinity is impassible, which can neither be changed, nor altered, just as also the Father who begat him and the Holy Spirit; and therefore he assumed a passible nature, because the divine nature did not admit of passion, so that through the passion of his own flesh he might bestow impassibility upon those who believed in him; and we have truly admired your Holiness's spiritual wisdom, with which ^C you have extolled the grace of the Holy Spirit, which spoke through you.

Neither did he praise it only, but he appears to have fashioned the form of faith from it, which he directed to Renatus, a presbyter of the Roman Church: “I have walked in the apostolic footsteps, preaching one Son, as one Father and one Holy Spirit, one divinity of the Trinity, one kingdom, one power, eternity, immutability, impassibility, one will, and the perfect divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his perfect humanity, which was assumed for our salvation and delivered to death for our sake. I do not know another son of man, and another Son of God; but the same, the Son of God indeed, and God begotten from God; but the Son of man, because of the form of a servant assumed from the seed of Abraham and David.”

Indeed, he expounded the same as a certain rule of faith at the Council of Chalcedon, suffering no little difficulty among the Illyrians and Palestinians, and confirmed it by adducing the testimony of Cyril. The testimony, moreover, which he brought forward, is one of those which he had already long since brought forth in the Eranistes, and which he himself either appended to the letter of Leo, or provided to be appended to others.

*A French translator of the ecclesiastical history brings forward what he himself indeed thinks is a manifest testimony for the faith of Theodoret concerning the incarnation; namely, the eleventh chapter of the fourth book of the Haereticarum Fabularum, ^D where Theodoret not only calls Nestorius an instrument of the devil, and recounts that he was deservedly condemned by the Ephesine Fathers at the instigation of the Holy Spirit, and likewise punished by God for his impiety, but also refutes him with a vehement oration: and where the translator has brought forward this chapter almost in its entirety, he denied that it was worth the labor to illustrate it with a commentary, since it persuades the reader, even one moderately attentive, that the author of this chapter is of a sincere and eminently catholic faith.

But someone might object concerning the time of these things, which have been adduced in favor of Theodoret, arguing that they were written by a man ground down by evils, and in the patience of calamities extorting an involuntary confession. For he gave the letters, from which the testimonies were taken, after the year 447, at which time he was beginning to repent: inasmuch as he wrote to Dioscorus after he had been detained for three years in what he calls his domestic prison, and having been faulted for his faith by the Armenian monks, 468 had been solemnly devoted to curses in the church at Alexandria. He wrote later also to saint Leo, namely after he had been deposed at Ephesus, in the year 449. He composed the books of the Haereticarum Fabularum still later, in the year 452. Wherefore, it is necessary to show what opinion he expressed of his own accord regarding the matter in question in earlier times. SCHULZ'S NOTES.

^A In the year 430, in the letter of John to Nestorius, which he wrote, or at least approved by his consent, after the term "Mother of God" (*Deipara*) is mentioned, the text continues in these words: "If we do not accept that which is offered by the meaning of the name, it remains that we fall into a most grievous error; or rather, that we renounce that inexplicable economy of the only-begotten Son of God: since, once this name is removed, or rather the meaning of this name is rejected, it follows directly that He is not God who undertook the admirable dispensation for the sake of our salvation; and then that God the Word neither emptied Himself, nor, by descending into the form of a servant, exhibited an ineffable magnitude of kindness to the human race," etc. Furthermore, as I have said, Theodoret himself either wrote this letter—which is more credible—or at least assisted the writer with counsel, which no one can deny, since the letter itself testifies to it.

In the year 431, he confessed that the holy Virgin is deservedly called Mother of God: for in his *Rebuke of the First Chapter of Cyril*, when he had said that the Word had formed a temple for Himself in the womb of the Virgin, and had adhered to that temple, he concludes: "For which reason we also call the Virgin *Theotokos* [Mother of God]," etc.

In the year 433, he openly confesses that Christ the Lord is at once God and man. In his *Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans*, ch. 5: "Therefore he again calls Christ the Lord the Son, who is the same God and man."

At nearly the same time, he taught the two births of the Word in his *Exposition of Psalm LXVI*: "Let the heretics blush, who act impiously and do not confess the very God, the only-begotten Son of God born of God before the ages, who in the last days Himself became the Son of man, unchangeably, as we say, for the salvation of men."

^B Regarding the one name "person" of Christ, I know not if any place can be found in his books composed before the year 445, at which time Theodoret, confined at Cyrus, wrote the dialogues against the *Eranistes*. However, an express mention is found in dialogue 3, where the subject is Isaac and the ram, who exhibited a figure of the death and resurrection of Christ: "Isaac and the ram, as far as concerns the difference of natures, agree with the image: but according to the division of separate hypostases, they do not agree. For we preach such a union of divinity and humanity, and we understand one undivided person, and we acknowledge the same as God and man, visible and invisible, circumscribed and uncircumscribed, as we accommodate to one person all other things which designate divinity and humanity."

To these may be added the very effective testimonies of the holy Pope Leo, of the Emperor Marcian and the Empress Pulcheria, of the fourth ecumenical council, of Maximus the prelate of Antioch, of Facundus the bishop of Hermiane, of Photius the prelate of Constantinople, and of the most learned writer John of Euchaita.

Saint Leo exercised judgment concerning Theodoret from his books, and made the one judged a participant of his communion, that is, of the Catholic communion; nay, having sent most ample letters, he praised him on account of his faith, and even gave him instructions as a Catholic bishop, thanking him for his letter, which he deemed a certain rule of faith, and for the promotion of the Catholic cause.

The Emperor Marcian, at the persuasion of the Empress Pulcheria, rescinded the edicts of Theodosius against Theodoret, and rescinded them in terms which showed that he had been pure of heresy even in earlier times. "Let those things cease entirely, the beginning of which was iniquitous; and let not an unjust sentence harm either Eusebius or Theodoret, religious bishops, since priests cannot be condemned by a decree whom a synodical decree, regarding the preservation of religion, adorns."

The Council of Chalcedon followed the judgment of the Apostolic See; for in it Theodoret, the case not yet being known, was received; he sat with the Fathers; he subscribed to the definition of faith, and expounded the letter of Saint Leo: finally, before that immense multitude of bishops, he pronounced anathema on Nestorius, and on him who does not call the holy Virgin the Mother of God, and on him who partitions the one only-begotten Son into two sons. ^C

Maximus of Antioch, when he was pronouncing judgment concerning Theodoret after the anathema was said against Nestorius: "Long ago," he said, "and from the beginning I have known the most reverend bishop Theodoret to be Catholic, hearing his doctrines in the most holy church: but now I receive his holiness much more," etc.

The testimony of Maximus is the weightier because he heard Theodoret teaching, having been nourished in the Antiochene Church, because he received his bishopric from Dioscorus, an enemy of Theodoret, and because he himself had previously been ill-disposed toward Theodoret, and thus, moved only by the force of truth, he now appears to be speaking for his opinion publicly; because, finally, he spoke of those sermons which were delivered before the year 444, and therefore not only preceded the calamities by which he was afflicted, but pertained to those times in which his irritated soul broke forth more freely into words.

To this might also be added the men of later ages who either defended Theodoret explicitly, as Facundus, or extolled him with great praises, as

Photius; they ranked him among the best teachers and the unshaken ^A pillars of the faith, as did the people of Euchaita.

Men of our own age or that of the Fathers, of great learning, could also be produced, such as Hervetus, Espencæus, Baronius, Bellarmine, and Sirmond, who by their commendations seem to have wiped away every stain of accusation. Baronius, certainly, and Sirmond also undertook the defense of his faith.

Article III. — What the defenders of Theodoret allege against the accusation of Saint Cyril, Marius Mercator, etc.

XIII. He who translated the ecclesiastical history of Theodoret into the French language, in the long apology which he prefixed to the work—an apology for Theodoret's faith—buried in silence the accusation of Cyril, who nevertheless is the equal of all men, ^B prohibited from replying by the truth, indeed, and also by reverence for the holy doctor. Yet, among intelligent men, this silence might appear to be an implicit abandonment of the cause, and a confession of two things: first, that Theodoret is guilty of the crime of which he was accused; and second, that this long apology was written for the sole purpose that the authority of Marius Mercator might be diminished, and that Theodoret might retain among the common people, who are negligent of deeper learning, the reputation which he lost among the educated.

Nevertheless, someone who might prefer to hear Socrates, Liberatus, and two ministers of the Calvinist sect rather than Catholics might accuse Cyril, as one who was similarly disposed and behaved toward Theodoret, the friend and defender of Nestorius, as he did toward Nestorius himself; with whom he waged enmities, as Socrates and Liberatus write; to whom, though a preeminent Catholic, he imputed the crime of heresy, either out of ignorance or out of malice, as Albertinus hints; whom he, the Eutychian himself, pursued as a defender of the Catholic faith and a holy martyr of Christ, as another minister of the Calvinist sect was not ashamed to prattle. ^C

But what credence should be given to Socrates, a Novatian heretic, a court writer, unskilled in theology, and thus imbued with the poison that had prevailed at the court of Theodosius as being devoted to Nestorius? What to Liberatus, impotent regarding the three chapters, like an African, a patron of schismatic obstinacy even to the end? What to a man who hints that he was not only a man guilty of enmities, but also an author of sedition, a seeker of vengeance, and a recanter of his own retractation?

Now as to what Albertinus dared to write concerning Nestorius as being pure of heresy, and what that wicked Synmystes dared to write concerning Cyril as a defender of the Eutychian error, it is so horrid that it deserves execration rather than a response.

Nor does it escape me that, from Isidorus Pelusiota, a most holy monk, to Cyril when he was at Ephesus, or even after the council was completed and he had returned to Alexandria and was calling the conditions of peace to examination, letters were written by which he was warned not to be so solicitous about his own affairs as to foment disturbances and repel peace; but a man of such great holiness and such ^D inflamed zeal had been deluded by certain Alexandrian clerics, seduced by the craftiness of the Orientals. These are the things they allege against Saint Cyril.

Regarding Mercator, the aforementioned French translator brought forth many things lately; yet they can be reduced to three points, about which, because a longer discussion is needed, it must be deferred to its proper place; for now it suffices to object against him regarding falsehood and bad faith. For, first, he corrupted almost all the testimonies of Marius Mercator; second, he used witnesses whom he could have known to be schismatics; finally, he spoke words more than once not relevant to the matter.

Against Vigilius, the defender of Theodoret objects nothing; rather, he contends that he acts for his own cause, as if by his *Constitutum* he had defended the writings of Theodore. But that this is said with more confidence than likelihood, I think anyone will judge who has cast his eyes even glancingly, partly on the criticisms of Theodoret, partly on the five anathemas of Vigilius written on the occasion of Theodoret, and partly, finally, on these words of the *Constitutum*: "While the reverence for his person is guarded in all things, whatsoever writings are found to be consonant with the errors of the wicked Nestorius and Eutyches, by whomsoever's name they are set forth, we anathematize and condemn."

Henricus Noris provides another objection. For he argues that the Supreme Pontiff was of an inconstant mind, as if first, so that he might become Supreme Pontiff, he promised the Empress Theodora that he would condemn the three chapters; then, however, in Sicily and Illyricum, when he was making his way to Constantinople, contrary to what the Africans and Illyrians were demanding—after he entered Constantinople and forbade Mennas the sacred rites because of the condemned chapters, which, however, having been reconciled to Mennas, he himself proscribed in a writing which is called the *Judicatum*; then, retracting the *Judicatum*, in another writing, to which he gave the name *Constitutum*, he denied that the chapters could be condemned, and yet still later retracted the *Constitutum* itself, with a letter given to Eutychius which was approving of the fifth synod. For what, in the end, can be the authority of a *Constitutum* which the author himself testifies by a solemn decree that he wrote by error? Yet the manner of acting which Vigilius held in this matter—which Noris, in his imprudence, perceived as inconstancy—was not inconstancy, but a prudent dispensation and a considered weighing of times and circumstances, as the most illustrious Marca warns: furthermore, the letter to Eutychius, by which the *Constitutum* is retracted, and which others...

have demonstrated. Afterwards, the promise made by Theodora regarding the condemnation of the chapters is found with no one except the schismatic Africans—I mean Facundus, Victor of Tunnuna, and Liberatus, those immoderate defenders of the Three Chapters. Finally, in the *Judicatum* and the *Constitutum*, the individuals were spared, and only the errors were addressed; and he who would contend that there are no such errors in the books of Theodore and Theodoret is truly not far from making himself more knowledgeable than Cyril and Gregory the Great, and all the Fathers of the fifth synod, and the supreme pontiffs, and the universal Church.

Two learned men, Pighius and Halloix, have collected many things by which the faith of the fifth synod is disparaged; the former to rescue Honorius, the latter to rescue Origen from condemnation. We have refuted these in the dissertation subjoined to Liberatus. ^B The defender of Theodoret, having said that the same synod had the Spirit of God as its president, blushed to openly malign it: for he sensed how much envy that would entail. But because the thirteenth canon of the synod differs very little from the twelfth of Justinian, the defender cleverly objects to the Justinianic canon, because he wished it to fall under the authority of the synod. Therefore he says that the canon of Justinian leans upon four fictitious facts. 1st: That Theodoret wrote for Nestorius and attacked the faith of the Church. 2nd: That he rejected the hypostatic union and, as a consequence, disparaged the Virgin Mary for the name of *Theotokos*. 3rd: That for this reason he was cast out from his see by the holy bishops. 4th: That in the Council of Chalcedon he was compelled to acknowledge the true faith, and to act in a manner contrary to his works against Saint Cyril.

^C Of these four, one is openly imposed upon Justinian, namely the third; the other three, the holy synod assumed as certain and indubitable principles, and from them rightfully and deservedly fashioned its canon, which must be clearly demonstrated.

Justinian does not mention the bishops at all, and thus not the holy ones either. He wrote in these words: Διὰ ταύτας γὰρ τὰς βλασφημίας τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἐξεβλήθη. ("On account of these blasphemies he was cast out of the episcopacy.") Is the cause of Theodoret so desperate that it cannot be defended in any other way? The third point is attributed to Justinian, either through carelessness, or a hasty reading of the canon, or by some other design.

The holy synod clearly shows that it approves the fourth point, when, in the preface to the canons, where the discussion is about Ibas—by whom, before he was accepted, the Chalcedonian Fathers are said to have demanded the condemnation of Nestorius and his dogmas—it says: "They observed this also in Theodoret, and demanded that he anathematize those things for which he was accused." The Latin interpreter said *exigere* ("to demand") for *compellere* ("to compel"): for I have no doubt that the Fathers of the fifth synod used the same verb as Justinian, *συνωθεῖν*. ^D That defender therefore feigned that he was attacking Justinian, 474 when in reality he was maligning that great synod, over which he admits the Spirit of God presided. But who would dare to plead the cause of Theodoret in this way, unless it be someone whose interest it is to have the authority of the Church undermined by some of his own condemned works?

Moreover, it is a wonder how it could have entered the mind of any mortal that the writings of Theodoret could be defended by the testimony of the fifth synod after such a famous and such an explicit proscription: yet the defender dared to assert confidently that the Fathers, after they had read them, said nothing—nothing, I say—by which they were condemned, but only praised the act of the Council of Chalcedon. To prove this, he did not hesitate to cite this passage from the fifth collation. From which, however, he removed the prior words: "The holy synod said..."

GARNERII DISSERTATION III

The holy synod, I say, assumed: "If anyone defends the impious writings of Theodoret which he composed against the right faith, and against the first holy synod of Ephesus, and against Saint Cyril and his twelve chapters, and everything he wrote for the impious Theodore and Nestorius," etc.

NOTES OF SCHULZ

For thus the Justinianic text stands: "If anyone defends the writings of Theodoret which he composed for the heretic Nestorius, against the right faith, and the first holy synod of Ephesus, and Saint Cyril and his twelve chapters, in which wicked writings the same Theodoret calls the union of the Word of God to man 'affectual' (σχετικὴν λέγει τὴν ἕνωσιν), a man about whom he blasphemously said that Thomas touched him who rose, and worshipped him who raised him: and therefore he calls the teachers of the Church impious, who confess the union according to subsistence (ἕνωσιν καθ' ὑπόστασιν) of the Word of God to the flesh: and on top of these, he denies the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary as *Theotokos*. If anyone, therefore, defends the aforementioned writings of Theodoret and does not anathematize them, let such a person be anathema. For on account of such blasphemies he was cast out of the episcopacy, and later in the holy Council of Chalcedon was compelled to do everything contrary to his aforementioned writings and to confess the right faith." The *Synodicus*, however, is of this kind: "If anyone defends the impious writings of Theodoret which he composed against the faith, and against the first holy synod of Ephesus, and Saint Cyril and his twelve chapters, and everything which he wrote for the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and for others who thought the same as the aforementioned Theodore and Nestorius, defending them and their impiety, and on account of this calling those teachers of the Church impious, who confess the union according to subsistence of the Word of God to the flesh, and does not anathematize them and those who thought or think similar things to them, and furthermore all who wrote against the right faith and Saint Cyril and his twelve chapters, and remained in such impiety until death; let such a person be anathema."

(Having read the writings of Theodoret), from those things which Theodoret ^A wrote impiously, the subtlety of the holy Council of Chalcedon is to be wondered at: for it knew his blasphemies, and at first used very many and frequent shouts against him; but later it would not have accepted him, except that he first anathematized Nestorius and his blasphemies, in defense of which he had previously written. Oh, the faith of the defender and the reader! Is this what it is to leave men uncondemned, to say they were written impiously, and to call them by the name of blasphemies? But at that place, the defender might perhaps say, no sentence of condemnation was passed. I confess it is true, but it should not have been the case; and when the cause of Ibas was not yet known, it ought not to have been deferred to the eighth session, where in canon twelve, which the defender ignored, the writings of Theodoret are proscribed in such words as have scarcely ever been used for any other heretic.

^C No Catholic until this day had sensed that anything could be brought against the authority of Pelagius II, the Supreme Pontiff, or rather of Gregory the Great, who, in the name of Pelagius, wrote a decretal epistle on the matter of faith to the bishops of Istria, those most learned and at the same time most obstinate defenders of the Three Chapters. It recently seemed to the defender of Theodoret that in this cause such great weight could be lifted, and credit could be detracted from Gregory the Great, although he was a doctor of the Church—not, indeed, by calling the man himself by his proper name, for who would bear that?—but by speaking in general about the successors of Vigilius, of whom the fifth, Gregory the Great, did not fear to pronounce that the successors of Vigilius were of good mind when they proscribed the works of Theodoret, following the one who did not disapprove of them, namely Vigilius, inasmuch as they had neither read these works more diligently, nor had they more intelligence to attain the sentiment of the author, nor the ability to discern the true from the supposititious. How, he says, could they have read them more diligently, when they knew not Greek? Or how could they have judged more perspicaciously when they were far removed from the age of Theodoret? Add to this, he continues, that the successors of Vigilius never said they had called the works of Theodoret to examination 475 before they condemned them, and thus they confess they had passed judgment not because they had known the cause, but because they had given faith to the Acts of the Fifth Synod, in which events at Chalcedon with Theodoret are narrated neither truthfully in the same way, nor faithfully. These and other things he sets forth ^D tortuously and by circuitous expressions, from which, if he wished to speak sincerely, he would say openly: Gregory the Great did not read the works of Theodoret with his own eyes, but with the eyes of others, and those deceptive ones; he exercised judgment without examination, he allowed himself to be deceived, he could not distinguish false things offered for true, he believed simple, mendacious excerpts, and by an error of fact he condemned books that were otherwise Catholic as heresy. But what is that voice, and from whence does it come? There is no need to dilute that which is spoken schismatically.

Regarding the agreement of Theodoret with Nestorius, I see that only one thing can be said by the defenders: that Theodoret agreed with a wandering friend only in word, while in the sentiment of his mind he dissented; that Theodoret spoke with a Catholic sense, Nestorius with a heretical one; that the former incautiously, but the latter maliciously, brought forth certain ambiguous expressions; that those expressions which both used in common, when they came from Theodoret, could—if charity is heard—be explained by a benign interpretation; but that they ought not to be, if piety is observed, when they are employed by Nestorius. But in truth, this is the very thing that is called into controversy: whether one can prudently judge differently about one than about the other, since both used the same words; both had the same teacher, Theodore of Mopsuestia; both rejected the hypostatic union; both were convicted by most holy and learned men of having in reality posited two sons in Christ; both complained from there that a calumny was being made against them; both denied that it could be said that God suffered; both mocked the Catholics because they asserted that the eternal Son of God was crucified for us; both reproached Cyril because he was of the same opinion as Arius, Eunomius, and Apollinaris when he taught the rules of the true faith; both were accused of the same blasphemy, and indeed by the same Cyril, than whom there was no one in the Church more knowledgeable of the mystery of the incarnation; both were proscribed by the same ecumenical synod. But if anyone contends that some difference intervenes, I will willingly confess it; but I will contend at the same time that whatever difference exists is invidious to Theodoret: for he expressly rejects the hypostatic union, while Nestorius does so only as a consequence. He praises Theodore as a teacher of the whole Church, who handed down nothing but the best of doctrine; Nestorius did not even call him by a word. He accuses Cyril of renewing heresy, and of tearing apart the sheep of Christ more cruelly than wild beasts, being a shepherd, and breaking out into heretical blasphemies under the guise of piety: Nestorius was content to act as if with an adversary. He insultingly refuted the twelve chapters of Cyril as impious and blasphemous; Nestorius, judging that it was enough to contradict them, was more modest 476. What more? Theodoret raged impotently against the holy synod of Ephesus, whereas Nestorius only complained about it.

ARTICLE IV. What the accusers of Theodoret can answer to the defenders.

XIV. The applause, they say, of the Catholics at Antioch proves nothing at all: for Theodore was heard with greater applause, and yet he is not on that account considered a Catholic. Next, what the opinion of St. Cyril was at that time concerning the state of the Oriental Church can be understood from the letter to Acacius of Melitene, where he demonstrates that the incredible zeal of the bishop John and the whole populace (even after the peace of the churches was entered into) for Theodore of Mopsuestia and the doctrine of Theodore was so great that it was shouted popularly in the church, "Let the faith of Theodore grow; we believe as Theodore believes." A truly remarkable praise of a disciple, they say, to be heard [alt-version omitted]

[index: entries preserved]

^A condemning the heresy, and at the end rendering a wonderful eulogy as if to an impeccable master of ecclesiastical history.

It is indeed true that Saint Leo restored Theodoret to his see before the judgment of the Council of Chalcedon, and wished him to be a participant in his communion. It is just as true, however, that he later greeted the same man with congratulatory letters, and gave thanks for the matter well-managed in the synod. True, I say, is that: but Saint Leo restored him perhaps as a common favor with the rest, rescinding all the Acts of the Robber Synod; he congratulated him with letters, but ones in which he obliquely criticizes the manner in which he had abjured Nestorius: "It is fitting that we also provide against the enemies of the Church in this way, so that we may leave them no occasion for calumny, as far as concerns us, nor ever, while acting against Nestorians or Eutychians, seem to have turned our backs to either of them; but that we may avoid and condemn both, as enemies of Christ, with an equal balance, so that, whenever the utility of the listeners demands it, we may strike them most promptly and most evidently with a worthy anathema, lest, if this seems to be done by us either too obscurely, or too slowly, it might be thought reluctant; which, although the things themselves are sufficient to admonish your prudence, experience itself has now taught."

He gave thanks for the affair well managed, but with a paternal prudence that would bind one wavering to the cause of defending the faith both more openly and ^B more *catholically*. But all these things, which concern Saint Leo, are subsequent to the conversion which occurred, or at least began, in the year 447.

The edict of Marcian undoubtedly favors Theodoret in that part where it testifies that he was adorned by a synodical decree concerning the preserved religion; but by that very part it creates a difficulty: for it is hidden to what synodical decree the discourse refers. For where is there finally any mention, even the slightest, of preserved religion, except in the opinion of Maximus of Antioch, whose testimony will soon be subjected to examination? Then an interpreter of the Latin did not translate the Greek words of the edict with sufficient care: for they are thus: "Let the unjust decision in no way harm either Eusebius, or Theodoret, or the most God-beloved bishops whom the same decree contains, since bishops cannot be condemned by an edict, whom a synodical vote has adorned for their guardianship, that of the faith." That is: "Let the unjust sentence in no way harm Eusebius, or Theodoret, or the most religious bishops, whom the same definition comprises; since prelates cannot be condemned by a constitution, whom a synodical decree has praised for the guardianship of the faith." Furthermore, the guardianship of the faith, on account of which they are praised, cannot without reason be seen to be the very confession of two natures against the asserters of one, on account of whom the Council of Chalcedon was primarily convened. ^{C D}

Now indeed the praise of Maximus of Antioch on this account much

loses its own weight, for it is not from a man of most constant faith: for he who now testifies that he held Theodoret to have been a Catholic from the beginning, when he was delivering sermons in the Church of Antioch, that man, according to Cyril, "approaching Alexandria, cried out many things against the Orientals, saying that the orthodox have no place there, nor any confidence to speak of the right faith." No one can fail to understand that these words refer to Theodoret from that very letter and the history of the time.

Facundus did not merely praise Theodoret; he defended him from the heart. Yet he did so with no other intent and with no other praises than those with which he defended Theodore of Mopsuestia, as if he were equal to Athanasius and Gregory and the greatest doctors of the Church.

Photius never approved of Theodoret’s faith regarding the Incarnation, but rather accused him; and the same must be said of Euchaita, by whom he was so reckoned among the masters of the Church that it was said at the same time that he stood in need of forgiveness, as one who had lapsed like a man.

The judgment of more recent writers, although in itself grave and of great weight, nevertheless does not overcome the authority of so many ancient Fathers and so many councils and supreme pontiffs.

ARTICLE V. — Critique.

XV. In such a controversy of such great men, I do not wish to interpose my own judgment; let the prudent reader, whom he shall deem more equitable, pass sentence. I shall only put forward nine observations which, if they are weighed as maturely as they are sincerely proposed, will perhaps assist in solving a very perplexing knot of the cause.

1. No synod, especially an ecumenical one, ever approved the books of Theodoret; not even the Council of Chalcedon, although it received his person. For it was a malignant calumny of the Eutychians that the silence ^A of the synod 479 was equivalent to approval.

2. No synod used the testimonies drawn from thence to confirm the faith against heretics. For as to what is read in the published codices of the seventh synod as having produced something from the history of Theodoret, besides the fact that the testimony was not one of dogma but of a pure fact, it is manifest, as all the learned know, that it was the error of a copyist writing Theodoret instead of Theodore, who is called the Reader.

3. Three ecumenical synods condemned the writings of Theodoret by name: namely, the fifth, the sixth, and the seventh; nor did the Church, when receiving the canons of the synods, ever have any regard for writers of this kind.

4. The fifth synod specifically expressed the writings of Theodoret which it wished to be condemned, and in that very canon, which is unusual: "If any one defends the impious writings which against the right faith, against the ^B holy Synod of Ephesus, the first, and its twelve chapters, he have set forth, and all things which he wrote for the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and for others who held the same opinions as the aforementioned Theodore and Nestorius, defending them and their impiety," etc.

5. No Father of the ancients, whose works actually exist, has used the testimony of Theodoret to establish the dogma of the faith. For as for what Saint Gregory said in the letter of Pelagius II to the Istrians, that he uses the writings of Theodoret against the adversaries other than those which are condemned, and as for the fact that he immediately makes mention of the commentaries on the Canticles, by which Theodore of Mopsuestia is struck at under a silent name, this does not harm the assertion in the least, because there exists no work of Pelagius II or Gregory the Great in which writings of this kind have been produced, nor is any other adversary to be thought of against whom the testimony of Theodoret has been adduced than Theodore himself.

6. And no other author after three hundred years, except Agobard, Photius, John Euchaita, and the compilers of the Catenae, has shown anything of Theodoret to praise it; nor should great account be made of them. For Agobard mentions Theodoret lightly, and almost only to show that he fought with closed eyes in the manner of the Andabatae, since he was ignorant of whom he was fighting. Photius praised the works of Theodoret as those of heretics, from a source other than orthodoxy. Of Euchaita, we have nothing but iambics, in which he corrects the praise bestowed upon Theodoret by the mention of his lapse. ^C The makers of the Catenae do not cause much prejudice, since, as no one is unaware, they collect indiscriminately from the orthodox and the heterodox whatever they think is conducive to their purpose for explaining the passage of Scripture in which they are engaged.

7. In his own age, Theodoret found no defender; he had as his accusers Cyril and Marius Mercator, men of great name 480 on account of their learning. What could be objected concerning Saint Leo and Maximus of Antioch has been abundantly rejected up to this point.

8. In the sixth century, no one took up the patronage of Theodoret, except for schismatics, partly Africans, partly Istrians; but that patronage was of no avail against the fifth general synod, that is, the whole Church of Christ, which triumphed over the schismatics, with the truth prevailing.

9. Those things which are brought forward against the faith have in themselves great moment because of the manifest truth and the most grave authority of the witnesses. The things which are received in the contrary ^D are almost entirely negative and obscure, and taken from foreign and false places. A recent defender, surely, a man otherwise studious of Theodoret, and curiously diligent in seeking out the defenses of the cause which he has undertaken, is able to produce...

nothing, unless he sensed some supposition from the fourth book of the Haereticae Fabulae, and the testimonies of the three schismatics.

In such a great dissension of warring parties, I consider that nothing more prudent, nothing more modest can be said, than what Gregory the Great said, when he accurately treated the same argument: "We receive the person of Theodoret with the holy synod of Chalcedon, we reprobate (his) perverse writings; with the holy synod we venerate Theodoret professing right things."

CHAPTER III. Concerning the faith of Theodoret regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Those who treat of controversies, when they dispute concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist, each one strives to draw Theodoret to his own side, however adverse they may be: they bring forth testimonies of his from here and there, which, if taken separately, might scarcely create difficulty, but when collected together, make his opinion doubtful and ambiguous. This, indeed, I think happens from the fact that the question, which is proposed as if it were one and simple, consists in reality of two parts.

For when the question is asked concerning the presence of the body of Christ under the eucharistic symbols, two things are deservedly called into controversy: the other, whether the body of Christ is present at the symbols in reality, or by figure only; the other, if it is present in truth, how it is constituted as present, whether by the conversion which the Church calls transubstantiation, or by a certain [Greek: συνουσίωσιν], to which the school has given the name of impanation. For what cause stands in the way, why any man should not assent to the Church in one part, yet dissent in the other; and so appear, if the question be posed as simple, to be in conflict with himself?

481 Therefore, for us who are exploring what was the opinion of Theodoret concerning the presence of the body of Christ under the symbols, the question must be divided; and first, it must be investigated what he thought concerning the real presence; then concerning the mode by which the body of Christ is, as it were, brought in, and is set forth as present to the symbols: for perhaps he did not think catholically regarding both in the same way.

Furthermore, the reader should be warned at the beginning that nowhere in the works which we possess has Theodoret written concerning the Eucharist, except by occasion and in very few words. I believe, indeed, that in his mystical books, which have perished, this argument was treated according to its dignity: but I marvel vehemently that in his sermons concerning Providence nothing was said, when it would have been an opportune place. I do not marvel as much why, in the fifth book of the Haereticae Fabulae, where the dogmas of the Christian faith are set forth, a deep silence is kept: for no other dogmas are set forth there than those which are opposed to the heretics previously discussed; and in truth, no heretic, in all four books reviewed, had moved the question of the Eucharist against the Church.

§ I. Concerning the faith of Theodoret regarding the real presence of the body of Christ under the symbols.

That Theodoret (held that the) body of Christ is contained in reality under the eucharistic symbols, I have no doubt.

For besides the fact that he lived in an age in which the faith of the Oriental Church concerning the real presence was constant, from which without doubt he did not recede, it is shown moreover by many arguments; but especially by those two by which the Catholic truth is wont to be proved, namely that the Eucharist is adored, and that the body of Christ is truly eaten at the sacred table: which two things Theodoret professed in no obscure words.

Three things are therefore to be set forth: what was the faith of the Oriental Church in the age of Theodoret; in what places he teaches that the Eucharist is to be adored; and in what way he asserts also the flesh of Christ to be eaten at the sacred table.

In order that the first may be accomplished, those writers seem to me to be worthy of praise above many others, who were more closely related to Theodoret, namely those whom he had either as teachers, as Chrysostom; or fellow-disciples, as Nestorius; or adversaries, as Cyril. He believed, I think, what he learned from his teachers, what he taught together with his fellow-disciples, which neither he himself, nor any of his adversaries, objected to him.

Chrysostom in almost infinite places taught the real presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist; which two [men of] rank, Bellarmine and Perron, and others who treat of controversies, have demonstrated most efficaciously against the snares of the heretics. Some testimonies must be brought hither, but only from those works which, when Theodoret had read them more attentively 482, he praised in the dialogues with Eranista. Homily 7 on Matthew: "Christ gives the holy to the holy: for he does not present water to you from this fountain (he understands the eucharistic chalice), but living blood, which, although it be a symbol of death, has been made a cause of life." And homily 83, which is concerning the institution of the Eucharist: "Christ drinks his own blood." And afterwards: "Let us everywhere believe God, and not contradict him, even if that which he says appears to be contrary to our thought and eyes. Let his word surpass both our thought and our eyes. His word cannot deceive; the sense is easily deceived: since therefore the Word says, This is my body, let us be persuaded, and let us believe," etc. What does it avail to produce [things] from homily 45 on John, which are clearer than the midday light? How Christ mingled his own body into us, in the manner of those who are vehemently in love: that he nourishes us with his own flesh, to the envy of mothers, who hand over their sons to be nourished by strange nurses, etc.

Besides the testimonies which are produced in that place, there is another notable [one] in the Commonitorium, which Cyril gave to Posidionius the deacon when he was traveling to Rome. For he says that Nestorius says, "that the passion is of a man, and the resurrection is of a man, and in the mysteries the body which is set forth is the body of a man," etc.

I have spoken copiously concerning Nestorius in dissert. 1 to the latter part of Marius Mercator, and I have shown that he openly held an opinion for the real presence, nor...

was he censured by Cyril because he denied the real presence; but because he infringed upon the force and efficacy of the sacrament, pulling apart the hypostatic union of the flesh and the Word: for the flesh of a mere man cannot be life-giving (ζωοποιός), but only that which is proper to the Word who vivifies all things.

Now truly, Cyril—to omit the passages which are wont to be invoked from here and there, and which indeed demonstrate the truth, but are obscured by so many cavils of heretics that they appear to lose part of their strength among the less learned—Cyril, I say, in book IV *Against Nestorius*, ch. 2, while he examines the heretic’s words, attempting to prove that the Word was not made flesh because the flesh is eaten at the sacred table, while the divinity is not, concludes a long disputation concerning the words of Christ in John VI, and concerning the life-giving flesh, and the manner and virtue of communicating life, finally in these words: "See, therefore, how He remains in us and effects the victors of corruption, while He lets Himself down into our bodies, as I have said, even through His own flesh, which is true food, whereas that legal shadow and the worship instituted through it do not have truth. And the reason for the mystery indeed is simple and true, not composed with various inventions of thought for impiety, but, as I have said, simple. For we believe that the Word from God the Father, when He had united Himself to the body 433 produced through the holy Virgin, and having a rational soul, which union was utterly ineffable and mystical, had rendered the body itself life-giving, since the Word, being God, is life by nature, so that we, having been made participants of Him not only in a spiritual but also in a corporal way, might be rendered superior to corruption, and, having by Himself emptied out the law of sin placed in the members of the flesh, might condemn sin in the flesh, just as it is written. But these things, if I am not mistaken, in no way please our dogmatists of new inventions." He had introduced beforehand Christ saying: "I am the bread of life, who descended from heaven, who I vivify all things, and who, to those eating in me, I enter even through the flesh united to me," etc. Those words are to be noted: *He lets Himself down*, *I enter*, even through the flesh. For they signify a union which is made even through the flesh itself, which is let down and enters into our bodies. But that this union is made through faith alone, or through symbols alone, cannot be said, unless the words be twisted with some monstrous violence. For how is the body of Christ let down into the very bodies by faith? Or how, if it enters through symbols alone, can it be said that Christ enters, even through the flesh?

Thus far concerning the faith of the Eastern Church, which if Theodoret had not followed, he would neither have been silent himself about his own opinion, nor would he have been dismissed without censure by those from whom he complains that he had suffered curious persecution.

Now truly, that the Eucharist is to be adored, Theodoret hands down, dial. 27: "The symbols after sanctification 434 are understood to be what they were made, and are adored." But he speaks concerning this adoration, by which the body of Christ itself, having attained a seat at the right hand, is adored by every creature, because it is the body of the Lord of nature. And in dialogue 3 of the *Eranistes*, to the objector saying: "Did the body, therefore, procure salvation for us?" the Orthodox responds: "Not the body of a mere man, but of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; which if it seems small and vile to you, how do you think its type is venerable and salutary? Whose type, moreover, is to be adored and is salutary, can the archetype itself be despised and belittled?"

§ II. Concerning the faith of Theodoret regarding the manner in which the real presence of the body of Christ is performed under the symbols.

Not all who confess the real presence agree in one opinion concerning the manner in which it comes about: for some admit a conversion of bread into the body of Christ, such that the substance of bread ceases to be through consecration, and only the accidents remain: others contend that a mere conjunction occurs, by which the substance of bread through consecration is joined with the substance of the body of Christ, so that out of both substances the Eucharist is composed. There are Catholics who defend *metousiosis* or 484 transubstantiation; the Lutherans, who *synousiosis* or impanation. It is asked to which party Theodoret adhered.

Concerning that question, three opinions either truly exist or can be conceived: first, that he taught transubstantiation; second, that he adhered to impanation; third, that it is not certain which party he followed, since he revealed his sentiment for neither.

The first uses these arguments: 1. Theodoret is accustomed to assent to his masters, especially when they are in agreement on a matter of great moment: but Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, in whom Theodoret glories as masters, are in agreement in the confession of transubstantiation, a matter indeed of the greatest moment. Chrysostom in his *Homily on Matthew*: "These are not works of human power proposed. He who then did those things at that feast, which indeed the Lord Himself celebrated; He Himself also now performs these things. We are in the place of ministers; but He who sanctifies and transmutes these, He it is." Mopsuestia in the *Catena* on ch. XXVI of Matthew: "He did not say, 'This is a symbol of my body and blood'; but, 'This is my body, and my blood': teaching us not to look to the nature of that which is proposed, but that by the thanksgiving performed, it is changed into flesh and blood."

(Theodoret), in dialogue 1, asks to answer more mystically (*μυστικώτερον ἀποκρίνεσθαι*), and in dialogue 2 applies this precaution while speaking concerning the Eucharist, that one should not say clearly (*οὐ χρὴ σαφῶς εἰπεῖν*), that is, those things which are not to be published, which, because they are difficult to grasp, would deter from faith men not yet initiated. But there are of this sort three in all: the real presence of the body and blood under visible symbols, the eating of the body, and the...

change of the blood of Christ, and the transmutation of bread and wine effected through consecration. Therefore, what he is silent about in one of the three, he truly confesses by his silence that it happens. Moreover, he speaks openly of the real presence, as has been shown before; but as for the eating, when the Eranist asked him openly whether he believed that he received the body and blood of Christ, he replied that he did so believe. He also adds that it is not the divinity, but the body that is eaten. Therefore, since he is silent about the manner in which the bread becomes the body of Christ, he signifies that it happens in that miraculous way which is called transubstantiation, and which, on account of its wondrous nature, ought to be revealed only to the initiated.

3. Since he teaches the real presence openly, it seems also that, as he was of a penetrating intelligence, he should have taught the mode by which theologians demonstrate that the real presence can happen, ^A namely by arguing from the words of Christ, “This is my body,” which are certainly true, and, they contend, cannot be true—at least in the proper sense—unless a conversion takes place. Therefore, just as Augustine gathered the mind of the Fathers on original sin from those things which they said about the miseries of the human race, which under a just God can be nothing where there is no guilt, so it is fair to conclude the mind of Theodoret regarding the mode in which the body of Christ becomes present in the symbols from that which he hands down concerning the real presence, especially since he holds the same manner of speaking as Chrysostom, and it is not credible either that Chrysostom was not of the Church’s opinion, or that the real presence could happen by the power of the words unless a conversion existed.

4. Two very learned cardinals, Bellarmine and Perron, have shown that Theodoret was dragged into this matter by heretics for their own ends, by force and against the rules of justice, and they have proved by many reasons that he adhered to the Catholic faith; which other, not a few, ^B and those excellent, treatises on controversies have also accomplished. Moreover, even the Centuriators admit the change of bread into the body of Christ handed down by Theodoret, and for that reason accuse him of error. Such, generally, are the authors of the first opinion.

The defenders of the second opinion interpret Theodoret’s silence about the way in which the body of Christ becomes present in the symbols in a less favorable light. For why, they ask, did he so curiously guard against being compelled in his dialogues to open his mind on that matter? Why did he respond only in riddles to the Eranist, who was disparaging the common faith of the Church concerning consecration in order to prove his own error regarding the incarnation? The Eranist wished there to be such an affinity and similarity between consecration and the incarnation that, just as bread, by the arrival of the body of Christ through consecration, ceases to be, and nothing remains in the Eucharist except the body of Christ under the appearance of bread: so the human nature, by the arrival of the Word through the incarnation, had ceased to be, and nothing remained in Christ ^C after the union, except the Word clothed in the appearance of a man. This indeed was a convenient explanation, and provided some prejudice. Why does Theodoret give an ambiguous answer? Why did he not object to the Eranist that what he was asserting was erroneous? Why did he not explain the difference between the two operations (I mean consecration and the incarnation), which was both necessary and in his interest? Why, on the contrary, did he prove his own opinion regarding the two entire natures remaining in Christ by the example of the Eucharist? Why did he wish the discourse to be enigmatic, when it was a matter concerning the Eucharist, unless it was because he wished to cover up and conceal something? And what did he wish to conceal, if not the mode by which the body of Christ truly becomes present in the symbols? For he speaks openly of the other things, and it was to his advantage that this be concealed: first, because the example prejudiced the case of the Catholic faith concerning the Eucharist, and therefore it seemed it should be attacked; second, because if he were argued against on the grounds that he held an opinion contrary to the received dogma, he could use the defense of feigned obscurity to repel the charge. These and other things can be alleged by the authors of the second opinion.

Those who follow the ^D third say that it is uncertain to which side Theodoret conceded: wherefore, so that one does not sin through imprudence, judgment must be withheld in an ambiguous matter. First, because it is fair to believe that such a man would not have departed from the doctrine of the Church in a matter so constant, even though he seems to signify something else with his words. Second, since he openly confesses that he spoke with enigmatic words by design, he shows that he did not wish to reveal his mind, whatever the reason for concealing it may have been. Third, since the arguments of both opposing parties, even though they have their weight and impulse, nevertheless much diminish or lose that weight in their collision. Fourth, because not even Chrysostom himself speaks openly on that matter: for the *metaskeue* or "transmutation," about which mention is made in the cited testimony, indeed presses the Calvinists, but not in the same way those who acknowledge that a mutation happens through consecration, not in such a way that the substance of the bread ceases, but as that whereby it is joined to the body of Christ; as a symbol by which it is signified, and a garment by which it is made visible: wherefore Theodoret could have followed the example of Chrysostom, the disciple the master. Fifth, because the testimony of Mopsuestia which is produced, though it is entirely valid in itself, perhaps nevertheless to some it will appear that it can be weakened from that which is reported in Leontius concerning the sectaries of Mopsuestia, who denied that the eucharistic bread has any more of consecration (by this word mutation is understood) than either the loaves which are offered for sale in the market, or the cakes which are offered by heretics to the queen of heaven. Finally, the two cardinals, Bellarmine and Perron, invincibly prove indeed that the real presence was defended by Theodoret, but they do not seem to have contended for the mystery of transubstantiation in the same way, nor as copiously.

SCHULZ'S NOTES. " Namely, in the passage cited from the Homily on Matthew, p. 434.

Chapter IV. On the faith of Theodoret regarding the question of original sin and infant baptism.

I. Theodorus Mopsuestenus, whom, as we have often said, Theodoret boasted of as his teacher, moved a question in the Church regarding the sin of our first parents: whether it harmed their descendants, and whether death and the privation of grace—which is the soul’s deprivation—as well as the dissolution of the soul from the body, were contracted thereby. He likewise inquired why infants are baptized: whether to wash away the stain of their original sin, or so that they, as innocent beings born of humans, might be regenerated through baptism into children of God. It was agreed by all that the first parents had harmed their descendants by their example when they sinned; but as to whether they harmed them in any other way, the matter split into three opinions.

II. Theodorus held that they had harmed them not at all. Augustine held that they had harmed them in both soul and body, by despoiling the former of original justice and the latter of immortality. Others divided the matter, denying harm to the soul while affirming it of the body. The Church follows the opinion of Augustine; the other two are rejected as erroneous. The question is: to which of the three did Theodoret adhere?

III. He may appear suspect by reason of his agreement with Theodorus: ^B first, on account of the immense praises heaped upon him, as if he were the teacher of the whole Church; secondly, because even in his books on heretical fables, when he reviews the heretics of all ages, he is silent about the Coelestians—that is, the impugners of original sin; finally, because he speaks on this question just as the Pelagians do, or at least some of them, and interprets in the same way many testimonies of Scripture brought forth on either side. These three points are proven in this manner.

IV. And as for the praises, it scarcely needs proof: for how great are they and how exaggerated! "At the time when divine Theodorus was governing the Church of Antioch, Theodorus, bishop of Mopsuestia, teacher of the whole Church, ^C and vanquisher of all heretical cohorts, finished his life. This man was a hearer of the great Diodorus, and a companion and helper of the most holy John; for together they enjoyed the spiritual flowing of Diodorus." In his episcopate, he spent thirty-six years fighting against the Arian and Eunomian sect, and routing the clandestine cohort of Apollinaris, and providing the best pasture for the divine sheep. And in another place: "I would even bring forth for you ^D the interpretations of those strongest champions of the truth, Diodorus and Theodorus, did I not see that you are ill-disposed toward them, and that you have succeeded to the hatred and malevolence of Apollinaris against them; for you would have seen that they also wrote things consonant with the others, and drew their streams from the divine fountain, and that the rivers and 489 even the Holy Spirit himself also...

existed. And in another place again, alluding to the cited testimony: ^A "But since you also reproach me, as if I had omitted the holy and blessed Fathers, Diodorus and Theodore, from the number of teachers, I thought it necessary to say a few things about this also," etc. "Now, that I have honored these men, the book which I composed about them is witness, in which I diluted the accusation leveled against them." Since, therefore, there is usually a great affinity between the mind and the will, and a great necessity for praise and imitation—at least in a man who considers himself noble—who would easily believe that Theodoret dissented from Theodore, whom he preached and honored as a teacher of the whole Church, a most powerful defender of the truth, a conqueror of heretical cohorts, and a river of the Spirit of truth?

V. Now, as to the fact that he was constantly silent everywhere about the Coelestians and the Coelestian heresy, and especially in the work in which he promised a compendium of all heretical fables and an epitome of divine decrees, no one who has read Theodoret’s works can deny it. But what could have been the cause of his silence, beyond agreement? Was it that the name of the Coelestians was unknown to Theodoret? But the Catholic synod at Ephesus leveled that name against the schismatics, and the schismatics against the Catholics. ^B Was it that the heresy was hidden from him? And yet it was always in the diocese of the East, where it originated, at Mopsuestia; and it was condemned a third time—once at Diospolis, again at Antioch, and a third time at Anazarbus in the second Cilicia. But how could these things fail to be heard of by such an inquisitive man, living in the neighborhood, famous even then for his doctrine, most dear to Theodoret, the very beloved disciple of Theodore of Antioch, when they were carried out with great noise, when they were published in books written by Theodore, when they were unknown to no one throughout the East? ^C Or was it that this heresy seemed to Theodoret, just as it did to John of Jerusalem, to be more of the Latins than the Greeks? Truly, besides what has been said before about its origin and the triple condemnation in the diocese of the East, and about the other four—two at Ephesus and as many at Constantinople—he certainly recorded among the heretics Novatus, who created a heresy at Rome; and he also recorded the Montanists, who emerged from Africa. Was it that he had read no one who had written either for or against the heresy? But even if as a Greek he had not seen the Latin treatises, how could he, being incredibly eager to know what was being done by the churches everywhere, be ignorant of these three Greek things: the faith of Rufinus, the work of Theodore against Augustine, and the Acts of the Diospolitan synod, all of which were published in the neighborhood? Or did he think the heresy had vanished, and therefore [deemed it not worth] remembering, or indeed not even worth mentioning? But how could he think it had vanished so far as to be not worth remembering, or indeed not even worth mentioning? But how could he consider it extinguished while he was writing, when he heard its name being brought up for infamy? He mentions many more heresies, which, when he mentions them, he reports as extinguished. He certainly believed the Eutychian heresy to be completely extinguished when he wrote; yet he reports it and fights against it.

Or did he perhaps place the doctrine concerning original sin among the *adiaphora*, and believe it to be a question, not a dogma? But to feel that way is the mark of either a Coelestian or one speaking with Coelestius. Finally, did he indulge his feelings by keeping silent, and because of his zeal for Theodore, who was the author of the sect, or Nestorius, who was its patron, did he wish to spare their name, and also, through hatred, did he not wish to celebrate the name of either Pope Coelestine or the Synod of Ephesus, by which the latter heresy was proscribed? ^D Even if this is by nature very likely, if it is added to the praises of Theodore, it becomes of the greatest moment, especially since he nowhere speaks openly for the defenders of original sin, but speaks everywhere not obscurely with its impugners.

VI. However, that which is third in our partitions is settled without difficult labor if Theodoret's doctrine is compared with the opinion of the defenders of original sin. They, as is known, proved two things mainly by their arguments: one, that death entered into the world by the sin of the first man; the other, that not the death of the body alone, but that of the soul also, was passed on to descendants by Adam’s sin. To prove this, they took their arguments especially from three places: namely, from the testimonies of Scripture, from the tradition of the Church baptizing infants, and from the miseries to which the human race is liable. Wherefore, his mind and doctrine will shine through, and it will be clear how much he agrees or disagrees with the defenders of the catholic faith, if it is asked:

VII. What he thought 1° concerning the cause of the death of bodies; 2° concerning the transfusion of guilt or the death of the soul; 3° concerning the testimonies of Scripture that are brought forward on either side; 4° concerning the baptism of infants; and finally 5° concerning the origin of the miseries with which the human race is afflicted.

VIII. That the human race was made subject to the death of the body by the sin of the first man, he consistently teaches in his commentaries on the Psalm. "Since they sinned, they were handed over to destruction; and having become mortals, they procreated such children." In his third dialogue, which is titled *The Impassible*, after a long discussion, the Orthodox says: "Sin was indeed the mother of death, but the devil its father." Then, with the Eranist agreeing, he continues: "Therefore, the nature of men was being attacked by sin: for this, reducing them to slavery, was bringing them to its wicked father and bitter—"

^A abyss." And afterwards, the Eranist saying: "Adam, after the transgression and the divine sentence, being subjected to the empire of death, knew his wife, and was called a father: but being mortal, he was made a father of mortals," the Orthodox replies: "You have shown us very well the cause why we are partakers of death," etc.

In the Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, chap. v, num. 14: "Just as he who first sinned was subjected to the decree of death, and the whole race followed the first parent; so also the Lord Christ, when He had fulfilled the highest justice, dissolved the power of death; and He who first rose from the dead, restored the whole nature of men to life," etc.

In Book v of the *Heretical Fables*, chap. 11: "For death was the punishment of sin." And afterwards: "When one had sinned, he delivered the entire race to death."

In Question xxxvii on Genesis: "God, after the transgression, issues a sentence of death, so that the human race might hate sin, seeing as it was the cause of death."

• IX. Concerning the transfusion of the death of the soul, or the stain of sin, he opens his mind, partly in the Commentaries on the 7th verse of Psalm 50; partly in the exposition of the Epistle to the Romans; and finally, partly in Book v of the *Heretical Fables*, chap. 11. The words of these three places must be referred to, however prolix they are.

On the seventh verse of Psalm 50: *Behold, for I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me*, he has this: "Long ago, he says, and from the beginning, sin obtained dominion over nature, because the transgression of the commandment preceded Eve’s conception. For after the transgression and the divine sentence, and the deprivation of Paradise, Adam knew his wife Eve, and when she had conceived, she brought forth Cain. Therefore he wishes to say that, when sin had invaded our ancestors, it made a certain way and path through the progeny." Blessed Paul also says this: *For as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and so death passed unto all men, for that all have sinned*, ^B etc.

In the Commentaries on chapter v of the Epistle to the Romans: "The divine Apostle therefore says that, when Adam had sinned, and had become mortal on account of sin, both (death and sin) extended to the race: for death passed unto all men, inasmuch as (i.e., because) all have sinned. For it is not on account of the sin of the first parent, but on account of his own, that ^C each one receives the decree of death." And afterwards: "But death reigned also over those who had not sinned, in the likeness of the transgression."

In Book v of the *Heretical Fables*, chap. 11: "The law of justice was leading all to punishment, for we were all constituted sinners: for if, when one had sinned, the race was condemned, it was certainly far more just that those who were subject to sin should undergo punishment," etc.

Truly, having soon brought forward the most celebrated testimony of the Apostle, by which the matter appears to be manifestly finished for Augustine: *As therefore through the disobedience of one man the many were constituted sinners; so through the obedience of the one shall the many be constituted just*; he adds those things by which he can be seen to wish to show, in the Pelagian manner, that the many sinners were constituted such not by propagation, but by imitation. For he says:

"He set 'the many' ^D very aptly in both cases: for when Adam had sinned, and very many had transgressed the divine laws, there remained not a few who continued in the bounds of nature and took care of virtue; such as Abel, Enoch, and Noah, and the patriarchs, and the prophets, and very many others, not only among the Jews but also among other nations, and after the Savior’s advent, not all attain salvation, but those who believe and lead a life according to the divine laws. Therefore he set that term, 'the many,' both in the image and in the archetype."

• X. From the Fathers who defended the catholic faith of original sin, testimonies of Scripture, produced partly from the Old, partly from the New Testament, are brought forward. We must see in what sense Theodoret understood them.

From the Old Testament, four are brought forward: in Genesis vi and viii it is said that the thought of man is prone to evil at all times. And in Genesis xvii God issues this law: "The male, whose flesh of foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed from his people, because he has made my covenant void." And in the Book of Job xiv, according to the LXX: "For who is clean from filth? No one, even if his life be but one day upon the earth." And in Psalm 50: *Behold, in iniquities I was conceived*, etc. Theodoret traces the proneness to evil innate in man from the mortality of the body.

In the Commentary on Psalm 50 he says that circumcision was instituted, not to make men just, but to distinguish the Jews from foreign nations, and to be a sign of faith.

Quæst. lxvii on Genesis. He does not seem to have touched upon the place in Job anywhere; regarding David's opinion, it was said before.

Five are brought forward from the New Testament. John iii: "Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." Rom. v, 12: *As through one man*, etc.

The sentiment of Theodoret regarding the baptism of infants will presently be revealed: how he interprets both passages of the Apostle from the Epistle to the Romans, we have already shown: that which is taken from the First Epistle to the Corinthians pertains to the mortality of the body, concerning which the last word seems to have been said, as other Greeks understand it to refer to those who truly are worthy of wrath and the final punishment because of their sins, so that ^A *physei* is put for *alethos* (truly).

XI. Now truly, regarding the reason why infants are washed in baptism, he reveals his mind manifestly in Book V of *Haereticarum fabularum*, ch. 18, where he almost entirely transcribes from the oration of Chrysostom to the neophytes, which Julian of Eclanum added to his confession: "Baptism not only grants the remission of old sins, but also brings about the hope of promised goods, and makes one a participant in the death and resurrection of the Lord, and bestows participation in the gift of the Spirit, and makes them children of God; and not only children, but also heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ: for, as the demented Messalians think, baptism does not merely imitate a razor, removing preceding sins: for it bestows this superabundantly; if indeed this were the only work of baptism, why do we baptize infants, who have not yet tasted sin?"

XII. Regarding the origin of miseries, whether of the body or the soul, arising from mortality contracted through sin, Theodoret's opinion is established from the Commentaries on Psalm L, just mentioned.

XIII. With all these things thus debated, it seems to me that Theodoret is far removed from Theodore and Coelestius; for he teaches that sin has harmed the descendants of Adam; he asserts that there is a necessity of dying contracted by the sin of the first man; he asserts likewise that the unbridled nature of concupiscence arose from this, with the body, which is corrupted, weighing down the soul: these three things Theodore with his sectaries denies. In the primary chapter, therefore, he disagrees with his master; regarding the death of the soul, of the kind that is brought upon by sin, he has not opened his mind, having imitated his other master, Chrysostom, who did not speak explicitly on this matter. By what reason, therefore, Chrysostom was brought over to the side of the Church by the benign interpretation of Augustine, by that same reason can Theodoret be called into agreement; since he wrote nothing different, nor in almost any other words, than Chrysostom. This, indeed, will be easily understood by anyone who has read Chrysostom’s interpretation, both on chapter V of the Epistle to the Romans, and on the seventh verse of Psalm L, and his oration to the neophytes.

XIV. Furthermore, the benign interpretation of Augustine rests on a very firm foundation, namely that ^A human miseries are unworthy of the innocent image of God, and thus are altogether punishments; and that by a just God no one is punished unless he is guilty; and consequently infants who are afflicted with miseries of this kind are guilty of sin, not by their own will, but by paternal commission. But whether the Greeks established those principles from which Augustine reasoned is not openly evident; nay, it is not very obscure, from almost all the places in which he treats this argument, that Theodoret held a different opinion concerning the condition of the first man and the quality of his creation than did Augustine.

XV. Therefore, all things having been duly weighed, it may appear that Theodoret was of this opinion concerning the damage which sin brought upon the descendants of Adam. Adam was created immortal: he sinned before he begot children: he was made mortal as a punishment for sin: being mortal, he begot mortals: from the mortality of the body arose the perturbations of the soul: from the perturbations, sins: from the sins of individuals, the dignity ^B of death. Wherefore there are for him two causes of mortality: one universal, to be born from mortals; the other particular, to have sinned by one's own choice. Infants and the just die because of the universal cause, others because of both. Baptism provides two things, but it removes sins in one way and confers gifts in another; it is by its nature that it effects both in adults, the second in infants: for infants have not even tasted sin, since neither is the force of sin natural, nor is the offspring a participant in the paternal transgression. From this, indeed, it is established in what he agreed with the Catholic faith, in what he followed Theodore his master, in what he deserted him, what he received from Chrysostom, and what he added of his own: although in the times of Theodoret, the doctrine of original sin among the Greeks was not most clear. And indeed, the things which Augustine adduced from this hardly prove anything per se, except mortality transmitted to descendants from the sin of Adam, although, helped by the principle of Augustine that punishment accompanies guilt, they have far more strength.

CAPUT V.

De auxiliis interioris gratiæ divinæ, ad pietatis opera præstanda, necessariis.

I. Not without cause would someone ask what opinion Theodoret followed concerning the aids of divine grace: whether that which is of the Church, or that which was once Pelagius'.

II. There is some cause ^C for doubting or for asking. For first, that the same thing which was done concerning Coelestius be performed concerning Pelagius. I ask first, why he never enumerated Pelagius, the enemy of the grace of God through Christ, among the heretics, although he had promised that he would enumerate all of them in his books *Hæreticarum fabularum*. Or was it because he was unknown? But how could he be, to a man most curious? Since both lived in the same age; since they were engaged in nearby places, one indeed in Antioch, the other in Jerusalem: since Pelagius stirred up troubles in Jerusalem, and neither small nor silent ones: since he defended his cause twice in a council, once at Diospolis, ^D and again at Antioch, where Theodoret was: when…

he was condemned both at Rome by the apostolic see, and at Antioch by Theodoret, and in Africa by many councils: when the condemnation made at Rome by Zosimus was made known to the whole Church, by a circular letter directed to all the bishops of the world: when the judgment of the Antiochene see was passed while Theodoret was looking on: when the African councils were not unknown to the Orientals, at least after the Council of Ephesus, where Bessula, a deacon of Carthage, was present, and brought the books of Augustine: when the Acts of Rome against the Pelagians by St. Celestine had been published at Ephesus, and in those Acts mention was made of the decrees of earlier pontiffs and of the African synods: when, finally, the Pelagian name and sect was known to the entire world, and was everywhere accursed, having been condemned by the subscribed hand of the world.

Next I ask, why he never touched upon the question of the aids of interior grace; although the occasion for speaking often enough occurred, and even urged itself upon a man who did not refuse to reveal his mind.

I ask a third question, why, of the passages of the Old and New Testament which Catholics are accustomed to use to establish the necessity of interior grace, he interprets most of them in the Pelagian manner; certainly not in the way the opponents of the Pelagians are accustomed to do.

I ask a fourth, why, while speaking of the aids of divine grace, he brings forward nothing which could not easily be understood either of the Law or of doctrine, or of external helps.

I ask a fifth, why, while explaining the power of free will, he brings forward almost exactly what the Pelagians bring forward, and strives to confirm what he does bring forward with the same testimonies of Scripture.

I ask a sixth, why in his long discourse on charity, when he was carefully pursuing the individual causes of this virtue, he did not even once say that it is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit; but only mentions the memory of the benefits of God and the example of Christ and the saints.

^C III. Truly, if we wish, as we certainly ought, to follow the example of those who interpret the sayings of the Fathers regarding Augustine in a Catholic sense, we shall reconcile Theodoret, not unwillingly, to the truth. For since prayer is the most manifest testimony of grace, and it is the act of a man either demented or foolish to ask from another that he be helped to do something which he knows to be in his own power, he must be said to think rightly of the aid of interior grace who either asks God himself to be helped to do that which cannot be performed without the aid of interior grace; or who, when he has been helped, thinks he must give thanks. Now Theodoret did indeed ask for the help of God for himself to do well, and when he had done well, he attributed the deed to the ^D benefit of God. And although this occurs generally, two testimonies must nevertheless be produced: the first from the Commentaries on Psalm 49, the second from the *Philotheus*, chap. 22, near the end.

IV. Therefore, interpreting those words of the penitent David: *Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within my bowels*: "Since," he says, "I have contracted the old age of sin, renew me by thy kindness." This also the Lord promised through the prophet Ezekiel to the captives at Babylon: *I will give them a new heart and a new spirit.* By spirit, however, he does not mean the Holy Spirit, but an impulse of the mind, that is, when I have chastised you with long chastisement, and have taught you what fruits sin produces, I will cause you to choose virtue. This also great David asks in this place, that both his wounded heart may be renewed and his mind strengthened to run the divine way.

V. Where he writes the eulogy of Jacob, who was still living, after he had explained the admirable rule of life which that visible angel observed: "May the agonothetes," he says, "of the piety of athletes grant an end worthy of these contests, so that what remains of the course may correspond to the former part, and the victor may at length arrive at the goal, and confirm our infirmity by his prayers, so that, strengthened, we may repair our many failures, and depart from this life as victors." By which words he asks four things of God: to be confirmed, to be amended, to conquer temptations, and to persevere to the very end. But these are the gifts of the Holy Spirit helping a man by the aid of His grace.

VI. I confess that neither testimony has the force of demonstration, just as nor do others that might be brought forward from elsewhere, even if they seem clearer: but I contend that they can be accepted in a Catholic sense by a kind interpretation just as those things which Chrysostom wrote on the same subject: for Theodoret followed Chrysostom, in the way a disciple is generally accustomed to follow his master.

VII. He speaks copiously of grace at chapter VII of the Epistle to the Romans, where the Apostle lamentably describes the struggle of flesh and spirit within himself. When, therefore, he had recounted the words of the Apostle, *that I should bring forth fruit unto death*, he interprets them thus: "By these," he teaches, "that before grace, while we were living under the state of the law, we were enduring the more vehement impulses of sin, when the law indeed showed what ought to be done, but brought no aid." And afterwards: "When we were subject to the law, we came to baptism; but at the same time, having died with Christ and rising with him, we were joined to the Lawgiver, and we have no further need of the legal way of life. For we have received the grace of the Spirit itself." And to those words:

"Having discussed all these things, the Apostle, in order to show what we were before grace and what we have become after grace, takes upon himself the person of those who were troubled by sin before grace, as if surrounded by enemy troops, led into slavery, and forced to serve; and seeing no help from elsewhere, he groans and laments heavily, and shows that the Law can offer no aid, and says: 'Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to my God through Jesus Christ our Lord.' He calls it a 'body of death' as being subject to death—that is, mortal; for the soul is immortal. Alone, he says, our Lord Jesus Christ has freed us from such grave tyranny, having destroyed death and promised us immortality, and a life free from toil, troubles, war, and sin. And we shall indeed receive the fruit of these in the life to come; but in the present, by receiving the grace of the Holy Spirit, we not only stand in battle against the perturbations of the soul, but having it as our helper, we are able to conquer them."

VIII. But neither does this testimony settle the matter; since Theodoret appears to understand the Apostle's words as referring to the grace bestowed in baptism, through which we become Christians; and not to that which is given for individual acts, and through which we live as Christians. Yet Pelagius does not refuse to acknowledge the grace of baptism; indeed, he expressly admits it in his Commentaries on this very passage of the Apostle: for he teaches that "he whom the law could not deliver has been delivered by the grace of God; not only did God forgive us our sins through the death of His Son, but He also gave us the Holy Spirit," etc.

IX. But I assert again what I did before, that by a kindly interpretation Theodoret can be brought into line with the faith of the Church, just like other Greek Fathers, and especially Chrysostom: concerning whose mind in the matter of grace the most illustrious Habert, Bishop of Vabres, has published a learned work.

CAPUT VI. OF PURGATORIAL FIRE

The question of purgatorial fire, when treated simply in itself, is indeed complicated; but it becomes far more complicated when the mind of the ancient Fathers is discussed, and also the doctrine of the Greek Church. For there have been those who supposed that the Greek Church either denied or failed to recognize purgatory of the kind defended by the Latin Church. There are those who affirm that a perpetual agreement between both Churches has existed. Among the latter, Dallaeus stands out; among the former, Leo Allatius. Dallaeus collects not only what is in the acts of the Council of Florence, but whatever else there is. Allatius interprets the ancients just as if they had expressed an opinion on the current question: for he seems to believe that those who once disputed about purgatorial fire, and denied its existence, fought against the faith of the Latin Church; while those who asserted it worked for the Catholic faith; both of which, in my opinion, is either in no part true, or not true in a universal sense.

To make this clear, we must set aside for a moment the dispute concerning the unlearned opinion of the heretics of our age, who think that no punishments of divine justice are paid after mortal life by any of the faithful who have died in the Lord; and also the Catholic doctrine of the Church concerning those saints who are exceedingly just, who pass to beatitude in an instant. For a much different question is being debated now: for it must be remembered that the defenders of purgatorial fire, who lived in the first ages when the Origenistic controversy was raging, were divided into three opinions, of which only one was Catholic.

The first was that all people whatsoever, whether spirits or humans, no matter how much they were stained by sins, would eventually be purged by fire, and that no punishments of anyone, even of a demon, would endure forever. The second, that the punishments of infidels alone would be eternal; but that the faithful, even if they died guilty of whatever sins, would eventually be purged and saved through fire. The third, that only the just—that is, those who die in charity—are purged by fire for venial sins themselves, or for the debt of punishment for other sins as yet unexpiated.

The first, Origen, followed—beguiled by a certain insane mercy—so as to believe that no rational creature would perish forever, but that each would be exercised through innumerous circuits, ascents, and descents, until all had returned to the state of purity in which they were when they proceeded from God; at which time—after all bodies have been stripped from all minds—he said the kingdom of God, eternal light, and interminable beatitude would exist, with all corporeal things—and even the very hells or prisons of the guilty—being destroyed.

In the second were many who lived in the fourth and beginning of the fifth century. They, as Augustine reports, believed that such great power resides in faith that one who has been baptized, if they have retained that faith—without which they would perish forever—even if they should have remained in any sin or impurity whatsoever, would be saved as through fire; just as one who has built upon the foundation which is Christ, not with gold, silver, or precious stones, but with wood, hay, or stubble—that is, not with just and chaste morals, but with unjust and unchaste ones: for when they wished to favor them, so they might receive baptism, those whom they saw so caught in the snare of adultery,

even if they were not to be admitted to baptism, they would prefer to live, or even die, without any sacrament, rather than be freed by the breaking of the bond of adultery. Moved by a certain human compassion, they were led to accept their cause in such a way that they judged that all criminals and villains with them—even those untouched by any prohibition, uncorrected by any instruction, and unchanged by any penance—ought to be admitted, thinking that, if this were not done, they would perish for eternity; but if it were done, they would, even while continuing in those evils, be saved through fire.

Who these people were, we have revealed in the Notes on the faith of Rufinus of Palestine, and we have shown ^A that the most well-known among them was Saint Jerome, whom Augustine refutes without naming him in his book *On Faith and Works*. We have also set forth the history of this book in that same place. See this passage, in which we follow the opinion of the great Petavius, which it is worth the effort to read as set forth in the very words of such a great man (Tom. III, *Theological Dogmas*, lib. III, cap. 7), where he enumerates both the authors and the followers of this opinion, as well as many Greeks and Latins.

The third opinion is that of the Catholic Church, which teaches that by purgatorial fire are purged only those who die pure of all mortal sins, before they have paid the punishments they deserve. But whether venial sins, if any remain, are wiped away at the departure of the soul or at some time following that exit, and in what manner, is not a Catholic dogma but a question for theologians.

It is asked to which opinion Theodoret adhered. It is certainly established that he departed far from Origen; for he follows both Chrysostom and both Gregorys—I mean ^B the Nyssen and the Nazianzen—who condemn Origen's universal restitution, at least as far as it concerns the demons. Furthermore, in his *Reprehension of the Anathematism*, he rejects the *anakyklēsis* of Apollinarius, which has a great affinity with the raving of Origen. Add to this that he was held in hatred by the Origenists themselves, as being vehemently opposed to their dogmas, the chief and as it were fundamental one of which is that feigned restitution.

But whether he also dissented from others, who softened the doctrine of Origen and restricted it to humans alone—and to those who were possessed of the true faith, even if they died in their wickedness—I think cannot be defined, since he never opened his mind on that matter. ^C For the index in the Sirmondian edition appended to his works deceives: for while it promises proof of purgatory, it directs the reader, eager for knowledge, to his Commentaries on the famous passage of the Apostle, I Cor. III, 15: "But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." Theodoret interprets this as the fire by which the world will burn, and which was long ago believed to be going to purge all the defilements of the good. It is true, indeed, that he speaks of the purging of defilements. But when he is dealing with the teacher and the hearers of the Christian law, and says that the teacher indeed teaches rightly, but that some hearers use the doctrine well while others abuse it, and that the former build with gold, silver, and precious stones, but the latter with wood and stubble—that is, that the former prove themselves worthy of reward, but the latter of the punishment of fire—he says: "The teacher, while a part of his hearers will be burned like wood, hay, and stubble, will not suffer punishment, but will be held worthy of salvation, as one who taught ^D rightly."

I acknowledge that this is a difficult passage found in the eleventh book of his *On Curing Greek Affections*, where Theodoret teaches that eternal rewards are promised to believers, and eternal punishments to the unbelieving: for he speaks as if he would have it that eternal punishments are posited only for unbelief, and eternal rewards for every believer; yet not to be acquired by any one except after a suitable purging of sins by fire: this was, as Petavius well notes, the opinion of many of the Fathers. But since he is addressing his discourse to the Greeks—that is, to the infidels whom he is calling to the faith—it can be said that he spoke of faith rather than of works, because it is through faith that one comes to works worthy of reward; yet the passage, which will be adduced in the following chapter, hints at something more in reality.

It does not seem, therefore, that Theodoret can be lauded for either side of the question that is now being debated regarding purgatory; wherefore, neither do those who oppose purgatory deservedly cite him for themselves, nor do those who defend it—at least not 501 as the controversy is now established; for he acknowledged some fire that would even wash away the stain of sins, but not one that would only pay off the debt of punishment left remaining after justification.

But before an end is put to this, three matters of some importance must be set forth. First, how much the Fathers—whom Petavius names and whom we have added, namely Gregory Nazianzen, Nyssen, Ambrose, Jerome, Theodoret, Orosius, and Marius Mercator—depart from Origen. Second, how far they differ from the heretics of our own times. Finally, by what reasons they were induced to arrive at their opinion.

As it concerns the first: Origen gives many parts of his opinion, but three are principal: 1. That spirits, when they were created by God, were all of one nature, and by their merits they became either angels, or demons, or souls. 2. That they do not remain forever in one condition, but are converted from angels to demons, from demons to souls, and from souls again to humans—or indeed to angels or to demons; and to angels, indeed, when they have been purged by fire in the underworld; but to demons, when they have conducted themselves wickedly while clothed in bodies. 5. That there is always an inner propensity in the underworld for good and...

for evil. Whence he used to conclude that no punishments, whether of demons or of men, would last forever; but that all spirits, after the vicissitudes of innumerable ages, would return to God from whom they proceeded and enjoy eternal happiness.

Neither the first part, nor the second, pleased the Fathers whom I have reviewed: but Nazianzen alone followed the third part entirely, while others followed it only in part: for they restricted this to the faithful alone, whom, once they were purified by fire from their sins, they thought to be drawn out of the underworld and received into heaven, while demons and unbelievers are to be left forever in the underworld.

Now, as to how much those Fathers differ from the heretics of our times, anyone can easily judge, even from this one point alone: that they went too far in asserting purgatory, whereas the heretics fall short; for the former admitted no one as they ought, while the latter [the heretics] could seem to hope for some protection for themselves from the Fathers, inasmuch as they extolled the power of faith to such a degree that it seemed to them that no one who had once clothed himself in Christ through faith could perish. But in that very point there is still a vast difference: for, to pass over other things, the heretics, if not all, at least most of them, deny that faith can be lost, whereas the Fathers assert it; and thus the former teach that no one who has once had faith can perish; the latter teach that very many who have apostatized from the true faith undergo eternal punishments.

502 Finally, by what reasons those Fathers were led to their opinion, from their own testimonies, whether those which Petavius brought forth or those which we have produced ^B it is clearly evident. Both passages should be consulted so that this chapter is not filled with superfluous repetitions.

CHAPTER VII.

On the reward of the saints.

Concerning the reward of the saints, which is the happiness of the other life, three main questions have been raised from the earliest times: first, whether the saints, when they first depart from mortal life, if they have been free of all guilt, enjoy happiness; second, whether happiness of this kind is going to be eternal; third, whether the saints will one day see the essence of God itself.

Regarding the first question, Theodoret's mind seems doubtful; for in the earlier part of the *Philotheus* he calls upon them as blessed, whose praises he records in his writings. Chap. 3, concerning Marcianus: "But now, this and that having been left behind (solitude and Cyrus), he migrated to heaven, and the former indeed gave birth to him, but the latter nurtured him and made him a victor, and heaven received him crowned." And afterwards: "As soon as the noble victor has departed from this life, and the chorus of angels ^C has placed his holy and divine soul into the seats which are in heaven." And chap. 10, concerning Theodosius: "From here he departed, and was translated into heaven by the angels." For by the name of heaven, and the heavenly seats, and the assembly of the angels, and in any case those who Christ said behold the face of His Father, [†] the place of beatitude seems to be signified, and beatitude itself as well.

But from the first dialogue, which is called the *Immutabilis*, Petavius objects to Theodoret by saying: "The divine Apostle, since the general resurrection has not yet taken place, and the kingdom of heaven has not yet been given to the faithful, cries out: 'He has raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places with Christ.'" [*] By which words it seems to be intimated that the kingdom of heaven has not yet been given to the faithful, but is reserved for the final day. But what is understood by the name of the kingdom of heaven in the evangelical manner, besides beatitude?

Arguments from neither side prove what they are brought forward for. For it is known that many of the ancient Fathers deferred perfect beatitude until the judgment of the supreme verdict; but that they felt that in the meantime the souls of the saints were contained in certain secret receptacles, as 503 Augustine speaks; 15 yet that they were happy with the certain hope of perfect beatitude, at least compared with mortals. It is also known that such receptacles were located in heaven by some: whence they distinguished between the seat of the heavens, in which the saints rest until the number of the brethren is fulfilled, and the kingdom of heaven, in which the co-heirs of Christ reign. ^D Theodoret was therefore able, following the mind of Chrysostom as he is wont to do, to write what has been adduced, yet without feeling contrary to the opinion that has prevailed in the Church.

Regarding the second question, there is no room for doubt that he thought according to the Catholic faith: for he mentions eternal life when he deals with the reward of the saints, and he mentions the eternal punishments of the damned everywhere. Two passages should be read especially: chap. 20 of the fifth book of the *Haereticarum Fabularum*, and the eleventh sermon *De curandis Graecorum affectionibus*, where these words are to be observed: "But if it is true, as it is true (for it is God's promise), the discipline of divine instruction is not useless. For He promises the kingdom of heaven to believers, and a life that will have no end, and intellectual light, and a society exempt from the body, just as, on the contrary, He threatens eternal punishments to the unbelieving."

Regarding the last question, no sensible man would deny that he followed the ancient Fathers—whom he chose as masters, I speak of Chrysostom and the two Gregories—in judgment, and thus denied that the essence of God itself could be seen by any created mind, and that therefore men and angels are blessed by a certain divine light.

^A Since, he says, we believe the Divine 17, 18 assertions, which clearly affirm that no one has ever seen God, we say that they (the prophets) did not see the divine nature, but certain visions accommodated to their capacity. Thus, therefore, we shall understand regarding the angels, when we hear that they always "see the face of your Father" 8*: for they do not see the divine substance, which can neither be circumscribed nor perceived by the mind, ἀπεριγρόπτον, and which comprehends all things, but a certain form ([species]) accommodated to their nature, ἀλλὰ δόξαν τινὰ τῇ αὐτῶν φύσει συμμετρουμένην. And in the Commentaries on I Cor. chapter xiii, he interprets these words, "We see now through a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face," etc., which it is customary to use especially to establish the Catholic position, in such a way as to deprive them of all their force. "Present things," he says, "are shadows of things to come: for in most holy baptism we see the figure of the resurrection; but then we shall see the very resurrection itself. Here we see the symbols 504 of the Lord's body, but there we shall see the Lord himself: for that is what 'face to face' signifies. We shall see, however, not his nature—which does not fall under sight, and which can be discerned by no one—but that which was assumed from us."

^B The most learned Petavius rightly judged that those among the Scholastics who wish to exclude either comprehension alone or even merely corporeal vision from the words of Chrysostom are not to be heeded; for the reasoning that is taken from nature—and that of God, which is uncreated, and that of men and angels, which is created—is either futile, or it excludes that very vision itself of the kind commonly understood, just as what is said regarding the condescension (συγκατάβασις). This reasoning also infringes upon the force of an answer that someone might use to draw Chrysostom and his disciple Theodoret to the common theological opinion, arguing, namely, that both speak only of travelers [here on earth], of whom it was said by God, "No man shall see me, and live" h; or of those who are indeed blessed, even the angels, but who await the blessed hope, and in the meantime lead a happy life in safety, until the day of supreme judgment arrives, which shall unlock the kingdom of heaven.

505 I, certainly, when I was debating in the schools concerning the vision of God, brought the remarks of the Greek Fathers, and of some Latin ancients who rely on the Greeks, to the scholastic question: whether, in order to elicit a vision of God, there is need of a certain impressed species that might correspond in proportion to that which is sent from bodies into the eyes, so that they may become ready to express what they call the vital species. For I contended that the Greeks called nothing else by the name of condescension (συγκατάβασις) than a species of this kind: for that is both supernatural, and the species—insofar as it is supernatural—lifts up the mind; by which species [God] causes God to remit [part] of his brightness, and to accommodate himself to the human mind, as if descending and lowering himself.

^C I showed in that place, from the immediate conjunction of the divine essence with a created mind—of the kind asserted by certain Scholastics—that all those consequences follow which the Greek Fathers thought impossible. But however matters may stand, Theodoret certainly either thought or spoke just as I have explained.

Chapter VIII. On the veneration of angels.

Into this frame of mind, or form of speech, he was led by his masters, especially by Chrysostom, who in his Commentaries on those words of John, "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" 8, writes thus: "God, as he is in himself, neither the prophets, nor even the angels, nor the archangels have seen." And afterward: "The Son and the Holy Spirit alone see him: for every created nature, how indeed could it see that uncreated one?" And after other things: "But that he himself cannot be seen by the heavenly beings, Paul shows," etc. Subsequently, he poses to himself the objection that Christ said: "Their angels always see the face of your Father who is in heaven" 8*; and he answers that it follows that the essence itself is seen by them, but that this is to be understood in the same way as that other [verse], "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" 8**; where he says there is meant an intuition of the mind, which is tempered to our capacity, and the notion of God which we have: so also in the angels it is to be understood, on account of their pure and wakeful nature, that they propose nothing else to their minds to be seen than God. And in the 3rd oration, on the incomprehensible nature of God, when he was speaking of the seraphim: "They did not look upon," he says, "the light itself in its pure state, nor the substance itself in its sincerity; but that which was seen was a certain accommodation of God, who debases himself, a condescension (συγκατάβασις). But what is condescension (συγκατάβασις), or a 'condescending,' or a self-lowering accommodation? When he does not appear as God is, but as he to whom the opportunity of seeing is granted is able to grasp."

^D This, however, the heretics of our times, when debating about the invocation and worship of the saints, attempt to draw toward some part of their error: for they contend that the worship that is exhibited to the saints is rejected by him—not just to any [saints], for that would be of extreme impudence of a certain kind—but to the holy angels, and especially to the prince of the angels, Michael. They certainly value Theodoret highly in this cause, both because of the celebrity of his name, and because he brings forward two things of great importance—as they think—to the matter which is under discussion: namely, the passage of the Apostle h*, which he explains, and the canon of the Council of Laodicea.

The passage from the Apostle is as follows: *Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.* Regarding these words, Theodoret 20 says: "Those who defended the law were also inducing them to worship angels, saying that the law was given through them. This error remained for a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia. Therefore, the synod which met at Laodicea in Phrygia prohibited by law that angels should be prayed to; and to this day there are to be seen among them and their neighbors oratories of the holy Michael," etc. And afterwards on chapter 2, verse 17: "Since they were ordering others to worship angels, he himself commands the contrary, that both words and deeds should be adorned with the remembrance of Christ the Lord: and he says to offer thanksgiving to God and the Father through Him, not through angels. The Laodicean synod, following this law and wishing to heal that old disease, decreed by law that angels must not be prayed to, nor the Lord our Jesus Christ abandoned."

The law of the Council of Laodicea is canon xxxv, which in Greek stands thus: *That Christians ought not to abandon the Church of God, and go away, and call upon angels, and hold assemblies, which things are forbidden. If any one therefore be found engaged in this secret idolatry, let him be anathema, for he has abandoned our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has turned to idolatry.* ^B There are various interpretations by various men. Dionysius Exiguus: "That it is not right to abandon the Church of God, and go away, and name angels, or hold assemblies, which are known to be forbidden. If anyone therefore be found serving this secret idolatry, let him be anathema, because he abandoned the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and gave himself over to idolatry." Isidorus Mercator: "It is not right for Christians, having abandoned the Church, to go away to one who names angels, and to perform the assemblies of abominable idolatry, all of which are forbidden. Whoever shall be found secretly practicing this idolatry, let him be anathema: because, abandoning our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, he has resorted to idols." Gentianus Hervetus: "That it is not right for Christians, having left the Church of God, to go away, and to name angels, or to hold assemblies, which is forbidden. If anyone therefore be found to be engaged in this secret idolatry, let him be anathema: because he abandoned our Lord Jesus Christ and resorted to idolatry."

Observe first, that "to name" ^C (ὀνομάζειν) is understood by Theodoret as "to pray" (προσεύχεσθαι), even though none of the translators rendered it "to invoke" or "to pray to." Then observe that the prohibitive law mentioned is contained in the passage of the Apostle just cited above. Afterwards, note that the heresy is the same one as that of Theodoret, and of the Council of Laodicea; and likewise that the superstition against which Theodoret and the synod inveigh existed in the first times of the Church, for the Apostle mentions it in the year of Christ 60, writing to the Colossians from Rome.

Hence the heretics seem to conclude for themselves: 1. That Theodoret was of the opinion that he should reject the worship that is shown to angels, both by invocation and by the erection of oratories. 2. That he followed in this the definition of the Laodicean council. 3. That such worship in that age—that is, about the year 320, the time when Baronius thinks the council was held—was considered a species of abominable idolatry. 4. That this idolatry consisted in the fact that, having abandoned Christ the Mediator, others were being called upon as advocates. 5. That men noble in sanctity are not to be worshipped by the faithful, nor are memorials to be raised to them, except for the purpose of imitation, because of the kinship of nature, which, since it does not exist between angels and men, it does not follow that, if the Church worships men, she ought to deem angels worthy of worship.

They can pull into the foundation of their opinion about Theodoret the fact that nowhere else does Theodoret make mention of the worship due to angels, although he everywhere makes mention of the honoring of prophets, apostles, ^D martyrs, etc. For what Bellarmine brings forward from book v of *Heretical Fables*, chapter vii, and chapter x of Daniel, indeed proves that angels know human affairs and promote them by prayers before God, it does not prove that religious worship ought to be paid to angels by men.

Thus, for the most part, do the heretics—to whom it is answered by our side that they are deceived by their own opinion, and do not grasp the meaning of the Apostle, the synod, and Theodoret, on account of a certain malignant prejudice by which they are prohibited from observing more diligently the adjuncts of the testimonies which they bring forth. For from these, the truth of ecclesiastical history could easily be understood, since those things were written, if we believe Epiphanius, Augustine, and Praedestinatus, against a certain execrable impiety, compounded of Judaism, idolatry, and magic, which the Cerinthians in Asia, especially in Pisidia and Phrygia, were disguising under the name of Christian.

It was of Judaism, that they said that circumcision was necessary, [and that] Christ was a mere man, and inferior to the angels, from whom indeed Moses had received the law, and Christ himself had received the power of performing miracles.

It was of idolatry, that they worshipped angels as the creators of the world, and true mediators between God and men.

Finally, it was of magic, that, having invoked the name of angels, they would display certain prodigies.

This sect Cerinthus concocted at the birth of the Church, when he was in Alexandria in Egypt, where with the Jews, the gentiles, and the sorcerers, who were very many in

^A that most populous city, he held meetings and learned from individuals what he would teach upon departing for Asia. Furthermore, the doctrine of such an impious man was enticed first by the feigned humility of the teacher; then by the eulogy of the Mosaic Law; then by an amplification of the incomprehensibility of the divine and inaccessible majesty, which had to be approached through those by whom the Law had been given; afterwards by the depression of Christ beneath the angels; finally by the exaggerated preaching of angelic 508 power.

He taught these impieties, however, craftily and malignantly: for he did not impart them to all at once, nor to everyone rashly, but as he had found each one ready for impiety. He called the faithful away, first from the freedom of the Gospel to the servitude of the Law; then from the synaxes of the Church to nefarious meetings in his own oratories, and to Jewish rites; then from Christ the head to the worship and adoration of angels instead of Christ; finally from the prayers of the Church to the magical invocation of spirits, in whose name prodigious works might be performed.

Besides this infamous discipline, he either feigned many visions—which is more credible—or, having been deluded by a demon, he actually experienced them. Instructed by these, he acted the part of a prophet and an apostle.

The apostle Paul wrote against the Jewish portion of the impious sect; the Synod of Laodicea against the other two: for that impiety which was born in the apostolic times had not been extinguished three hundred years later, at which time the synod convened. Therefore, to the Colossians, whose city in Phrygia was under the metropolis of Laodicea, the Apostle wrote [hcoloss. II, 18, 19./h] the words which I have cited, warning them not to allow themselves to be seduced by Cerinthus, who, by a feigned aspect of humility, and the false worship of angels, desired to seduce them—*dwelling in the humility and worship of angels*, adhering to his own notions or rather figments, and being vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, *intruding into those things which he has not seen*, not holding fast to the Head, Christ, from whom the whole body of the Church, through joints and ligaments, supplied and built up, grows with the growth of God. ^B

The Apostle therefore does not prohibit Christian reverence for angels, but the impious idolatry invented by Cerinthus, by which created spirits were worshipped as if they were the creators of the world and mediators—if one may speak so—immediate between God and men, and powers of magical arts, etc., whereas the same are worshipped by the Church as ministering spirits under Christ, as guardians of men, whose prayers they offer as incense in the sight of God, or as fellow-servants of the saints and those standing before God: but not as mediators, ἄμεσοι, nor as patrons of magic.

^D This, however, the Synod of Laodicea relates more clearly. For when it had forbidden, in canon 34, that any Christian should approach the martyrdoms of heretics, it forbids, in canon 35, what had also been forbidden 509 before by the Apostle, that anyone should likewise approach, having spurned the Church and abandoned Christ, the oratories and synaxes of the Cerinthians, so that he might pursue angels with an impious cult of hidden idolatry, that is to say, worship them as if they were the artificers of the world, and certain supreme powers, and helpers of sorcerers. Wherefore, in canon 36, it orders that clerics who have been either magicians, or enchanters, or astrologers, or makers of amulets be cast out of the Church. By the three subsequent canons, it forbids the faithful from the feasts and festive gifts of the Jews and gentiles. The Synod, therefore, is wonderfully alien to condemning the cult which is exhibited to angels by the Church, since the Church detests entirely the same thing that the synod does.

From these things, it is manifest what is the orthodox sense of Theodoret regarding the cult and invocation of angels: for he speaks of the cult and invocation which are condemned by the Laodicean Synod and the Apostle. The oratories of Michael, therefore, which he says were scattered throughout Pisidia and Phrygia and other neighboring regions to have persisted until his own age were places where the Cerinthians had once held synaxes, but which, after the heresy was extinguished, the piety of the faithful converted to holier uses, as it did with many other things everywhere, whether they were temples of gentiles or of heretics.

There may yet remain to some a scruple concerning Theodoret, as to why, forsooth, he has nowhere in his works taught that the angels are to be invoked: for by that silence he seems to favor the accusation. But the answer is easy: because the necessity of discussing that matter never arose in the works which we possess, and he wrote openly about the saints, which by equal right may pertain to the angels. For he teaches in express words what are the three rights, as it were, of required worship: 1° that they are guardians of men and presiding spirits of the nations; 2° that they know and care for human affairs; 3° that they pour out prayers before God for their clients. These three things, moreover, he teaches partly in Book V of the *Haereticarum fabularum*, and partly in Book X on Daniel.

A question occurs, more curious than necessary, as to why Theodoret, when he holds the same things about the Cerinthians and other heretics as Epiphanius, so that he appears to have written what he committed to letters almost from him, does not nevertheless mention Epiphanius in the Preface to the books concerning the *Haereticarum fabulae*, where he lists the writers from whose monuments he received what was to be written. Must it be said that he lauded only ancient writers, and those removed from his own times? But he lauded Diodorus, who died no more than thirty-three years before Epiphanius. Perhaps he had not read the *Ancoratus* of Epiphanius? How could such a widely circulated work, which was not unknown even to the Latins, as is evident from Augustine, escape a Greek man, one close by, and pre-eminently learned? [SCHULZII NOTAE.]

avoided by one desirous of knowledge? ^A 510 It is my opinion, therefore, that he adopts "humility" to mean a humble action performed on account of a disposition of the soul; for he was a little too hard on Chrysostom, and to Theodoret he was addicted in an incredible manner, wherefore he preferred to remain silent—having been nurtured from his works—than to praise the censors of Chrysostom. Certainly, he was silent about Epiphanius in his Ecclesiastical History, a man otherwise of great name, and a leader or participant in matters of the greatest importance.

Before this question is brought to an end, we must examine what Baronius says: that Theodoret did not grasp the mind of the Apostle when interpreting the second chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, and that through this error he fell into another, by which he wrongly expounded the canon of the Council of Laodicea—not indeed in such a way that he favors heretics, but so that he errs against ecclesiastical history.

Baronius therefore admits, first, that the Apostle in that place is speaking of Cerinthus and the Cerinthians. He admits, then, that by them angels were called the creators of the world, and Christ was called inferior to the angels. He also admits that Cerinthus claimed certain visions had been made to him. He denies, however, that he taught that angels were to be worshipped, and that this is read anywhere. He also denies that oratories in honor of the angels had been built by the Cerinthians, and especially of Michael himself, which were seen in Pisidia in the times of Theodoret, but rather by the faithful on account of the memory of the immense prodigy shown by the prince of the angels at Colossae, of which mention is made in the Menologium on the sixth day of September. Wherefore he contends that the thirty-fourth canon of Laodicea ought not to be understood as referring to the conventicles of heretics, but to the temples of the Gentiles who worship angels or lesser gods.

Thus, therefore, he interprets the place of the Apostle, which he confesses to be very difficult: "Let no one deceive you, wishing to please, in humility (of Christ, that is), since because of the scandal of the cross Cerinthus preached that he was merely a man, rendering him so humble, and in the religion of angels (since, indeed, he boasted that angels were the creators of nature) which he has not seen, etc."

He therefore takes "humility" to mean a humble action by which Cerinthus might belittle Christ. But the Greek word *tapeinophrosunē* does not signify the humiliation and depression brought about by another, but what is done voluntarily and is an action of virtue. Wherefore it ought to be referred to the feigned humility of Cerinthus.

That he says that nowhere does he read that it was said by Cerinthus that angels are to be worshipped appears strange: for it should not have been said, seeing that by the very fact that angels are called the creators of the world, they are also called worthy of adoration, since adoration is worship exhibited to the first principle of life, that is, to the Creator.

511 Nor does it stand in the way that such heretics acknowledged some superior power from which the angels were created. For from that it follows that this [power] would be creative, and not likewise from men whom it had not created.

As for his opinion that the oratories mentioned by Theodoret were not built at first by the Cerinthians for their own impious gatherings, but by the faithful in honor of Saint Michael, this can hardly be persuasive, since it lacks the authority of the ancients, and by his own reasoning alone he cannot lessen the testimony of Theodoret; for it is credible that he received what he wrote from peoples not very removed from him, who were learned in tradition.

But Cerinthus, says Baronius, is so far from admitting that angels are to be worshipped that he said the leader of the Jews, whom he believed to be Michael, was evil. ^C But no one considers that one whom he judges to be evil is to be worshipped. Truly, Baronius brings this forward without the authority of the ancients. For he confuses Cerinthus with Manes. For how could Cerinthus, addicted to Jewish rites, believe that the God of the Jews was evil? Then, whence is it known that Michael was called by Cerinthus the prince of the Jews? And who indeed does not know that by those who posited the two first principles of things, both were worshipped? For what is it to worship, except to acknowledge interiorly him whom you worship to be the first principle, and to testify to this internal sense by exterior signs?

DISSERTATION IV

CRITICAL

ON THE FIFTH GENERAL SYNOD

512 After the history of Theodoret has been constructed, it seems necessary to inquire next about the Fifth Synod, in the instituted censure of works, the discovered supplement of works, and the faith recalled to examination, so that nothing which pertains to Theodoret is left undiscussed, it is worth the effort, since he was condemned, ^D to proceed.

SCHULZ'S NOTES. ** Regarding the same synod, there exists another dissertation by Garnerius after his commentary on the Breviary of Liberatus.

DISS. IV CRITICA: ON THE FIFTH GENERAL SYNOD

The method of investigation seems suitable if the matters to be expounded are reduced to six headings. For when Justinian had first proscribed the renowned Three Chapters, which gave cause for the fifth synod, and afterward wished them to be condemned by all the patriarchs, yet had not obtained this—which he most ardently desired—from Pope Vigilius, just as he had from his own Orientals, he deemed it necessary to summon an ecumenical synod, which, serving his will, would accomplish by ecclesiastical authority, even against the will of Vigilius, what he had previously attempted by imperial authority.

The emperor had arrived at proscribing the Three Chapters by edict, induced by the arts of those who grieved that Origen had previously been condemned by edict and who wished to pay back like for like to the authors of the condemnation, so that they might in turn cause grief to their rivals, who were ^A in favor with the prince and were patrons of the Three Chapters. Thus they created trouble for one another: Theodorus for Origen, Pelagius for the defenders of the Three Chapters; for Justinian had condemned Origen at the urging of Pelagius, who had drawn Menna, bishop of the royal city, into his party. Pelagius, however, when he was returning to Constantinople from Gaza, after Paul had been deposed from the Alexandrian see and Zoilus substituted, brought with him from Palestine monks hostile to Theodorus, who might present petitions against Origen that would be most agreeable to Justinian: for he was eager to manage ecclesiastical affairs, having left political ones to his wife.

Neither the emperor’s edict, by which Origen is condemned, nor that by which the Three Chapters are condemned, has any temporal date inscribed upon it; whence it is not sufficiently certain, among dissenting writers, when each was issued. That, however, is a thing worth knowing, for it contributes not a little to ecclesiastical history. Wherefore I consider it necessary to inquire at what time the emperor first condemned Origen, and then the Three Chapters. But from that point, three connected matters must be discussed simultaneously: on the council of Menna against the Origenists, on the council of the same against the Three Chapters, and on Origen himself, whether he was truly condemned in the fifth synod—that is, on the dispute that exercised the learned Halloix and some recent writer. To these four heads, two seem to be added: the one, in which observations on the individual sessions of the synod are contained; the other, on the approval of the same synod by the supreme pontiffs.

CHAPTER ONE

On the time when the Emperor Justinian issued a sanction against Origen.

Liberatus relates, in chapter 23, that Pelagius, ^B deacon of the Roman Church and apocrisiarius of the Apostolic See, when he was returning to Constantinople from the ordination of Zoilus, bishop of the Alexandrian Church, brought with him monks who were to present to the emperor excerpts from the books of Origen, and at the same time petitions in which they demanded that the opinions, along with their author, be condemned. He likewise reports that these petitions were readily accepted by Justinian, with the support of Pelagius and Menna, the prelate of the royal city, who was jealous of Theodorus, the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. He adds that what the monks requested followed: an edict of condemnation, and that it was sent to the patriarchs and received by the subscription of all.

From this narrative it is clear that the time of the edict against Origen can be discovered no better than from the year in which Zoilus, after Paul was deposed from the Alexandrian see, was substituted. Baronius thinks he was substituted before the year 537; Panvinius, six years later. Noble men of learning agree with Baronius; a certain recent dissertator with Panvinius. On both sides are adduced the force of reasons which, to their authors, do not seem slight; to weigh each one is neither a task of small labor nor entirely necessary.

For I do not think one should listen to Baronius, nor to Panvinius: for the former places the ordination of Zoilus sooner than is proper, the latter, later. Wherefore, a middle path seems to me to be held, and it should be said that Zoilus was appointed to the Church of Alexandria not in the year 537, which Baronius wants, nor in 543, which Panvinius wants, nor 544, as a recent dissertator says somewhere; but in the year 540 or perhaps 539. These three things I thus demonstrate:

^C 514 And first, indeed, against Baronius. Zoilus was substituted in the place of Paul the Tabennesiote, who sat for two years at Alexandria: Paul took the see of the deposed Theodosius after he had presided over the Alexandrian Church for one year and four months. Theodosius began to sit alone after the expulsion of Gaianus, who was bishop at Alexandria for three months and some days. Theodosius and Gaianus succeeded Timotheus Asterius, who is said to have sat for seventeen years: he succeeded the younger Dioscorus at the end of the year 519, as is gathered from the letter of Pope Hormisdas 54. If, therefore, Timotheus sat for 17 years from the year 519, he must have died in the year 536; to which number add the times of Theodosius and Paul, which are about four years: it is necessary that Zoilus was not ordained before the year 539 or 540.

Against Panvinius and the dissertator, the same argument may be used. For the ordination of Zoilus cannot be deferred beyond the year 540, unless either the number of years during which each of the aforementioned bishops sat is increased; or the ordination of Timotheus is deferred long beyond the year 521; or the Alexandrian see is said to have been vacant for some time. And yet, the number of years during which each bishop sat cannot be increased. ^D

unless this is explicitly contradicted by the authority of those very persons with whom we are dealing; nor can it be said that the Alexandrian see was vacant. For when? Certainly not before the ordination of Zoilus: since Paul was deposed by the same judges, in the same Council of Gaza, and Zoilus was substituted. Not before the ordination of Paul: for he was appointed at Constantinople in the place of Theodosius, who had arrived at the royal city and stubbornly refused to accept the Council of Chalcedon. Not after the death of Timothy: for Gaianus and Theodosius were elected by their own factions while the body of Timothy was not yet buried. Not after the death of Dioscorus the Younger and before the ordination of Timothy: for the custom of the Alexandrian Church does not permit this to be said, since, unless something unusual occurred, the bishop-elect kept watch at the body of his deceased predecessor, as Liberatus reports in chapter xx. If, however, anything unusual had occurred at that time, none of the writers would have remained silent. Nor ^A can the ordination of Timothy be deferred beyond the year 521, or indeed to the year 521, as the dissertator attempted—so as not to abandon Panvinius’s argument. For Severus fled from Antioch to Alexandria in the year 519, as Evagrius reports; he was received at Alexandria by Timothy, who, at the time when Severus fled, having already buried Dioscorus the Younger, had undertaken the pontificate of the Alexandrian Church. These are the words of Liberatus.

515 The dissertator puts forward this passage of Theophanes to defend himself: “Having received that news, Severus fled, and likewise Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus, and they journeyed into Egypt, while Dioscorus was still administering the Alexandrian bishopric,” etc. But one may marvel, and not without reason, that testimony which is openly flawed is brought forward by a man who aspires to be considered learned; for, first, Liberatus, who is far more worthy of belief as he writes of the events of his own time, while Theophanes writes of events removed by two centuries, contradicts Theophanes; furthermore, the dissertator allowed himself to be imposed upon by an interpreter who distorted the text of Theophanes, not only by adding the word "still," to which there is no equivalent in the Greek, but also by referring the phrase "while Dioscorus was still administering the Alexandrian bishopric" to the wrong person. For after Theophanes said that Vitalian had such authority that he ordered Severus to be expelled and killed, he proceeds in Greek thus: *Ὁ δὲ Σευήρος ἀκούσας ἔφυγεν, καὶ Ἰουλιανός Ἁλικαρνάσσου ἐπίσκοπος, καὶ εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἀπελθόντες ταύτην ἐτάραξαν, τὸν περὶ φθαρτοῦ καὶ ἀφθάρτου λόγον κινήσαντες, Διοσκόρου ἐπισκοποῦντος Ἀλεξανδρείας.* That is: When Severus heard this, he fled, as did Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus, and after they arrived in Egypt, they stirred it up, moving the discussion about the corruptible and incorruptible, while Dioscorus held the bishopric of Alexandria.

From these things, anyone who is not unlearned can detect three ^B errors in Theophanes, on account of which his credibility is deservedly diminished. 1st: He joins the flight of both bishops, even though Julian preceded Severus. 2nd: He states that the questions about the corruptible and incorruptible occurred in the times of Dioscorus, whereas Liberatus records in express terms that this occurred under Timothy, and everyone else agrees with Liberatus. 3rd: He places the third year of Dioscorus alongside the second year of Justin in the same list, by which method he indicates that the third and final year of Dioscorus fell in the year of Christ 519, when that was the second year of Justin. Why, it might seem to someone that something was omitted in the Greek, and that it should be read: *Διοσκόρου οὐκ ἔτι ἐπισκοποῦντος*. But how a benign interpretation can nevertheless be applied to the words of Theophanes, while retaining the text, will be shown later; but at the same time, the vain effort of the dissertator will be overturned.

Now, however, the fact that the same dissertator asserts that the beginning of Timothy’s episcopate is recorded by Theophanes in the third year of Justin, namely 521, does not help his case at all: for what he asserts is meant to be understood either from the text of Theophanes or from the list. If from the text of Theophanes, it is completely false, for there is not in the text even one word that mentions either the death of Dioscorus or the beginning of Timothy’s episcopate. If from the list or canon, it is indeed true what is asserted about Timothy; but 516 I wonder how it escapes a man, who is himself, as he says, industrious and diligent, the learned note of the interpreter concerning the defects of such lists, which are obvious to everyone, and because of which they not only carry almost no weight unless they are supported from elsewhere, but also undermine themselves entirely if they contradict the text—as they do, in fact, manifestively in this part. For by what logic could Theophanes, when he refers the first year of Dioscorus to the last year of Anastasius and attributes to him no more than three years of his see, extend the time of the see to the year 521? ^C The dissertator saw this difficulty and feigned, in order to extricate himself, that some months should be added to the years of Dioscorus, by which it might be said he reached the year 521. But while he consults his own interests with this evasion, he does not notice that by that fiction he undermines the credibility of the lists, in which only the third year of Dioscorus is mentioned, whereas it would have been the fifth or at least the fourth, if his see had indeed pertained to other years.

But the dissertator finds it advantageous for the time being to compare [his argument] with Theophanes, so that he may either retract the faith placed in Theophanes, or be convicted of falsehood by the very person whose testimony he brings forward. The dissertator says Zoilus was ordained in the year 544, page 47, last line; from there it follows that the first year of Zoilus coincides with the eighteenth of Justinian, and the deposition of Zoilus happened in [the year 549, and] he joins the first year of Zoilus with the sixteenth of Justinian, and the deposition with the twenty-third, which is the year of Christ 549, in which year Theophanes places the entry of Apollinaris, who succeeded Zoilus. Since these opinions have been overturned, it is clear that Zoilus was ordained...

^A around the year 540; for the younger Dioscorus died at the end of the year 519. Timothy Asterius, the successor of Dioscorus, died in the year 536. Theodosius, who replaced Timothy, was deposed around the year 538. Paul, the successor of Theodosius, was also deposed after two years in the see. Therefore, Zoilus was ordained around the year 540.

Victor of Tunnuna, who seems to refer the ordination of Zoilus to the consulship of Basilius (which occurred in the year 541), appears to deviate not far from this opinion. For he has it thus: “In the consulship of Basilius II, when Agapetus, the Roman archbishop, died in Constantinople, Silverius was ordained bishop in his place. 30 In the Alexandrian Church, however, Theodosius and Gaius having been exiled, Paul, the father of the Tabennesiote monks, was ordained by the defenders of the Council of Chalcedon; but, celebrating the deposition of his heretical predecessor Dioscorus, he was deposed by the Palestinian council, and Zoilus was ordained bishop in his place.” But, to speak candidly, the testimony of Victor is of no great moment, since nothing is more perverse than this Chronicle, especially regarding these times. For first, under the consulship of Basilius, that is, in the year 541, he places the ordination of Zoilus and Silverius, 517 [sic] though it is more certain than certain that Silverius was ordained in the year 536. Then he places the exile of Silverius in the following year, 542; yet Silverius undoubtedly died on June 20, 538. Furthermore, while he joins the ordination of Pope Agapetus and the death of Timothy Asterius under one and the same year—a conjunction which is not far from the truth—he nevertheless refers both to the consulship of John, that is, to the year 538, which is most absurd: both because Agapetus succeeded John II on May 3, 535; and because Timothy departed this life in 536. Finally, he brings the unbearable anachronism of Agapetus’s entry into Constantinople, the deposition of Anthimus, and the ordination of Mennas, under the consulship of Justin, which is the year 540. For Mennas, after the death of Agapetus—by whom he had been substituted in place of the deposed Anthimus—held a synod in the royal city in the year 536 against Anthimus: which is established by the most certain Acts.

Theophanes, likewise, is not far from this opinion, as he grants Zoilus seven years of episcopate, and first joins it with the fifth year of Vigilius: by this arrangement, he would seem to show that Zoilus was ordained in 541. For the fifth year of Vigilius falls in this year. However, I do not think this testimony should be valued any higher than what Victor said; yet both were not to be omitted, because they are worth much against those who importunately abuse the authority of either chronicler.

I think one thing can be objected, which might cause difficulty: if faith is not withdrawn from Theophanes regarding the years during which Zoilus sat. For Victor of Tunnuna ^B indicates not just that Zoilus was deposed in the year 551, but Pope Vigilius also shows this in his sentence of condemnation passed against Theodorus of Cappadocia. For if the matter is so, Zoilus must have been ordained in the year 544, if he indeed held the Alexandrian see for seven years, as Theophanes and Nicephorus of Constantinople report. But since the authority of Theophanes and Nicephorus is one and the same, as was demonstrated in the preface to the Breviarium of Liberatus; and since no faith is due to Nicephorus on this point, as his calculation contains a manifest fault, there is no reason why this objection should deter us from the truth. That Nicephorus’s calculation is faulty is evident from this: between the death of John Machiota, which occurred at the beginning of the year 517, and the deposition of Zoilus, which occurred at the end of the month of July in the year 551, there are counted almost 35 years, calculating both extremes, because of the beginning of the one and the end of the other. From these years, by the constant opinion of all, three are attributed to the younger Dioscorus, seventeen to Timothy Asterius, two at most to Gaius and Theodosius together, and two 518 [sic] likewise ^C to Paul, along with some months, specifically those that elapsed between his expulsion from Alexandria and Gaza and the deposition which took place at Gaza. Wherefore, there remain almost eleven years, which are certainly to be attributed to no one else but Zoilus; yet only seven are attributed to him by Nicephorus: it is therefore open that there is a fault in Nicephorus in calculating the years of Zoilus.

Furthermore, regarding what I said, that some months elapsed between the expulsion of Paul from the city of Alexandria and his deposition at the council of Gaza, this is proved by the fact that a report about the expulsion was sent from Egypt to Constantinople; and thence, by the prince’s command, Pelagius was sent, who met with the bishop of Antioch and Jerusalem on the way, and led him with him to Gaza for judgment: which things, without doubt, do not happen without a suitable stretch of time, whether because of the distance of the places or the condition of the persons involved.

But hence our opinion concerning the time of Zoilus’s ordination is confirmed: for if he presided over the Alexandrian Church for eleven years, he was certainly ordained in July of the year 540: for he was deposed in July of the year 551; and it is not credible that the sentence of Vigilius against Theodorus of Caesarea was delayed long after the deposition of Zoilus and other wicked deeds committed at the same time; for everyone was boiling with the heat of spirits, nor was it fitting to apply slow remedies to such great and exacerbated evils. Since, therefore, the condemnation of Theodorus was signed on the 19th of the Kalends of September, and a mention is made in it of an excommunication passed against Theodorus thirty days prior, it is probable, if not certain, that this was done by Theodorus at the beginning of July, regarding which Vigilius complains in these words: “In the Placidiana palace, with the bishops of the Greek or Latin parties who were present in the Royal City, and with the presbyters and deacons of Constantinople... ^D

you gathered; and there, under the protest of great outcry, both we and our brother the bishop of Milan forbade that any of you, with fraternity despised, should give assent to the prevarication of the common resolution. But you, with the authority of the apostolic see—which through us forbade it—being held in contempt, proceeded to the church where the edicts themselves were posted, and drawing the rest with you, there, with other prevarications added, you celebrated the solemnities of the Mass; and as if it were nothing to you to have despised the prelate of the first see who was present and contradicting, you even removed from the diptychs the name of the pontiff of the Church of Alexandria, our brother Zoilus, whose name had been communicated to you up to the day mentioned, and joined to yourselves a certain pervert, Apollinarius, an adulterer of that very Church, so that your iniquity might be made manifest, not only in removing a most holy priest, but also in receiving a pervert. We pass over in silence other things which on the same day are proven to have been perpetrated by you in injury to the apostolic see and the canons, lest, becoming detained by an enumeration of the faults of which you are shown to be the inventor, we postpone for too long what is incumbent upon you. And although thirty days ago, for your above-mentioned excesses, we had removed you from the association of apostolic communion, etc.

^B From these things, which have hitherto been shown concerning the ordination of Zoilus, it is easy to conclude in what year Justinian wrote his edict against Origen. For when Pelagius, after the ordination of Zoilus, was returning from Palestine, he fell in with monks who were carrying to the Royal City excerpts from the books of Origen, together with petitions and complaints. Wherefore, if we allow for about one year, whether for the return or for the preparing and completing of the entire business, which is likely, it will be said that Justinian composed his book and published it to the public around the year 541.

At which time the world could have been amazed, or rather indignant, that the emperor, having turned his sword into a pen, wished to be heard as a theologian, and to deal with matters of faith with monks and presbyters, and to have books provided for him, while his wife Theodora ruled the world and waged wars through her generals in almost every part of the earth.

Sed it is helpful to observe something about the author of the edict and the monks who were the informers for the petitions. There are some who think the edict was written by Pelagius the deacon; there are others who think it was written by the accusing monks themselves; nor are those wanting who attribute it to both—the form, for instance, to Pelagius, and the matter to these monks, as they were learned from long controversies with the party of Origen. I, for my part, would believe that the style was provided by Mennas, for it does not differ much from that in which the acts of Mennas against Anthimus were written.

The monks whom I have mentioned, and whom Evagrius calls by name while he recounts what was done in the fifth synod, appear, and not without detriment to history, to be intermingled with the Acts in the council which, by command of the emperor, Mennas convened in the Royal City against Origen, as will presently be said. But first, two questions concerning Zoilus must be resolved: the one, whether he was truly deposed, or whether he ceded the see to Apollinarius through death; the other, if he was deposed, what was the cause of the deposition?

That he was deposed is maintained by two Africans, Liberatus and Victor Tonnennensis, and by the supreme pontiff Vigilius, though the former state it openly, and the latter somewhat more obscurely. For he has this in his sentence against Theodore of Cappadocia: "You have joined to yourselves a certain pervert, Apollinarius, and an adulterer of that very Church, so that your iniquity might be made manifest, not only in removing a most holy priest, but also in receiving a pervert." Here someone might cavil and say that it is inferred from this that Zoilus's name was indeed erased from the sacred records at that time, and that of Apollinarius was inscribed, but that Zoilus himself was not deposed. But the word "adulterer" removes any place for caviling: for he is an adulterer who receives the church of an living bishop.

Evagrius, who completed his history in the fortieth year after the fifth synod, may be seen (Book IV, ch. 36) to contradict the African writers and to write that Zoilus did not cede the Alexandrian chair to Apollinarius through deposition, but through death. For when he recounts the bishops who held the greater thrones in the time of Eutychius of Constantinople, he writes thus: "After the expulsion of Theodosius, as has been recounted before, Zoilus is declared bishop of the Alexandrians, and, upon his being added to those who had led the way for him, Apollinarius is entrusted with the chair." Nicephorus emended Evagrius by adding these words: "ou meta mikron tois auton," etc. Valesius thought both should be corrected, [by writing] "ou kai tois auton" (Alexandrian), etc., thinking that it could not be said in Greek "auton hegesamenois," although lexicographers relate that it is joined by Homer and others with the verb *hegeomai* in the accusative case. Christophorsonus translates the words of Evagrius in this manner: "Theodosius, however, as has been demonstrated above, having been driven out, Zoilus was declared bishop of Alexandria, upon whose death, Apollinarius takes over that see." Valesius, however: "Alexandria, however, Theodosius being driven out as related above, Zoilus was promoted to the episcopacy, who, upon being added to his predecessors, Apollinarius took up the governing of that see." We [render it] a little differently: "After the deposition of Theodosius, as was said before, Zoilus is created bishop of the Church of Alexandria, upon his being placed (or added) to his predecessors, Apollinarius occupies the chair of Alexandria."

These words, "and to those who had led the way for him," etc., can be understood both in the manner of Scripture and as applied to history. If in the manner of Scripture, they signify death.

if more subtly, as applied to history, they could indicate something ^A else, namely, that Zoilus, just like his predecessors Theodosius, Gaianus, and Paulus, had been cast from his see. Christophorson and Valesius have interpreted them in the scriptural manner, and quite probably so: he who understands them in the other sense will easily bring Evagrius into agreement with the remaining writers, which is better and even more probable.

Since, therefore, it is established by the concordant testimony of the ancients that Zoilus was deposed from the episcopate, there will be some who believe that, for the purpose of understanding the matters of the Fifth Synod, this single point is all that is necessary to know, and that to inquire into the cause for which he was deposed is a matter of intemperate curiosity; however, this inquiry, in my opinion, is completely free of fault. For to know this pertains both to ecclesiastical history and perhaps contributes not a little to the recording of the proper order of events.

Victor of Tunnuna has this to say regarding the eleventh post-consulate of Basilius, as he himself numbers it, although others call it the tenth: "Reparatus, Archbishop of the Church of Carthage, and Primasius, Primate of the bishops of Numidia, 521 and Verecundus, bishops of the Byzacene council, are summoned to the royal city by the order of the same prince for the sake of the cause of the faith. Apollinarius is substituted for Zoilus, who was unwilling to condemn the three chapters mentioned, as bishop of the Church of Alexandria." ^B

Therefore, he thinks that Zoilus was deposed because he refused to obey the emperor, who was ordering the three chapters to be condemned. But if this is so, it behooves him, after he had been rebuked by Pope Vigilius for the edict of Justinian that he had signed, to have performed penance and retracted his action by a public profession: for immediately after the edict was sent by Justinian, he himself, together with Mennas, the bishop of the royal city, had consented in writing to the condemnation of the three chapters; however, both did so with this reservation: provided that the pontiff of the First See approved the condemnation; for they knew it was religious to anticipate the judgment of the supreme pontiff in a cause of the faith. If this was the cause, and Zoilus held fast to the head of the Church, he could deservedly have been considered among the confessors; yet I am amazed why, after this, he is not reported to have suffered either with Vigilius or with the Africans: why Vigilius, when he complains that his name was expunged from the diptychs, and that he himself was even ejected from his see, does not mention so honorable ^C a cause—at least as it could have appeared at that time: why, besides Victor, none of the ancients asserts such a thing; why Victor himself did not count the prelate of such a great Church among the confessors, a man so hostile to the Acephali, whom the Africans hated to the death.

Procopius, certainly, in the *Secret History*, ch. 27, narrates that Paulus, some time after he was ejected, came to Constantinople and offered a huge sum of money to the emperor, so that with this price he might redeem his lost see; that the emperor accepted the seven hundred centenaria offered—so great was the money—and gave Paulus hope of obtaining his desires, having, of course, retracted the judgment of Gaza: but that Pope Vigilius stood in the way, so that the sentence might not be rescinded by the apocrisiarius Pelagius in his own name.

From this narration of Procopius, and at the same time from the words of Vigilius condemning Theodorus of Cappadocia, one may conjecture: 1. That Zoilus yielded his see to Apollinarius not by death, but by deposition; otherwise the pontiff would not have called Apollinarius an adulterer. 2. That he was thrust out not because he defended the three chapters: for why would the pontiff not have raised that point? But because it was said that he was wrongfully substituted into the place of Paulus, who had been deposed unjustly. 3. That the prince made this a pretext for the cause, in order to pay off the faith ransomed by gold. 4. That Vigilius intervened and wished the judgment of Gaza to be deemed valid. 5. That the emperor, since he could not obtain from the pontiff that Paulus might be restored, wished Apollinarius to be the Alexandrian bishop in place of Zoilus, so that he himself would not have lost the whole cause, nor would the pontiff appear to have remained supreme in all respects. 6. ^D That Vigilius said nothing about the gold, so as not to enrage the mind of the emperor, and rather conceded something to him, so that he might be softened: for he soon recognized Apollinarius, 522 as one of the patriarchs. 7. That the pontiff was not very anxious about retaining Zoilus, since he did not value him highly, on account of his versatile and unstable character [alt-version omitted]—a man whom he therefore called an incompetent priest, most simple and inept for conducting affairs.

CHAPTER II. On the Council of Constantinople, which Mennas convened, at the order of Justinian, in the case of Origen and the Origenists.

Concerning the monks who were mentioned in the previous chapter, Evagrius has this in Book 4, ch. 38, from the version of Christophorson: "But after the petitions were offered to the council by the monks Eulogius, Conon, Cyriacus, and Pancratius against the dogmas of Origen Adamantius, and those who followed his impiety and error, Justinian asked the assembled council what it determined concerning these matters: he adds to the same also a copy of one of the petitions; and indeed also letters of Vigilius written regarding the same matters. From which it can be observed how much labor had been expended by Origen in order to re-sow the simple doctrine of the apostolic dogmas with the tares of the pagans and Manichaeans." To this it is helpful to observe the things mentioned, four in number, and to inquire more diligently into them. And first, indeed, what that council was to which the petitions of the monks were offered; then, the copy of whose petition, together with the monks' petitions, was offered; afterwards, what Justinian asked of the synod; and finally, what letters were written by Vigilius regarding the same matters: for each thing is worth the effort to elucidate.

* As it pertains to the first, the council of which mention is made is that very one which, at the order of the emperor, Mennas convened from the bishops found in the Royal City. "When we wish," says the emperor, "to propel every scandal from the most holy Church, so that no stain may remain in it, being obedient to the divine Scriptures and the holy Fathers, who [themselves] Origen...

and his wicked and impious doctrine of such a kind, have overthrown and by law subjected to anathema, we have given this epistle to your beatitude, by which we exhort you to hold a convention of the most holy bishops who are now staying in this royal city, and of the most God-beloved prefects of the monasteries which are here; and to cause that all might, in writing, anathematize in every way the aforementioned impious and God-opposing Origen, who is also Adamantius, and who was a priest of the most holy Church of Alexandria, and all his nefarious and impious dogmas and chapters, which are set forth below; and that you send copies of those things which shall have been transacted by your beatitude for this cause to all other most holy bishops and prefects of venerable monasteries: so that they, too, by their own subscription, may anathematize Origen and his wicked dogmas, along with all those who shall be declared heretics." ^B

Next, that one book, whose exemplar is said to have been offered to the synod, does not seem different from the edict of the emperor against the Origenists. For the edict has the weight and form of a book, and it contains those things which Justinian wished to be called into examination by the bishops, or rather to be approved by servile subscription without examination. Moreover, the emperor calls his edict by the name of an epistle, which he does according to the custom of the ancients: for the sanctions of princes, as we have noted in Dissert. III to the first part of the Works of M. Mercator, when they were directed to bishops, out of reverence for the priesthood, were inscribed as epistles rather than by any other name by which the power of the one ruling might be displayed. ^C

Regarding the third point, the inquiry of Justinian to the synod, which Evagrius mentions, does not differ from the letter of the emperor Justinian to the holy Council of Constantinople concerning Origen and his followers, which has been translated from the history of Cedrenus into the appendix of the Fifth Synod. For in them, after a brief preface, the emperor thus speaks: "Since, therefore, we have discovered that there are certain persons in Jerusalem, namely monks, who follow and teach the impious errors of Pythagoras, Plato, and Origen Adamantius; we have deemed that care and inquiry should be applied to them, lest they eventually ruin many with their pagan and Manichaean impostures: for they say," etc. ^D

And at the end: "Therefore, on account of these nefarious and pernicious opinions, or rather follies, we exhort you, O most holy Fathers, that, gathered into one, you diligently read through the underlying exposition, and condemn and anathematize its individual chapters, along with Origen and all who think or shall think the same sentiments, to the end."

Finally, the letters of Vigilius written about the same matters, and brought to the synod, are nothing other than the response of the pontiff to the petition or epistle of the emperor concerning Origen and his followers. For the writing from Justinian to Vigilius was prior to that to Mennas, or certainly to both at once, it is evident from these words of the sacred letter to Mennas: "This same letter [is sent] not only to your holiness, but also to the most holy and blessed pope of elder Rome and patriarch Vigilius, and to all the other most holy bishops and patriarchs, that is, of Alexandria, Theopolis, and Jerusalem, so that they too may look to this matter, and that these things may reach an end." That the pontiff did indeed respond, and indeed according to the mind of the emperor, there is no doubt, with Pelagius, the apocrisiarius of Vigilius and the architect of the whole affair, procuring the response. Furthermore, that synodical response of Vigilius perished, not without detriment to ecclesiastical affairs, nor, as far as I know, has its memory remained anywhere, except in the places cited by me just now.

I have said "synodical": for who could prudently doubt whether Vigilius held a council at Rome, from which he might respond to the emperor? Since this was a question of great moment and of faith; and at that early time, pontiffs did not respond to queries of this kind, except by means of synods. Luke Holstenius noted this with erudition in his notes to the Roman synod of Boniface, and we have explained it in Dissert. II to the first part of the Works of M. Mercator.

That synod of Vigilius was indeed one that could be convoked from the bishops gathering for the birthday of the pontiff on the 28th of June. For it is credible that the sanction concerning Origen around the feast of Easter in the year 541 was written, or at least published, by Justinian, and sent in haste to Rome, so that, once the synodical responses were received from there, the subscription might be made more easily in Constantinople in a greater frequency of bishops, and be increased with greater authority.

Regarding the point I have asserted, that the letters which were related to the synod were not from the emperor to Vigilius, but from Vigilius to the emperor, I think I have grasped the mind of Evagrius, which Christophorsonus expressed: for he reads in Evagrius: "Ατὰρ καὶ τὰ πρὸς Βιγίλιον περὶ τούτων ἐπεσταλμένα." But the new interpreter [reads]: "Ατὰρ καὶ τὰ πρὸς Βιγίλιον ἐπεσταλμένα." But it is more consistent with reason that those things were reported which were sent back by Vigilius to the emperor, rather than those which were sent to Vigilius by the emperor: since there was no reason why the latter should be reported; but there was very much reason why the former should be. The emperor had indeed written the same things to Vigilius and to Mennas; but the writings to Mennas, according to custom, had to be read aloud in council, since they contained the mandate for holding it: but since a cause of faith was being handled, which is the chief concern among major matters, there was a need for the response of the Apostolic See to be reported, since from that See, as from a fountain, the pure waters of doctrine ought to be sought, which might healthfully irrigate the Church.

When Justinian understood this, and at the same time knew that, although a dual power by which the Church is ruled—sacerdotal and royal—has been constituted by God; yet the functions of each are so divided, that it is the duty of the one to teach the faithful and to condemn heretics; and of the other to give support to those who teach.

^A Since the emperor understood, I repeat, that the Apostolic See must be consulted whenever the cause of the faith and some greater matter is under discussion, he deemed it right that the book he had composed against Origen, and the anathemas he had drawn up against the dogmas of Origen, should be fortified by the authority that is appropriate; and therefore he thought that both a definition from the Apostolic See and an approval from the councils of the dioceses should be sought.

He sent, therefore, to Rome to Pope Vigilius the book, from whom, once he had received a synodical response, he then saw to it that the council, which he had long ago ordered to be held at Constantinople—and which, I believe, Mennas had postponed until he should know the judgment of the First See in a matter of such great moment—should be given its beginning. This seems to have happened toward the end of the year 541.

It is difficult to track the memory of this council, because from the times of Evagrius, that is, from the year 593, it has been confused with the Fifth Synod, as four councils were gathered into one codex, of which Mennas presided over three particular ones, and Eutychius over the one œcumenical one; and the whole collection was named the Fifth Synod. Nor is this a vain or rash conjecture, but a probable opinion, to which three things add weight. 1° Up to our own age, or at least that of our parents, the very synod celebrated by Mennas five years earlier, against Anthimus, Severus, Peter, and Zoaras, is inscribed by the name of the Fifth Synod in the Collections of Councils by Merlin, Crabb, and Surius. 2° The faith of Justinian, that is, the three edicts of Justinian regarding the faith collected into one, and each corresponding to individual councils, seem to have provided the occasion for binding three councils into one volume as well, as if they were three pillars of the Justinian faith. 3° Once that hypothesis is admitted, all that has been handed down by the ancients concerning the Fifth Synod is easily reconciled and understood; things which otherwise clash, or at least are so entangled, that learned men have been unable to extricate themselves from them without asserting that the Acts of the Fifth Synod were mutilated and corrupted by the Origenists. But more of these later.

The place of the council was the royal city, Constantinople; the president was Mennas; the number of bishops is unknown, though not small—for when was the court of the kings, especially that of Justinian, lacking a throng of bishops? Certainly, as gathered from Liberatus, Pelagius, deacon of the Roman Church, was present, and indeed he strenuously promoted the matter, both for his own sake and for the cause of the faith. Theodorus Cappadox was not present, even though he was at court: with what countenance could a prelate who was first after the patriarchs have borne the blasphemies directed at him in his presence by the monks? Likewise, I believe, Domitianus, bishop of Ancyra, was absent, although he was staying in Constantinople, on account of the cause shared with Theodorus; both, however, as they were humbly serving the prince, subscribed to the edict, and condemned Origen in appearance. But Theodorus, ^B more prudent in courtly arts, while condemning Origen, kept his pain in his bosom; Domitianus, as we know from Facundus, lib. iv, c. 4, complained before Vigilius that, under the name of Origen, the Fathers, whether those who had preceded Origen or those who followed, had been struck with a formal anathema by the synod.

It is reasonable to believe that the beginning of the council was made, as is customary, by the reading of the Sacred [Scripture], which George Cedrenus accepted from ancient monuments and inserted into his history: although he is deceived in that he believed it was directed to the Fathers of the Fifth Universal Synod: yet the cause of the deception is amazing, since he could have understood from the end of it the [text] sent to the council of Mennas, with which we are dealing, and at the same time could have unlearned ^C the error carried down popularly 526 for four centuries to his own age. For thus it is held in that place: ‘Because of these therefore wicked and pernicious opinions, or rather follies, we exhort you, O most holy Fathers gathered together, that you diligently read the subject exposition, ἐπιμελῶς ἐντυχεῖν τῇ ὑποταγμένῃ ἐκθέσει, and condemn its individual chapters, and anathematize along with Origen all who feel or shall feel the same to the end.’

These words, if anyone should judge by the eyes alone, who would doubt that they were written to those to whom the epistle given to Mennas pertained, and to whom the defloratio of the Origenian ἐκθέσεων was joined? The subject matter, which the writers relate was one treated in the council, the Imperial Sacred [text] contains: namely, the opinion of Origen concerning the pre-existence of souls, and the future restoration of the demons themselves one day: although there are twenty-four chapters subjoined to the emperor’s tract, offered by the monks, which pertain to other things as well: but the two I have mentioned were the most renowned, because of the riots that arose from them.

Nothing of this council survives, beyond fragments, both of the synodical [letter] to Justinian, and of excerpts from the books of the Origenists. It is useful to present them now from Evagrius: for they hold a certain place of the Acts, and reveal the error of Evagrius, who does not narrate the matter in its proper time. Thus he, lib. iv, cap. 38: ‘The report was therefore sent from the aforesaid synod to Justinian, after the acclamations which they had amassed against Origen and the followers of the same error as he, a part of which holds thus: “Since you possess a soul that is a participant in celestial nobility, most Christian emperor.”’ And a little later: ‘“We have fled, therefore, we have fled this doctrine: for we do not know the voice of strangers, and him, as a thief and a robber, bound in the snares of anathema, we have cast out far from the sacred enclosures.”’ And after some time: ‘“Of the things which have been done by us, you will know the power and virtue from the reading of them.”’ To these they also joined the chapters, whatever the followers of Origen had learned to profess from their masters, from which both their consensus and their dissension and their manifold and diverse error were detected. ^D

^A Liberatus explains this in his Breviarium. For he narrates that Theodore, when he bore with difficulty that Origen had been condemned at the impulse of Pelagius, had in turn spurred on Justinian, so that he might pay back like for like to his rival, and proscribe the Three Chapters; for just as Theodore defended Origen, and in Origen the Fathers, so Pelagius seemed to himself to be defending the Three Chapters, and in the Three Chapters the Council of Chalcedon.

Among these was the fifth chapter, containing the blasphemies which certain private individuals had brought forth from the new Laura, which reads thus: "Theodore Ascidas the Cappadocian said, when now the apostles and the martyrs perform miracles, and are in such great honor, if they are not to be equal to Christ in the resurrection, what sort of resurrection is it that they are to have?" The same Fathers also reported many other blasphemies of Didymus, Evagrius, and Theodore, which they had very zealously excerpted from their books.

These excerpts were carried from Palestine by the four monks whom I mentioned before, among whom, in that province, monks were strongly at odds with one another, even within the Lauras themselves. This can be learned from the history of this time left behind by the writers of the Lives.

^B It is evident from the fragments just adduced, and other undoubted testimonies, that the council under discussion differs from what is now customarily called the Fifth. For in this one, the subject is Origen alone and two Origenists, Didymus and Evagrius; in the Fifth, Origen is barely called by name once, and the other two never. In this one, the emperor orders a trial to be held regarding Origen alone; in the Fifth, he orders it to be done regarding only the Three Chapters. In this one, legal proceedings regarding the cause of Origen were concluded, and they were very extensive; in the Fifth, this same cause was not touched upon by even a word. Theodore the Cappadocian did not attend this one; for with what patience would he have heard what was being reported about him? He sat fifth after the patriarchs, head of the Autocephalous. This was held while Domitian was alive; for he wrote a book of complaints to Pope Vigilius on account of the judgment of the council; at the Fifth, Dorotheus, the prefect of the Church of Ancyra, appeared in place of Domitian.

Since, therefore, as much has been said regarding the time of Origen's condemnation, it follows next that the time of the edict composed against the Three Chapters should be inquired into. Writers do not agree upon that matter, some asserting it was done earlier than it should have been, in the year 543; others asserting it was done later, in the year 546. I hold that it happened in the year 545, specifically toward autumn: and I am moved to this because a *homologia tes pisteos* of this kind (for so the edict is inscribed in Greek) was issued from that place before Vigilius set out from Rome; but then it followed the departure of Pelagius from Constantinople: for Vigilius was compelled by Belisarius to go into the royal city, after he had steadfastly refused to agree with Justinian for a long time; and Pelagius, by the influence he possessed with the emperor, would not have allowed himself, while present, to be so insultingly mocked by rivals eager for vengeance.

Since, therefore, Vigilius left Rome in the year 546, on the 22nd of November, and Pelagius returned to Rome in the year 545, and a not insignificant time had flowed from the receipt of the edict at Rome until the departure of Vigilius, during which time, indeed, Pelagius consulted with Ferrandus, who was stationed in Africa, concerning the questions, and received a reply from Ferrandus after a long silence, it is necessary to admit that the edict was published by Justinian in the year 545, around autumn.

^C I know what some object, so as to oppose such an open truth. They say that a part of the Acts of the Fifth Synod perished through the arts of the Origenists, in which the proceedings once held against Origen existed: that Evagrius of Epiphaneia and the Fathers had seen this part, and the Lateran Council under Martin I, and the sixth and seventh general synods, and therefore handed down that Origen was condemned in the Fifth Synod. But besides the fact that a divination of this kind and such an exception is the last refuge of a desperate cause, I argue against this single invincible point: for with what countenance could Theodore the Cappadocian have sat in the Fifth Synod and given a judgment, when a horrendous blasphemy had been openly objected to him, and not rejected by suitable Acts? He who had been struck by anathema in that very assembly in which he held a most honorable place?

CHAPTER III

By what reason one edict arose from another, and by what arts of Theodore the Cappadocian the emperor was induced to write against the Three Chapters, ^D But that this argument might be made clearer, two things must be proven piece by piece, by which it is concluded that Vigilius indeed left Rome in the year 546, towards the end of November; and that between the reception of the edict at Rome and the departure of Vigilius, a not insignificant space of time, such as fifteen months, had intervened.

I conclude this, first, because this is the opinion regarding the departure of Vigilius from the city of Rome, held by ancient and modern men preeminent in doctrine, which is read in the Auctarium of Marcellinus as follows: "In the ninth indiction, after the fifth year of the consulship of Basilius, Pope Vigilius, the 59th from the apostle Peter, summoned by the emperor, leaves Rome and comes into Sicily." The note of the post-consulship designates the year of Christ 546, as is evident from the Fasti. Furthermore, Anastasius agrees with the writer of the Auctarium, who adds in addition the month and the day, namely the 10th of the Kalends of December, that is, the twenty-second day of November.

Finally, men of great name generally follow both, Baronius, Sirmondus, Holstenius, and very many others, so that this opinion can deservedly be considered the consensus of learned men.

SCHULZ'S NOTES.

A recent dissertator, however, denies that he can prove this, and in order to explain why he alone opposes such great men, he brings forward two reasons and produces just as many witnesses for his cause.

The first argument is as follows. Vigilius, as is the constant opinion of all, entered Constantinople in the year 547, on January 25th: but the dissertator says he seems to have remained for a long time in Sicily, inasmuch as he both performed ordinations there, received embassies, and collected grain with which to relieve the famine in Rome. Since, therefore, the space of one month and a few days, which he would have spent in Sicily, was not sufficient for accomplishing these things, if he is said to have left Rome in 529—at which time all writers hold he did so—he must be said to have left a long time before, as much time as was surely necessary to complete those tasks properly. ^B

The second reason: the clergy of Italy gave a letter in the year 551, as the dissertator himself believes, to the legates of the king of the Gauls who were setting out for Constantinople, in which they write that Vigilius had departed from Rome six years earlier. Vigilius himself also writes in the encyclical which he sent to the universal Church in the year 552 that he had left his city seven years before. But both cannot stand; if the pontiff is said to have left Rome in 546, it is possible; it is possible if in 545, for thus from the year 551 a period of six years will be counted, and from 552, seven years. So he claims.

The two witnesses whom he produces are Sigonius and Victor of Tunnuna: the former maintains that the pontiff left in the year 545, the latter that he was summoned by Justinian in the year after the consulship of Basilius IV. ^C

These arguments are not equal in authority, I will not say to all the writers whom I have cited to the contrary; but not even to one, such as Holstenius: they are so light, and nearly futile.

And so that the examination may begin with the witnesses, I do not see by what reasoning the passage from Victor can be brought forward by a sensible man to establish credibility, which reads as follows: "In the 4th year after the consulship of Basilius, V.C., the emperor Justinian, spurred on by the subreptions of the Acephali, subtly compels Vigilius, the Roman bishop, to hasten to the royal city, and under the guise of an assembly of those who are divided from the fellowship of the Church, to condemn the three chapters." ^D For the passage is openly flawed, from which it surely follows that Vigilius is said to have left Rome in the year 544. For if, according to Victor's custom, the years after the consulship of Basilius are counted, the 4th is after the consulship, which is 544 of Christ: then the words adduced do not signify a mere summons by letter, as the dissertator imagines, but the very expulsion by Belisarius, about which the clergy of Italy complains. But it is not permitted by history to assign this departure of Vigilius to the year 544, as will soon be clear, nor would the dissertator himself concede it, provided he wished to speak consistently. For if he were to admit this, he would be compelled immediately to crowd into the latter part of a single year, 543, three things—which no prudent man does not see to be [italic]asystata[/italic] [inconsistent]: namely the ordination of Zoilus, and both of Justinian's edicts, whether that by which the Origenists are condemned, or that by which the three chapters are condemned.

For he excepted the ordination of Zoilus, performed in the month of July, on the way to Gaza during the long delay of Pelagius, who was returning to Constantinople from Gaza in Palestine; the way, the oblation made to the emperor of the excerpts by the companions of Pelagius; the oblation, then, 530, of which the emperor boasts, the examination of the excerpts; the examination, the deliberations, amidst the long opposition of Theodore, the composition of the edict against the Origenists, and its dispatch to the patriarchs; the dispatch, the response of Vigilius writing back from Rome; the response of the pontiff, the council of Mennas, in which the bishops found in the royal city subscribed to the edict; the subscription, the book composed by Justinian against the Acephali; the book, the courtly arts by which he was deceived by Theodore, and the simplicity of the good emperor was turned in the opposite direction; the deception, the edict against the three chapters. But whoever dares to say that these many and great things could have happened in six months, I surely declare him to be more than bold.

Therefore, there is no testimony from Tunnunensis, whether because it is not brought forward in good faith but with a perverse meaning by the dissertator, or because it was stated by Victor himself through an error.

But now, as regards the other witness, Sigonius, what objections does he face against himself? First, he is a new man who, when it is a matter of things far removed in time, does not deserve more credibility than what can be borrowed from the testimony of the ancients or obtained by reasoning. Yet he brings forward no testimony, not even in the margin; he uses no reasoning, but merely dictates: then it is difficult to see how he helps the dissertator with that testimony of his. For in that place he says nothing specialized and express about the time when Vigilius left Rome; but, just like many other things which it is clear happened at another time, he confuses this departure into the year 545, as if by a jumble.

He relates, in fact, to that same year: the embassy of Eustochius of Jerusalem to the emperor, which was carried out by Rufus and Conon, abbots; the condemnation of Origen, both issued by the emperor and subscribed to by all the patriarchs; the book written by Justinian against the Acephali; the edict against the three chapters published; the affairs conducted with the Africans at Constantinople in the cause of the three chapters; the complaints of the Romans regarding Vigilius before the emperor; the violent exportation of Vigilius from Italy; the ordinations at Catana celebrated by this same Vigilius; the entry of the pontiff into the royal city, on the vigils of the Lord's Nativity; upon narrating which, he adds that from which he shows he refers all these things to the year 545: "In the following year..."

^A but with greater weight. For he orders the pontiff, weary of calamities, to refer to Justinian, who was exercising tyranny: "We, hastening to your piety, departed from our city seven years ago in such a way that we had no private business;" it is just as if he were to say: "It is the seventh year since we departed from our city in such a way," etc. For those who complain that their afflictions are long-lasting are accustomed to count the years in which they were afflicted, or even a small part of them, as even the boys in school know. But even if this cause for interpretation were lacking, Vigilius would still explain the passage by his own manner of speaking: for six lines further on he speaks about months in the same way he now speaks about years: not six whole ^B months had elapsed from the condemnation of Theodore up to the Nones of February, the time at which he wrote his encyclical. Yet he says: "Six months ago, he (Theodore) was deprived of holy communion among others by us and deposed from the episcopacy on account of his wickedness." He had said before, whence the time of the condemned Theodore might be known: "For those things which we said orally concerning the aforementioned excommunication to all bishops, priests, and deacons and other clergy, we have since also confirmed in writing in the basilica of blessed Peter in Hormisda on the nineteenth day of the Kalends of September just past. In which we also, deposing from the order of the episcopate him who, under the guise of an episcopal habit, laid snares for the Lord's flock like a ravening wolf, and, assuming the leadership of the entire scandal, disturbed and still disturbs the universal Church of God, have condemned him."

Furthermore, as for what the dissertator complains, that Vigilius lingered in Sicily so that he might be able at leisure to perform ordinations, receive embassies, deliberate on the location of the synod, gather grain, and transmit it to Rome—as if he had not had enough time for this, if it is said that he departed from Rome on November 22, 546, and entered Constantinople on January 25 of the following year: I do not see what importance it has. For Italy is separated from Sicily by a small strait, and ordinations are customarily held in the month of December, and I believe one month is sufficient for transporting grain from nearby to those suffering from famine: and Datius of Milan and the legates of Zoilus, who was in attendance in the imperial court, could easily have come together in Sicily from Constantinople at the appointed time, as the rumor of the pontiff's future departure had long since increased and some delay in Sicily was to be expected; ^C and bishops from Africa and regions near Sardinia could easily have sent letters to Sicily once or twice, and received them from there.

But now, if Vigilius set out from Rome on November 22, 546, as is established by the authority of the ancients; if likewise a full year and also some months passed while the supreme pontiff, remaining in Rome, refused to approve Justinian's edict: while

the emperor and the pontiff nearly wrangled in mutual letters regarding the convening of a synod; while Ferrandus, deacon of Carthage, was consulted from Rome through Anatolius and Pelagius, deacons of the Roman Church, as to what he thought of the matter, while Ferrandus himself replied after a long silence; while Justinian, indignant at the constancy of the resisting pontiff, called a council from the whole world to Constantinople; while there was no agreement on a place for the council between Constantinople and Rome; while letters full of clashing arguments ran back and forth; while delays were spun by the Roman clergy, lest—against custom—the head of the Church be compelled to assemble in a place where he would serve rather than preside with dignity. ^A If, I say, a whole year and even some months passed while these things were being carried on, it must be admitted that the edict against the Three Chapters was issued toward the autumn of the year 545, at which time Pelagius, being very favored by the emperor, yielded his place as apocrisiarius of the Apostolic See to the deacon Stephen and returned to Rome, rich in Eastern gifts, with which he helped the Romans and incited them to resist Totila—for that noble deacon returned, and before Totila approached the City, he sought to bolster Justinian’s failing interests in Italy wherever he could, and, as is right to believe, before the edict was published, so that he might not break the counsels of the Empress and Theodore through his own influence with the emperor.

Therefore, the first edict against the Three Chapters was published toward the end of the year 545. Facundus reports that the four patriarchs of the Eastern Empire approved it, but reluctantly, and—as it were—struggling with fear due to their reverence for the Council of Chalcedon; yet the consciousness of their duty was overcome by their desire to retain their dignity, the loss of which the cowardly prelates feared humbly at the hands of the threatening prince; and indeed, Justinian's threats were the more terrible the more easily the prelates of even major sees were accustomed in that age to be deposed by princes. A recent example pressed upon them sharply: since Mennas had been installed in place of Anthimus, and Zoilus in the see of the deposed Paul.

It is helpful to hear Facundus speaking in his own words on this matter: "That is unusual, that is wondrous, that is the thing in which a great force of truth appears, which compelled even the presumptuous themselves, by the internal stings of conscience, to confess that these things were composed for the destruction of the Council of Chalcedon: for the first confirmer of them, Mennas, the bishop of Constantinople, while he was still delaying in writing—as had been commanded—to provide his consent to them, protested that this was being done against the Council of Chalcedon: but even after he consented, when he was confronted by the aforementioned Stephen, deacon of the Church of Rome and apocrisiarius, of venerable memory, as to why, contrary to his former judgment, he had acquiesced to things which he had previously blamed, and from ^B which he had declared that he would do nothing without the Apostolic See, he replied that he had yielded under that condition, and that it had been sworn to him that his own autograph would be returned if the Roman bishop did not approve of these things." And afterward: "Zoilus also, the prelate of the city of Alexandria, when he learned that the Roman bishop was coming, sent to meet him in Sicily, complaining that he had been compelled by necessity to the affirmation of that very decree: which thing, after he arrived, the same Roman bishop openly rebuked him for to his face, in the presence of us among others: and likewise Ephremius of Antioch, when it was first commanded to him, and he even commanded this himself in his reply, refused to consent. But after it was announced to him that he would be excluded unless he did so, he preferred his. Moreover, did not Peter of Jerusalem? Does not public notice report that, when a multitude of monks had gathered to him, he swore and declared that if anyone consented to that same novel decree, he would be acting against the Council of Chalcedon? Yet he did not refrain from his consent," being found more a lover of honor than of truth.

Furthermore, that edict which I mentioned first, and which was sent to the prelates of the whole world toward the end of 545, differs from that which was ^C proposed in 551 in the Church of Constantinople and elsewhere by Theodore Ascidas: for what Facundus reports to have been in the former is not to be found in the latter.

That the individual primates remained in their own sees, and—as is right to believe, on account of the importance of the matter—consented to the edict in synods, the emperor is witness in his *Sacra* to the fathers of the Fifth Synod: "First, indeed, we interrogated you residing in your own Churches concerning the aforementioned impious Three Chapters, and you made your will manifest to us, for which we both commended you—in that you confessed the right faith without doubt and with all alacrity—and condemned the impious [ones]," etc.

Zoilus, however, was not in his own Church at that time, but at Constantinople: certainly he was there a short time after that consent, at the time when Vigilius truly came to the royal city; but Facundus intimates that Peter existed at Jerusalem when he consented. ^D

CAPUT IV. Concerning the council held at Constantinople by Mennas in the cause of the Three Chapters.

That Mennas, having received Justinian's edict, held a council, is, I believe, undoubted by anyone. For these four things persuade it: the example of the Origenist affair, the testimony of Facundus, the authority of Pope Vigilius, and Justinian's *sacra* directed to the Fathers of this council.

For first, when Mennas did not approve the condemnation of Origen privately, but publicly in a council,

^A he and others, whom Facundus indicates, eluded the ardor of Theodore, who was abusing the power of the Augusta to satisfy his lust for vengeance; and he was able to decline for a long time, until it was announced in Constantinople that the protection of Vigilius would happen soon. For then he was compelled to obey the prince's will, inasmuch as the danger of deposition was imminent, and this was the more certain, the more ardently the Augusta, having found the opportunity of an irate prince, was striving to restore Anthimus to his see.

Mennas, therefore, with his synod, finally yielded to the imperial threats and signed the edict, with this qualification, nevertheless, that if the Supreme Pontiff should disapprove of the act, he would withdraw the document, and the matter would be as it was before; although this qualification did not prevent the apocrisiarius of the Apostolic See from vindicating in ecclesiastical fashion the injury inflicted upon the Apostolic See by the bishops who were acting in anticipation.

Stephen, a deacon of the Roman Church, had succeeded Pelagius in the office of apocrisiarius. When he could no longer keep the Constantinopolitan prelate and others in their duty, he suspended himself, as Facundus says, from the communion of Mennas, and by his own example gave courage to many to dare the same. Certainly, the bishops gathered in the synod, if not all, at least the greater part, ^B "when they were compelled to write" (the words are those of Facundus, book IV, last chapter), "openly protested against a great synod being held, and after the aforementioned subscription, they gave formal petitions to Stephen, the Roman deacon, to be transmitted to the Apostolic See, confessing in them that they were compelled to subscribe by the Constantinopolitan bishop."

The Pontiff learned of Mennas' act in Sicily, partly from Datius of Milan who had arrived to meet him, and partly from the letters of Stephen. He took it all the more grievously, in proportion to how unworthy and abject it was that a prelate—who had once obtained his own throne by the favor of the Apostolic See—should prefer the emperor's threats to the reverence due to the Supreme Pontiff. Wherefore, ^C taking no account of the qualification, he decided that it must be avenged, yet doing so only after a warning was first issued by letters from his journey, and after legates were sent to the emperor to attempt to bring it about that the prelate, through penance, and the emperor, through rescission of the act, might avert the vengeance.

Facundus relates the matter addressing the emperor in book IV, chapter 3: "But this is a marvelous thing, that after they made their condemnation, they said that they were consulting the Roman Church and awaiting the judgment of Vigilius, its prelate—to whom, as far as they were concerned, they did not permit to judge what he should judge; decreeing beforehand that, if anyone does not anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia with his dogmas and the letter of the venerable Ibas, let him be anathema. ^D But behold, now coming from his journey, he declared what seemed right to him, and ordered the author of this act to correct his tumultuous transgression; and unless what was done evilly is quickly removed, even... [the text breaks off]"

But I judge it to be much more probable, as perhaps another more daring person might say, that this council was held toward the end of the autumn of the year 546; for Mennas procrastinated for a long time and drew out delays, which his mind, impatient to serve the wishes of his rival Theodore, was undoubtedly devising at great length; nor was the reason for the delays empty. For he said that he was awaiting the judgment of the First See in a matter of faith, and that it was not yet clear enough to him, as it was not to the rest of the world, by what rationale the Three Chapters could be condemned without prejudice to the Council of Chalcedon.

He declared that he would vindicate himself, protesting and saying with the Apostle: *Lest perhaps, when I come, I will not find you such as I would, and I will be found by you such as you would not.* ^A For which reason, he implored your clemency with the highest prayers and the greatest effort through his own legates, just as the diverse provinces, as he was coming, protested that you should not suffer what had been done to stand.

He likewise narrates this himself in his epistle to Mennas, which he wrote while on his journey, and which can be read in Facundus in his book against Mocianus. "When," he says, "it was not hidden from us, pontiff, that Deacon Stephanus—at that time the responsalis of our Church, over which by God's grace we preside—along with very many Christians, as long as he lived, had withdrawn himself from your communion, and that we, established on the island of Sicily, learned from the report of our brother and co-bishop Datius that both he and others of our fellow-priests, and many sons of the Christian Church, had nonetheless withdrawn themselves from your communion; and while we were seeking the causes of the scandal that had arisen, the aforementioned brother and co-bishop of ours replied that your fraternity had acted in such a person, which had by no means been committed in the times of any of your predecessors or our own," etc. So that, surely, without awaiting the judgment of the apostolic see, either the cause of the faith was being agitated, or the sentence of a general synod was being retracted.

^B That which the pontiff had threatened while on the way, Facundus reports—in the book already cited—that he performed as soon as he came to Constantinople against Mennas and other bishops who did not repent. On account of this, he also suspended from communion those who had communicated with such men as these upon coming into the royal city. This suspension lasted for a space of three months, until it was dissolved by the prayers of the court.

From these things, furthermore, which have been related from Facundus, it is clearly evident that at the time I mentioned, a council had been held by Mennas: for how would the pontiff have retained his anger, however most just, for so long? How would he have revealed the sentiment of his mind only while on the road? How, if he had been situated in Rome and had known of the force brought against the bishops by the emperor, and of the slothful servitude of fearful prelates, would he not, being prudent, have kept himself within the borders of Italy for fear of the same violence? For that which someone might object—that Vigilius did not come to the emperor, but was deported by force—has no weight; since that which is accepted from the relation of Anastasius, concerning Vigilius being snatched from the house of Saint Cecilia by the satellites of Belisarius and thrown into a ship, seems a mere fable to most scholars; it certainly must be rejected by him who accounts the stay of Vigilius in Sicily as one year, or even, if it pleases God, two.

^C Of the acts of the council, only three things remain, as I know: the Emperor's Sacred [Letter] to the Fathers, a compendious Response to the Sacred, and the anathema against Theodore and Ibas. The anathema is read in Facundus, book IV, chapter last. The Sacred and the Response, in Greek and Latin, are appended to the acts of the fifth synod, such as they are currently extant. But I marvel that both of these—I mean the Sacred and the Response—seem to certain men to pertain to the Fifth Synod: for although this Sacred [Letter] has some affinity with the other, which it is certain was read out in the fifth synod, it is nevertheless marvelous how much it differs in many points; and this no one who has read it will fail to notice.

It is further to be observed, regarding the Sacred [Letter] of which we speak, that a fragment ^D from the apology of Cyril to the Emperor Theodosius has been inserted: it fills the middle part of the Sacred letter; and it is so poorly placed that it is a wonder it was not held in contempt by the curious. I thought that this should be removed, while the Sacred letter with the synodical Response is exhibited here, as a kind of relic of the Acts, upon which it is worth the effort to make some observations later.

THE EPISTLE OF EMPEROR JUSTINIAN TO THE HOLY SYNOD CONCERNING THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA AND THE REST.

"It has always indeed been the endeavor of orthodox and pious emperors, our fathers, to prune away the heresies that have emerged from time to time through the gathering of the most religious priests, and to guard the holy Church of God, with the true faith being sincerely preached.

"Wherefore also Constantine the Great, when Arius was blaspheming and saying that the Son was not consubstantial with God and the Father, but a creature, and was made from things that were not, gathered at Nicaea three hundred and eighteen Fathers; and having himself participated in the council, with Arius condemned and anathematized, he strove to confirm the true faith: through which those divine Fathers, confessing the Son to be consubstantial with God and the Father, and not a creature, and not made from things that were not, is sung even unto this day.

"Theodosius the elder, however, when Macedonius was denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and his disciple Apollinarius was blaspheming against the dispensation of the incarnate Word of God, and saying that the Word of God had not assumed a human mind, but had been united to an irrational soul in the flesh, gathered at the city of Constantinople one hundred and fifty Fathers, and being himself a participant in the council, with the aforementioned heretics condemned and struck with anathema, together with their impious dogmas and followers, he took care that the true faith should be preached.

"Theodosius the younger, however, when the impious Nestorius was saying that the Word of God was one thing, and Christ another; and was impiously introducing that the Word was by nature the Son of God and the Father, but Christ was only the Son by grace, and was saying that the holy Mary was the Mother of God... [alt-version omitted]

[and] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he was baptized, and by baptism obtained the grace of the Holy Spirit, was counted worthy of adoption, and, in the likeness of royal majesty, Christ was adored in the person of the Word of God, and after the resurrection remained with a constant soul, void of sins. Furthermore, he pronounced that the union of the Word with Christ was that which the Apostle spoke of regarding a man and a woman: "And they shall be two in one flesh."* To these things I exhort you, that you also examine those things which were wrongly written by Theodoret and 540 Ibas against the prior holy Council of Ephesus, and that you pass judgment against them in the same manner. Observe first what is said: "Eutyches approved the sect of Nestorius and his impious dogma, when he said that the flesh was not consubstantial with us." For this is true only insofar as both heresies agreed in this, that they denied the blessed Virgin to be strictly *Theotokos*, and denied that any true incarnation of the Word had been effected; yet one put forward a different reason for its denial than the other: the former rejected the *henōsin kath’ hypostasin* (union according to hypostasis) of the natures, the latter rejected the consubstantiality of the flesh of Christ.

Observe next these words: "While the pernicious dogmas of Nestorius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches were being publicly taught, and great tumults were arising, especially in the East, Proterius the great priest and many others were killed. In that state of affairs, Marcian was divinely created emperor," etc. For they contain an intolerable ^A *anachronism*, since Proterius was killed by the Dioscorites of Alexandria after the death of Marcian. See Liberatus in the *Breviarium*, ch. 14.

Observe likewise these things: "Marcian, having convened the Council of six hundred and thirty Fathers at Chalcedon, was present, with Dioscorus and Eutyches being present." The theologian emperor hallucinates vehemently: for Eutyches was not present at the council, but had beforehand been cast into exile. See the Acts of the council.

Observe fourthly, where it is said, "Theodoret, Ibas, and Basil, bishop of Seleucia, were received, although they had subscribed to the prior council," that the interpreter has erred: for these things in Greek—*Theodōriton te kai Iban kai Basileion Seleukeias edexanto kathypographontas*—ought to have been rendered thus: "They received, however, Theodoret, Ibas, and Basil of Seleucia, after they had subscribed," namely, to the definition of the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. See the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.

Observe finally an anachronism of fifteen years. "These four councils having been thus acted and confirmed, and possessing authority in the Church of God, the followers of Nestorius strove anew to confirm their heresy through the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who, as his disciple, blasphemed much worse than Nestorius."

* I Cor. vi, 16.

^A it. Justinian’s memory failed him: for at least fifteen years before the Council of Chalcedon was held, excerpts from the books of Theodore, because the books of Nestorius had been burned by imperial decree, were scattered among the public; which is openly evident from the letters of Cyril, Proclus, and John of Antioch. Furthermore, what learned man would think that such absurd and ignorant errors were those of a man who is deservedly called a distinguished and most wise writer? Who would not believe instead that they belong to someone who, if he composed the text by his own industry, was no less [ἀναλφάβητος] (illiterate) than Justinian? If he used the work of others and allowed such foul fetuses to be attributed to him, he was rightly called by Halloix, in the year 541, unrefined and illiterate; for in his ignorance he was unable to discern what he should adopt with praise.

The synod replied to an epistle of this kind, after it had carefully examined once more the excerpts from the books of Theodore that had been sent to it: "The sacred Council of Chalcedon attacked Theodoret and Ibas severely with its words, and received them back into favor on no other condition than that they first condemn their own evil writings and Theodore and Nestorius."

"We, however, besides all the other heretics condemned and excluded from the Church by the said four holy councils, also condemn and proscribe Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious books: likewise those things which Theodoret wrote ill against the true faith, and the twelve chapters of St. Cyril, and the first holy Synod of Ephesus, and in defense of Theodore and Nestorius."

"Moreover, we also condemn the epistle which Ibas is said to have written to Maris the Persian; which denies that the Word of God was made man incarnate from the holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and traduces the divine Cyril as a heretic; and it criticizes the first holy Synod of Ephesus as having condemned Nestorius for an unknown cause; and it rejects the twelve chapters of St. Cyril; and it patronizes Nestorius and Theodore, and their impious writings and opinions."

^B "Wherefore, we shall rightly designate the unbridled tongues of these heretics, and their most impious writings, as well as those who persevere to the end in their false opinions and malice, as belonging to the father of lies, the devil. Walk in the light of your fire, and in the flame which you have kindled." [d]

The Cappadocian is mistaken (for he was the author of both the Justinian type and the synodal response), he is mistaken, I say, when he maliciously writes that Theodoret and Ibas were received at Chalcedon on no other condition than that they first condemn their own evil writings, and Theodore and Nestorius: for there is no mention of Ibas, nor any word spoken about the writings of Theodoret, or about Theodore, in action VIII, where the cause of Theodoret was discussed, nor in IX and X, where the act of Theodoret was ^C handled. Indeed, the epistle of Ibas was read, if not with praise, at least without disapproval, either by the synod or of Ibas; yet the Cappadocian needed this lie, to more easily induce the prelates to condemn that which Theodoret himself and Ibas had previously condemned in the Council of Chalcedon.

Nor was this the only thing he fabricated, but many other things far beyond it, so that his character of lying zealously may appear, and Halloix wrote not more cleverly than truly, that the epistle of Justinian concerning the Three Chapters was indeed fabricated by Theodore, but dictated by the father of lies, in the part that concerns history.

542 Yet both the epistle of Justinian and this synodal response contain this much of truth: that "Theodoret wrote ill against the true faith and [against] the twelve chapters of St. Cyril, and [against] the first holy Synod of Ephesus, and in defense of Theodore and Nestorius." By which words three writings are indicated, of which the first alone is commonly known; the other two, if indeed they are two, were hitherto unknown; of both of which we publish a small part in this Appendix to Theodoret.

CHAPTER V. On the fifth Synod.

§ I. Observationes ad indictionem synodi.

I. It is established by certain documents that the synod was convoked by the Emperor Justinian twice: once in the year 546, when the supreme pontiff Vigilius was summoned from Rome; and again in the year 553, after the pontiff, having written an epistle to Eutychius, the newly ordained prelate of Constantinople, permitted the cause of the Three Chapters to be agitated.

II. The first convocation is proven enough by the very altercation that arose between the pontiff and Justinian regarding the place of the synod, which the former wished to be held in Sicily, and the latter in Constantinople. The latter is shown by the report of Constantine the Quaestor before the bishops of the Fifth Synod, made in the second session.

III. The letters of both accounts seem to have perished; for they are not found in the Collection of Councils, nor anywhere else, as far as I can remember. There were, however, without doubt some, and indeed different from that Sacra which Theodore the Silentiary brought from the emperor to the Fathers of the Fifth Council, and read in the first session. For this one is dated at a far different time, namely in the same year, month, and day as the first session.

IV. It is credible that both letters of convocation were quite similar to the Sacra just mentioned: for they looked to the same end and were written to the same persons. Neither, therefore, contained anything about Origen, about whom the Sacra says nothing, as is obvious. ^D

what is the reason? Is it because the Origenist case had already been cried down and consented to by everyone? But why did the Origenists’ enemies not seize upon this occasion as well to celebrate a condemnation? But more on this later.

V. The emperor brought forth no other reason for calling the synod than his desire to know what should be thought about the Three Chapters, and what the bishops really thought—not only privately, as had long been known, but commonly—which was a most cunning artifice of Justinian. For in this way he avoided the odium of the question regarding the faith and the Council of Chalcedon being raised once again, after the judgment of the whole world had been sought by the emperor Leo through letters.

§ II. Observations on Collation I.

I. In the published codices, the beginning of the synod is given as the 4th of the Nones of May, but in the Beauvais manuscript, the 3rd of the Nones. The latter reading is preferable, since in the year 553 the Dominical letter was E, and consequently the fourth day of the Nones was a Sunday; thus the third of the Nones was a Monday, on which day, according to the custom of the ancestors, after the divine service had been duly performed on the Lord’s Day, synods were begun. Thus the Council of Chalcedon began on the 8th of October, in a year when the Dominical letter was G. Thus the Ephesine [Council] on the 12th of June, A.D. 431, Dom. let. D. Thus the Constantinopolitan [Council] I on the 24th of May, A.D. 381, Dom. let. C. Thus the Nicene on the 14th of June, A.D. 325, Dom. let. C. ^B This reading of the Beauvais codex is demonstrated by Acts I and II of the collation. For on the day the synod was opened, the patriarchs, along with other bishops, approached Vigilius, intending to ask him to convene along with them. Vigilius promised that he would respond the following day; on that following day, which was the second from the opening of the synod, the patriarchs returned to Vigilius. Yet they say they returned to him two days before the second collation was held. Since, therefore, the second collation was held on the 8th of the Ides of May, the first must necessarily have been celebrated on the 3rd of the Nones: which fully accords with the reading of the Beauvais codex, but by no means with the vulgate.

II. Victor of Tunnuna maliciously and invidiously reviews the prelates of the major sees, as if he wished—being as he was a most bitter defender of the Three Chapters—to persuade his readers that the synod in which they were condemned was not so much a legitimate assembly of bishops as a faction of adulterers for the most part. Thus he says: “After the consulship of Basilius, V.C., in the 13th year, a synod is gathered at Constantinople by the precept of the emperor Justinian, at which were present the prelates of the sees: Vigilius, bishop of Rome, ordained while Silverius was still living; Apollinarius of Alexandria, promoted while Zoilos was alive; Domnus of Antioch; Eustochius, made bishop after Macarius of Jerusalem had been removed; and Eutychius of Constantinople, who had been substituted for Menas.”

III. When the names of the bishops who were present are enumerated at the beginning of the first collation, they are placed in a different order from that in which they subscribe at the end of the eighth collation: for example, Thalelaeus, bishop of the Isindi, is inscribed after Macarius of Prymnessos and Megalius of the Myreni; but long before them is subscribed: Valerianus, bishop of Obba in Africa, precedes Cresconius, bishop of Cuiculum in Africa, in the inscription, with several names intervening, but follows him in the subscription, etc. Therefore, the argument that some derive from the order in which bishops are listed in the Acts of councils—such as those we now possess—in order to estimate the years of a preceding or subsequent ordination, is weak, and so fallacious that it has led a certain recent censor into intolerable errors: which will be demonstrated later by irrefutable evidence from the very codex of the African Church.

IV. In the first collation, there are exactly six bishops of Africa named: Sextilianus of Tunis, Pompeianus of Byzacium, Cresconius of Cuiculum, Valerianus of Obba, Cresconius of Zarai, and Restitutus of Milev. In the eighth, two are added: Victor of the municipality of Sinua (for thus it must be read, not Summa), and Cresciturus of Bosa. The first served in the legation of Primus of Carthage; the second, who presided over the church of Victorianum, sat for the province of Byzacium; the third for Numidia; the fourth for Mauritania. Of the other four, two were from Numidia, those of Zarai and Milev; the rest were proconsulars, Sinua and Bosa. Furthermore, Valerianus of Obba, who was entirely a Moor, as is evident from the Notitia of the bishops of Mauritania Caesariensis, in which he is considered a bishop of Obba, is said in the first collation to be of the African province, and in the eighth to be proconsular. But Labbeus rightly corrected this last place in the margin from a most approved manuscript codex, and added "African": which word signifies nothing else, when it is joined to Valerianus of Obba and Restitutus of Milev, than that both were bishops in Africa. Therefore, the Censor wandered for a long time to find Obba in the proconsular province, and when it did not appear, and he did not want to believe his own eyes pointing it out in Mauritania, he invented "Obba" out of "Olbia," which is proconsular.

V. At the beginning, the imperial Sacra was read, which may rightly be believed to have been composed by Theodore Ascidas. The vulgate codices say it was given on the fourth of the Nones of May, but the Beauvais one says the third. There are many things falsely related in it. These are a few of many: [he claims] that for the first Ephesine synod, judges were sent who ought to have been present at the council. [He claims] the subsequent synod, which is called the Robber Synod, is taken for the first ecumenical one. For only one count, Candidianus, was sent to hold the first, not to involve himself in the business of the faith, but to restrain the murmuring monks; two judges were sent to the later one, Elpidius and Eulogius. This is established by the double Sacra of Theodosius, the one to the Fathers of the first Ephesine synod, the other to Proclus, the proconsul of Asia.

^A 2. It is said that the bishops, when they were first interrogated by Justinian concerning the three chapters, answered with all eagerness; nevertheless, it is certain that they were compelled by threats. 3. It is said that the symbol of Theodore of Mopsuestia was brought forward at Ephesus and Chalcedon, and anathematized by both synods. In the Chalcedonian [acta], it is not even expressly named by word. 4. Likewise, it is said that they were struck with anathema in the same synod, who so thought and think. There is no word of past time in the Chalcedonian [acta], no word in the Ephesian synod: wherefore it has been maliciously supposed that, because it was possible for the dead to be damned, a precedent was seen to be set. 5. It is said that laws were promulgated by Theodore of Mopsuestia under preceding emperors. But those which are brought forward in collation IV are vehemently suspected under the charge of adulteration; since, before the question of Theodore was stirred at all, or else was discussed by Proclus and Cyril, Liberatus (cap. 10) hands down that they were edited to Theodosius; nor can it be said they were subsequently extended, since on the contrary Theodosius, writing to John of Antioch and the Eastern synod, judged those who defamed Theodore to be acting against their own salvation. See the fragment of the epistle in Facundus, lib. VIII. But enough concerning the epistle of Justinian.

^B VI. In the epistle of Eutychius, bishop of the royal city, to Vigilius, six things are to be observed, partly blameworthy, partly praiseworthy. 1. That Eutychius, just as Justinian, compelled the sacred councils, as if they had condemned not only those who thought heretical things, but also those who had once thought them. 2. That Eutychius speaks in the same way as the epistles of the supreme pontiffs pertaining to the faith, and concerning those things which were judged and defined by the four holy synods. 3. [He concludes] with these words concerning the Chalcedonian council: "They have anathematized those who presume to teach, or explain, or hand down to the holy Churches of God, anything other than the aforementioned symbol." For they look to the end of the definition of the faith, where the symbol of Theodore, indeed with the name of the author kept silent, but distinguished by his most clear characteristics, is condemned. 4. [He implies] this epistle was directed by the Alexandrian and Antiochene prelates, and others under both bishops, and others—^C—residing in this royal city; indeed with the same tenor, yet not on the same parchment, but at least in a quadruple one, which had been signed by the three patriarchs and the autocephalous [bishops], each with their own synod: for I do not think an example can easily be found where patriarchs have signed in the provincial synods of others, except in those things which are forced upon in ordinations. 5. These things, which I have said about the different parchment of the patriarchs and the bishops residing [at court], are confirmed by the Greek [text] of Eutychius's epistle appended here, which have not been rendered into Latin: *The same petition was also made by Apollinarius, the most holy archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, and Domninus, the most holy archbishop of the city of God, and those residing in this royal city to the same most holy Vigilius.* And after the epistle of Vigilius: *In the same form he also wrote to Apollinarius the most holy archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, and to Domninus the most holy archbishop of the city of God, and the synod under them.* 6. In the epistle of Vigilius approving this to be celebrated as a synod: "We consent that concerning the three chapters, from which the question arose, a regular conventicle being made, with equity preserved, etc.," some interpret this concerning a conventicle in which equality of number is preserved between the Western and Eastern bishops. But the Greek version refutes this, which was made then, when the synod was held.

^B § III. Observations on the II and III collation. I. In the Bellovacensian manuscript codex, all the bishops are mentioned by name in this and in the third collation, just as in the first; otherwise in the printed [editions], in which only five are named. II. What was done on each day is related in such a way that it is evidently demonstrated that the beginning of the synod was set for the Nones, that is, the 5th day of May, on the second fería, as we said before. III. It is handed down that Justinian was the first to cause the four ecumenical synods to be inserted in the sacred diptychs and preached: which is a useful symbol of the common faith. IV. Primasius of Adrumetum, upon being convened to attend the synod, replied for two reasons that he would not come while the Pope did not come. 1. Because it was shameful to depart from Vigilius, with whom he had already agreed at the time when the sentence of condemnation against Rusticus and others was written. 2. Because he did not wish to sit with Sextilianus, who held the place of Primasius of Carthage, whom he avoided as an adulterer—that is, as one who, while Reparatus was living, had snatched another man’s spouse.

^D V. These words are to be weighed by the curious reader, which are almost the final words of collation III: "This therefore is the right confession, to be kept and preached in the holy catholic and apostolic Church of God: If anyone separates himself from its communion, thinking things contrary to it, such a one, alienating himself from the right faith and counting himself among the heretics, is justly condemned and anathematized by the holy Church of God." For with what intention, and against whom are these produced? Is it not against Vigilius? These earlier [words] are also to be weighed, which especially seek out Theodoret: "We condemn as alien to piety all things which do not harmonize with those things which have been defined by the same four holy councils for the right faith, or [which tend] to the injury or opposition of the same four synods, or to the defense of heretics and their impiety, by writing [them] down." For they show that Theodoret was reproved especially for three works: first, against the chapters of Cyril; second, for the defense of Theodorus and Diodorus; third, against the holy Ephesine synod, of which work...

fragments are found nowhere, except in Marius Mercator.

^A 547 § IV. Observations on the fourth collation, and that part of the fifth, which pertains to Theodorus of Mopsuestia.

I. In the fourth collation are contained the same excerpts from the books of Theodorus of Mopsuestia which are in the *Constitutum* of Vigilius. There is not a single opinion among all as to who extracted them. Some attribute this collection of flowers to Benignus, bishop of Heraclea in Pelagonia; others to the monks of Armenia, or to the Fathers of the synod, or to one of the Fathers.

The first opinion arose from the words of Vigilius in the *Constitutum* addressing Justinian: "Looking into certain dogmas falling in the first part of the paper volume, transmitted by our brother Benignus, bishop of Heraclea in Pelagonia, on your side," etc. But if nothing else is brought forward, nothing will be firmly established. For why could not a volume of dogmas extracted by Benignus have been transmitted, which was composed by another?

Christianus Lupus follows the other opinion: namely, that the monks of Armenia, of whom Liberatus speaks in chapter 10 of his *Breviarium*, performed this work, and that these are the very dogmas which Proclus appended to his tome to the Armenians. But in the Acts are read things which signify that they were collected by the Fathers, or at least by one of the Fathers. For when the synod had decreed: "Let our notaries bring forth for the first time the writings from the codices of Theodorus, for the sake of which we know he was also accused by the holy Fathers." The notaries said: "We have at hand the writings which you have collected from the codices," etc.

I consider the former opinion, that the same person extracted them and, by the emperor's order, carried the excerpts to Vigilius, to be more probable than that which argues for the monks: nevertheless, I would not vehemently resist if someone wished to reconcile both, so that, since there are two parts of the things which were collected against Theodorus, the former, which is contained in the fourth collation; the latter, which fills the part of the fifth: the former may be said to have the monks as authors; the latter, Benignus, the prelate of Heraclea in Pelagonia.

II. The Fathers subjected the excerpted chapters to no censure: Vigilius subjected them one by one in the *Constitutum*, and that quite learnedly and also very truly. It was the design of the Fathers in this way to show that they agreed with the supreme pontiff when they condemned Theodorus, and thus that Vigilius was acting unfairly when he refused to attend the synod. Moreover, you will read many things at Leontius similar to these.

III. The Symbol of Theodorus, done into Latin from the Greek by Marius Mercator, and refuted by a learned response, we have published in the latter part of the Works of Marius Mercator. Concerning the remaining works of Theodorus, we have spoken abundantly in that same place. ^B IV. Whatever books Cyril wrote against Theodoret, and from which the excerpts that are mentioned are taken, I know not by what fate they have perished: perhaps there might be one who would conjecture that they were suppressed either by the Nestorians out of hatred for Cyril, or by the Catholics 548 out of hatred for Theodorus, so that at least in this repository, as it were, the principal chapters of Theodorus might not be preserved. But the Greek work of Theodoret against the books of Cyril has also perished; nor is it found, unless in a foreign language among the Syrians. But more prolixly concerning these in the review of the books of Cyril against Nestorius. Furthermore, I warned in the notes on Liberatus that Hypatius of Ephesus wished to adjudge this work from its own author, but brought forward nothing probable.

V. The letter of Rabbula of Edessa to St. Cyril, from which a fragment is adduced, seems to have been given at the beginning of the year 429, shortly after the heresy was brought forth by Nestorius. For he speaks of his impious preaching as of a new matter, and one not yet well perceived by Cyril. Wherefore, the letter of Cyril to Rabbula does not contain an answer to that one, of which there is speech here; but to another, by which Rabbula perhaps had indicated to Cyril himself that he had spoken anathema against Theodorus in the church, as Ibas complains.

VI. That which Hesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem, is reported to have written in his *Ecclesiastical History* concerning Theodorus, that he, already weakened by gray-headed old age, had composed books against the apparition of the Lord God, is foreign to the truth, provided that, as is proper, it is understood of the books ^C *On the Incarnation*. For Theodorus himself, at Facundus lib. x, cap. 1, testifies in the preface of his work against Apollinarius that he "thirty years before had written a codex concerning the incarnation of the Lord." He indeed labored on the work, which I mentioned, against Apollinarius, some years before his death, which happened in the year 427, when he was not much older than seventy.

II [sic]. The Fathers subjected the excerpted chapters to no censure: Vigilius subjected ^D them one by one in the *Constitutum*, and that quite learnedly and also very truly. It was the counsel of the Fathers in this way to show that they agreed with the supreme pontiff when they condemned Theodorus, and thus that Vigilius was acting unfairly when he refused to attend the synod. Moreover, you will read many things at Leontius similar to these.

VII. The first law of the emperor Theodosius against Theodorus is justly suspect: for since it is the very one that is read in the third part of the Ephesine council, it must be admitted that either the name of Theodorus had been substituted, or that the law is not recorded there with entire fidelity. The other law is not similarly suspect, since its mention is made in the Council of Chalcedon.

VIII. The letter of Gregory of Nyssa to Theophilus of Alexandria concerning Theodorus can likewise appear suspect: for it is said to have been written "upon the reception of complaints against Theodorus while still alive." Which, with reasons—not only ecclesiastical but also temporal—if it does not openly clash, at least does not very well correspond. For by what right did those who brought the complaints, having spurned the metropolitan bishop of Anazarbus in Cilicia Secunda, where Mopsuestia exists, go to Gregory of Nyssa? By what right also did Gregory, a man certainly most learned and most observant of the canons, receive complaints against Theodorus of Mopsuestia, when Nyssa is a certain small city under...

^A the metropolis of Cappadocia? By what equal right did Gregory bring complaints to Theophilus of Alexandria, having spurned Flavian of Antioch, when Cilicia Secunda is subject to the Antiochian exarch, and the Synod of Nicaea defined the authority of the Alexandrian primate by the limits of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis? Furthermore, it cannot be said at what time the letter was written, whether before or after that Constantinopolitan Synod, at which, in the year 394, the prelates of the major sees were present: Nectarius of Constantinople, Theophilus of Alexandria, Flavian of Antioch, and other bishops of a more famous name, among whom were Gregory of Nyssa and Theodorus of Mopsuestia. If before the synod, why was Theodorus neither accused in it, nor admonished by so many bishops, and ones so inflamed with such zeal for the faith? Why was such a great matter neglected, when after the *encænia* of the ‘Apostoleion’, to which the more famous bishops of the East had been invited by Rufinus, a far lesser matter, namely that of the bishops of Bostra, was settled? If after the synod, since Nyssa lived for five months more (since the synod is said to have been held on the Kalends of October, in the year of the emperors Arcadius III and Honorius II, and Nyssa died in the following year on March 10), how is it that, having long since received the complaints, he did not, being present, admonish the present Theophilus in the royal city? Why did he write from Cappadocia to Egypt? Then, if Theophilus accepted complaints either from Gregory or with Gregory, for what reason did he not immediately admonish Flavian, who presided over the storm-tossed Church of Antioch, but only long after, Porphyrius, the successor of Flavian? For it was in the ninth year after the death of Gregory that he invaded the see of Antioch. But if it is said that Theophilus did not write to Porphyrius after receiving complaints from Gregory, but replied at the time when he had received from Porphyrius a copy of the *Commonenda* (for so it must be read), that is, of the *Commonitorium* offered to him; the objection that was immediately raised will indeed be parried, but it will scarcely be explained in what sense a *Commonitorium* could be said to be offered, whether to Gregory, or to Theophilus, or even to Porphyrius, against Theodorus while he was still alive: since by this form of speech the later times of a life are accustomed to be signified; yet Theodorus lived for thirty-two years after Gregory, and nineteen after Porphyrius. There is also another ^D *antilogia*. For in what way is Gregory said to have received complaints against Theodorus, since Gregory himself in his letter writes that he did not yet know the author of the error who was whispering to two sons? The Cappadocian may see how these things hang together; let the architect of the documents see, who is no less unskilled than he is malicious; let that man see, who, because of his ignorance or his wickedness, wanted to interpret as being about Theodorus those things which were said concerning the remnants of Paul of Samosata surviving at Antioch and Alexandria; though nonetheless, in this at least, the Samosatene and Theodorus differed: that, although each attributed to Christ only an adoptive sonship, Theodorus did not attribute it as acquired by merits, as Paul did, but as connate, as we have openly demonstrated in the Notes to 550 those works of Theodorus which Marius Mercator deflowered.

At that place we show from where the popular error arose of those saying that both in the past and even now, Christ from the Nestorians had the conjunction with the Word from merits.

IX. All that which is prolixly urged concerning the Mopsuestene in the fifth session was gathered against the defense of Facundus. He had brought forward for the Mopsuestene, first, the testimony of both emperors named Theodosius, namely the panegyric of the Senior and the sanction of the Junior; then the letters of Gregory of Nazianzus and Chrysostom to Theodorus; afterwards the mutual letters of John of Antioch to Cyril and Proclus, and of Cyril and Proclus to John, for the commendation of Theodorus; finally, the opinion of the Oriental synod for the same, and the prudent act of the Council of Chalcedon in his own case. The Cappadocian had nothing which he could oppose against the panegyric of Theodosius the Great, except that common saying: "It profits nothing to those doing evil, if it has happened that some, whether through ignorance, or presumption, or even by a certain dispensation, have written something for them." He opposed the letters of Cyril and Proclus, both with that common saying and with many things of the same men against Theodorus; he opposed likewise the sanction of Theodosius the Junior with the same sanction regarding the burning of the books of Theodorus; he opposed, finally, to the synodical opinion of the Orientals, and to the decree of Theodosius, and the books of certain Orientals, such as Rabbula and the Armenians, and the Mopsuestene council, and other things of that kind; but nothing of greater moment than the conviction of the letter of Gregory of Nazianzus to the bishop of Tyana, supposed by Facundus to have been written to the Mopsuestene. But the Cappadocian is himself accused of the same crime by some, as is evident from observation VI and VIII.

X. When Facundus in his books for Theodorus had fought with the authority of Augustine and the tradition of the Church, by which he moved that the dead could not be condemned in the peace of the Church, Sextilianus and Benignus responded (the former served in a legation as Bishop of Carthage, the latter of Thessalonica), and Sextilianus indeed adduced the testimonies of Augustine to the contrary, but Benignus, examples from Ecclesiastical History; but, to speak ingenuously, neither aptly. For Augustine speaks concerning criminals, namely the traitors of the sacred codices; the Ecclesiastical History, of men publicly and obstinately professing heresy: although Theodorus could be said to have fallen into error imprudently, and to have died prepared to perform that which he once did in the Church of Antioch, where he rashly recalled a word that had slipped out for fear of offense. But those are mistaken who think that the questions adduced by Sextilianus or by Benignus have force against the Constitution of Vigilius; for it had not yet appeared, since the fifth session was held on the Ides of May, and the Constitution is signed on the day before the Ides.

XI. Theodorus the Cappadocian, who 551 received the discourse of Sextilianus and Benignus, in that long action of his seems to have erred in many things; but that, in the first place,

^A he asserted that no one should be called as having died in the peace of the Church, unless “he who kept and preached the dogmas of the right Church until his death.” For unless this rule is understood of one who is obstinate and scorns the judgment of the Church, what will happen to Cyprian, Hilary, Jerome, and the other luminaries of the Church, to whom some stain of error has adhered?

§ V. Observations on the Synod of Mopsuestia, whose Acts are inserted in the first part of the fifth collation, in which Theodore is dealt with

1. The Synod of Mopsuestia was convened in the year 550, and thus 123 years after the death of Theodore. For he fulfilled his fate in the year 427, and the two Sacred [decrees] by which the synod is convoked are read as having been signed in the ninth year after the consulship of Basilius, that is, in the year of Christ 550. All the prelates of the second Cilicia ^B were present, and the entire clergy of the Church of Mopsuestia, along with the leading men of the city, at least those advanced in age. John, Bishop of Anazarbus, the metropolitan of the province, presided. The whole business was completed in a single session, on the 17th of June: for the diptychs of the Church of Mopsuestia were inspected, and the elders were heard, so that it might be known at what time, and for what reason, the name of Theodore was struck from the sacred records. It was in the emperor's interest to know this, so that he might respond to Vigilius, who refused to condemn Theodore on the grounds that he had died in the peace of the Church and had not hitherto been condemned by any synod: wherefore he wished the report to be made ^C to himself and to Vigilius, and for the Acts of the council to be sent, which was performed by two synodal [missives]. Moreover, all these things which I have said are certain, both from the summoning letters of Justinian and from the Acts of the council, which testify that the name of Theodore was no longer held in the diptychs, yet that the time and reason for the deletion were not established.

II. In the synodal booklet, mention is made of a Mopsuestian synod, in which all things are read as having been carried out far differently than in the Acts inserted into the fifth synod. For the prelates are said to have gathered at Mopsuestia of their own accord and out of zeal for the faith: that the elders themselves were questioned by them under oath as to whether the name of Theodore had ever been inscribed in the sacred records: which the elders affirmed, and it was reported to Vigilius, the Roman pontiff. What if there were two Mopsuestian synods, of one of which the synodical book makes mention, and of the other the Acts of the fifth synod? What if Vigilius commanded one to be held, and Justinian the other: the former so that he might know whether Theodore had ever been called in the sacred diptychs; the latter, whether he had been erased? What if Vigilius wished the former to be compelled, so that he might strengthen his own opinion therefrom ^D concerning not condemning the person of Theodore; and Justinian the latter, that he might infringe upon the authority of the former? In an obscure matter, one can only conjecture.

III. Moreover, the synod—whether one or double—was held after the completion of the twelve books by Facundus, in which he defends the three chapters; nay, even after his singular work against Mocianus. For he would undoubtedly not have remained silent about a matter which would bring so much prejudice to both sides of his cause. Facundus therefore completed the books around the year 548, or even before Justinian's tyrannical ferocity against Vigilius broke out into the open.

IV. The name of Theodore was inscribed on the diptychs for some time: otherwise Cyril would not have written those things which are in his letters to John of Antioch concerning the opinion of Theodore in the minds of the Orientals. It was retained until the death of Theodoret, which occurred in the year 457. For how would he have permitted the Cilician friends to commit that against a man whom he everywhere regards as though he were divine? Yet it did not remain until the year 490; for Martyrius, the most advanced in age among the presbyters of the Mopsuestian Church, when questioned in the synod in the year 550, testified under oath that he, who had served in the clergy of the Church of Mopsuestia for sixty years, had never heard the name of Theodore called among the bishops in the diptychs. Nay, it does not seem even to have remained until the year 484: otherwise that old man would have heard something of such a great affair, if the memory had still been fresh when he was numbered among the clergy. It must therefore have happened in that space of time which elapsed between the year 457 and 480, or 484. And indeed certain of the clerics, such as Theodorus and Parenorius, of whom the one had spent 55 years and the other 28 in the clergy, professed that they had received it from their elders, that in place of Theodore the name of Cyril had been substituted, at any rate in the age of the elders: which can not inappropriately be said of a matter which, as I have said, was transacted at that time.

V. It is not permitted for me to define the certain time when Cyril, upon the deletion of the name of Theodore, was inscribed in the diptychs; it is probable, however, that it happened at that time when the Eutychians wielded the greatest power: they indeed wielded it, both when Basiliscus seized the tyranny and restored Cnapheus to the Church of Antioch in the year 475, and when the Emperor Zeno issued the Henotikon in the year 482, and when, Calendion having been driven out of Antioch, Cnapheus was again restored to the seat from which he had been cast down, in the year approximately 484, when, I say, the Eutychians wielded power and tumults were raging in Cilicia, and the heresy of the Acephali was growing strong. I seem to myself, therefore, not rashly to conjecture that the name of Theodore was struck from the diptychs at the time when Cnapheus, upon the expulsion of Calendion, invaded the Church of Antioch. For in tumultuous times, what was not permitted? What did the Eutychian Cnapheus not dare against the most renowned adversary of his heresy? What would the Mopsuestian clergy not suffer amidst weapons and under their most powerful exarch, whose name would rather be substituted for Theodore ^D than Cyril’s, an author whom the Eutychians falsely claimed?

At that time, indeed, the old diptychs appear to have been removed, with new ones inserted in their place. For those which were produced in the council were undoubtedly not the old ones; otherwise, the Cilicians would have detected traces of the name of Theodore—either erased from the parchments or covered over in the documents—nor would they have failed to report this with the great exactness they claim. Perhaps this is the reason why the bishops asked the treasurer again and again whether he did not have diptychs older than those produced, and why they compelled him, by proposing the divine Scriptures, to confirm his answer.

VI. Among the bishops who are reckoned in the Mopsuestian diptychs, one would look in vain for Macedonius, who was addicted to the Arian heresy. For only those who have fulfilled their fate since the time when the immaculate and orthodox faith was preached in the Church of Mopsuestia are counted; that is to say, the Nicene faith, which is understood among the ancients by the name of the “faith.” Moreover, that Macedonius, after he had attended the Nicene synod, prolonged his life to about the year 350, if indeed he subscribed to the Sardican conciliabulum, as it is said, in the year 345. Wherefore, Protogenes and Zosimus, who succeeded Macedonius, but preceded Olympius, do not appear to have held the episcopal see for more than thirty years, since Olympius, who succeeded Zosimus, was present at the second general council in the year 381. Olympius governed the Mopsuestian Church until the year 391; in which year he died, and Theodore succeeded him; Theodore was followed by Thomas, after an episcopate of 36 years; Thomas by Bassianus, after 22 or 23 years. For Bassianus is read to have had his vicar at the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451; truly he himself, and those who follow him in the diptychs—John, Auxentius, Palatinus, Jacobus, Zosimus, and Theodore the Younger—presided over the Mopsuestian Church until the year 547: for that Theodore is said in the acts to have died three years earlier; but Simeon, the last of all, died in that very thirteenth indiction in which the synod met, after three years of episcopate.

§ VI. Observations on the part of the fifth session, which contains the examination of the cause of Theodoret.

I. It is worthy for the curious investigator of antiquity to turn his mind to this: namely, that in the epistle of Pelagius II to the bishops of Istria (which Gregory rightly calls a book on account of its prolixity), when it deals with Theodore and Ibas, fragments of both are brought forward from the old version of the fifth synod; but when it comes to Theodoret, excerpts are no longer brought forward from that same version, but from the book of Marius Mercator against Theodoret. That fact clearly teaches how great Marius Mercator was, and how well-known he was in the times of Gregory: from which great authority accrues to him. It also adds, if I may note it in passing, no small weight from the fact that St. Leo used the version of the scholia of Cyril, which Marius Mercator had elaborated, to bring forward as testimony.

II. Some, even men of great name, think the epistles and fragments of sermons against St. Cyril, which are brought forward, to be supposititious. We show that they are mistaken in their opinion in our censoring of the works of Theodoret; how much light Marius Mercator brought to the showing of this is made plain in the same place.

III. From the epistles of Theodoret to Nestorius and Domnus of Antioch, and from the address delivered at Antioch after the death of St. Cyril—monuments which are altogether genuine—the ecclesiastical history of those times is illustrated, and at the same time it is openly demonstrated that the epistle of Theodoret to Sporacius is a forgery, as is the tenth chapter of Book IV *De hæreticis fabulis*, which speaks of Nestorius, as we show in the work soon to be named.

§ VII. Observations on the *Constitutum* of Pope Vigilius.

I. The fifth session is fixed on the 13th of May; the sixth on the 19th of May; the *Constitutum* on the 14th of May. The *Constitutum*, therefore, was either completed between the two sessions, or at least sent to the emperor: for which reason it seems to have given cause to defer the session to the Monday of the following week, so that after four days Theodore the Cappadocian might come better prepared to refute what had been brought forward in the *Constitutum* for the epistle of Ibas.

II. The *Judicatum* was different from the *Constitutum*, although the pontiff sometimes confuses both names: for the former was completed in a synod of thirty bishops; fourteen only subscribed to the latter: to the former Rusticus subscribed, not Pelagius; to the latter Pelagius, not Rusticus; the former was directed to Menas, the latter to the emperor: the pontiff revoked the former, and obtained its return to himself after he saw the complaints of the Eastern Church arising from it; the latter, if one may trust the epistle edited by the most illustrious Marca, he indeed revoked, but only in part, and after the consensus of the Eastern Church in the Acts of the fifth synod. What more? The *Judicatum* was in the year 548, on the eleventh day of April, the day before Easter: the *Constitutum* was published in the year 553, on the 14th of May, on a Wednesday. Add that in the *Constitutum* excerpts of the five condemned chapters are brought forward as if they were of another work.

III. In the *Constitutum* the pontiff replies to the edict of the emperor concerning the three chapters, which he calls a volume on account of its size, and which he received from Theodore, the decurion of the palace, not many days before Easter. For it must be read thus, so that when the twenty days' grace requested for answering are taken into account, all things are consistent: for with the paschal days subtracted—that is, whether those that precede or those that follow, three or four solemn days—twenty days of grace will easily be found.

for the pontiff, since he pleaded illness, to grant a respite of twenty days, and in the meantime to have admonished the bishops through the deacon Pelagius that, “keeping the ancient and regular order, they should not attempt to put forward anything before the promulgation of the sentence of the apostolic see.” This is the reason why the Constitutum was made, and why at this time.

Post these things, the pontiff, having proposed the rule as has been foretold, ^B condemns sixty chapters in their entirety from the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and at the same time utters an anathema against anyone belonging to the ecclesiastical orders who might wish to ascribe or inflict contumely upon the Fathers and doctors of the Church on account of the above-written impieties. “Against anyone,” he said, “belonging to the ecclesiastical orders,” by which exception he prudently declined the odium of a condemned prince, who otherwise might have seemed to be included in the general sentence; since on account of the above-mentioned impieties, he was initiating a criminal prosecution against Theodore.

When the pontiff has spoken of the doctrine, being about to pass judgment on the person, he consults the Fathers who were equal or nearly equal to Theodore; I mean Cyril and Proclus: he also consults the two synods, the Ephesian and the Chalcedonian; and he finds that all of them, even though they condemned certain dogmas of Theodore, nonetheless respected his person: for they did not even wish the name of Theodore to be contained in the synodal records, on account of the rule which must be observed concerning the dead in the priesthood. ^C Indeed, he finds that Cyril and Proclus, who denied that Theodore could be struck with anathema, used no other reason than that “to draw the bow against the ashes, to insult the departed—especially since it is injurious to those in the episcopate after death who were not blamed while they were alive—is the act of a man who has forgotten his humanity and is odiously wicked.” Next, he consults his predecessors, Leo and Gelasius, regarding the question, and he understands from their own letters what they decided by example, doctrine, and decrees: namely, that it is permitted to no one to judge anything anew concerning the dead, but that one should be left in that state in which the final day finds each person. Whence he concludes that he, who follows his elders according to the rule proposed at the beginning, does not dare “to condemn Theodore by his own sentence, nor to concede that he be condemned by another.”

He then brings forward the reason why the Constitutum was effected, and why at this time: he says, namely, that he had desired and had often requested that a synod be held in Italy or Sicily, to which the bishops of the Latin tongue could come: that the emperor had not listened to his entreaties; but had consented that the prelates of both Churches be summoned to Constantinople: and indeed, on the part of the Latins, those whom the pontiff might name; while on the part of the Greeks, those whom ^D the emperor would name: when this was not being fulfilled in the least, it had pleased him at least that the cause of the Three Chapters should be considered by an equal number of bishops of both tongues who were present in the royal city, according to the proposed rule: and when Vigilius was preparing to fulfill this, an edict was sent not many days before Easter, and the emperor wished it to be answered immediately: he had requested days of truce, and per the deacon Pelagius had warned the bishops in the meantime.

Next, he concerns himself with the cause of Theodoret, applying the same rule: for he denies that he can be rejected as a Nestorian, whom the Council of Chalcedon received; to whom Cyril granted pardon, if he had committed anything against him; whom Pope Leo commanded to be restored to his see; who suffered indignities from Dioscorus on account of the faith; who condemned Nestorius along with the six hundred and thirty Fathers; who defended the epistle of Leo, that is, the form of the faith; who, if he had once spoken anything inconsiderately against Cyril, retracted it before the whole Church; who, finally, did not recede from the position so solemnly stated until his death, which he met in the peace of the Church. Yet he thought that the things which Theodoret had appeared to object against the chapters of Cyril should be proscribed by five anathematisms.

^A Finally, he demands the examination of the epistle of Ibas by the same rule as the judgment of the synod of Chalcedon, and shows that it was not condemned in the judgment at Tyre and Berytus, nor by the Council of Chalcedon where it was read; and that it is so far from being evidence for the condemnation of Ibas for Nestorian heresy, that he was declared catholic by it. What more? After refuting certain objections, he soon determines that in all matters, including the epistle of Ibas, the judgment of the Fathers residing at Chalcedon remains inviolate. He decrees likewise that no one pertaining to ecclesiastical orders and dignities should presume at any time, either concerning the matter of the same epistle, or other things judged, ordained, defined, and disposed of at the Council of Chalcedon by consent of the vicars of the Apostolic See, to bring in any rash novelty as if they were imperfect or reprehensible, whether by addition, or by diminution, or by change, or in any way whatsoever.

Finally, after he has provided for these and other matters most prudently and cautiously; after he has brought forward the examples of his predecessors most appositely; after he has consulted for the integrity of the synod of Chalcedon, as was fitting for the highest authority, he concludes thus: "We, therefore, having arranged these things with all caution and diligence on every side, for the sake of preserving the inviolable reverence of the aforesaid synods and their venerable constitutions, mindful that it has been written that we ought not to transcend the boundaries of our fathers: we decree and ordain that it is not permitted to anyone pertaining to ecclesiastical orders and dignities to write or declare, to compose or teach, anything contrary to these things which we have asserted or decreed in the present Constitution, concerning the thrice-repeated three chapters, or to stir up further any question after the present definition. But if anything concerning these same three chapters has been done, said, or written contrary to these things which we have here asserted or ordained, in the name of anyone pertaining to ecclesiastical orders and dignities, and found by anyone anywhere, we refute it in every way by the authority of the Apostolic See, over which we preside by the grace of God."

§ VIII. Observations on the sixth collation, in which the case of Ibas of Edessa was investigated.

The Fathers of the council spent four entire days, I believe, in preparation for the sixth 558 collation. On the following day was held the meeting, in which there were read first two epistles: one from Ibas to Mari the Persian concerning the affairs of Nestorius; another from Proclus to John of Antioch concerning Ibas. Soon an outcry was raised by the Fathers against the epistle of Ibas, as full of Nestorian impiety: the outcry was followed by the action of the Cappadocian accusing the author of the epistle; there followed similarly the accusation and its proof, which was the reading of a part of the acts either of Ephesus or Chalcedon: finally a comparison was instituted between the epistle of Ibas and the judgment of the synod of Chalcedon. ^B

II. The rationale of investigating the matter in this way is evident from the fact that, since the epistle of Ibas had been defended in the Constitution for two reasons in particular; namely, that it was not rejected as Nestorian either by the synod of Chalcedon or by others; and that Ibas was declared a catholic by it; it was necessary to refute these two points, so that Ibas might be shown to be guilty by his own testimony, and that he might appear to have spoken contrary to the synod of Chalcedon, having been formerly condemned by Proclus, and thus the Constitution be refuted.

III. Ibas wrote the epistle in the year 433, indeed immediately after the peace of the Churches had been made, the business of which was concluded at the beginning of the year 433. For he mentions the peace and sends the letters of peace to Mari the Persian as if they were a new thing. He wrote from Edessa, where he says that tyranny was being exercised by Rabbula. He was not yet bishop when he wrote: for he succeeded Rabbula after he died, around the year 436.

The Persian to whom he writes was a disciple of Theodore: for he remembers him, and that he had often spoken with Theodore, and had studied in the schools at Edessa, where Armenians, Syrians, and Persians were instructed.

He calls Rabbula not by his own name, but by the name of tyrant: for Rabbula ruled the Edessene Church, not in the way that pleased Ibas or his faction; but in the way by which the Ephesine faith and communion with Cyril were retained. Rabbula, moreover, presided over the Edessene Church for 20 years, as we learn from the Life of Alexander the Sleepless (Acœmetæ): for since, having been made a Christian by him from a Gentile, he was not only a Christian but also an ascetic, and having lived in a monastery for a few years, he was dragged by the Edessenes to the episcopacy, being almost a neophyte: for which reason he was able to suffer the calumny of arrogant domination from Ibas, who looked to the passage of the Apostle, which forbids a neophyte to be ordained, lest he be puffed up with pride.

On which occasion one might correct the passage of Theodorus Lector, where it is read "Rabbulas Edessene typhlos," for surely he would say "typhotheis" (puffed up), and he might contend that the sense, by such an emendation, stands much better, and accords more correctly with history. For it is wonderful that Cyril, on a matter so admirable—that one should fight bravely for the faith when blind—should not have remembered it then, when he least of all ought to have, 559 when indeed he was wholly engaged in praising the virtue of the struggling Rabbula.

IV. There exist three versions of the epistle which Ibas wrote: one in the Council of Chalcedon; another in Facundus; the third in the fifth synod. This last is the worst of all; the best is that which is in Facundus, inasmuch as it corresponds more faithfully to the Greek text which is read in the Council of Chalcedon.

As it is had, it is not complete, if we believe Facundus lib. vi, cap. 3, but it lacks the introductions; yet the loss is not great.

From it we learn: 1. That Ibas had come to Ephesus to...

the council, not as a bishop, but as a count of Theodoret, as I think. Wherefore where it is said, μαθόντων ἡμῶν, "when we had learned," I believe it can be amended to μαθόντων ἡμετέρων, "when our own had learned": for it was the part of the Orientals, whom he could call his own; nor was he a bishop, whose task it is to inquire. 2. That Maris the Persian had used Theodore not only as a friend, but also as a teacher. 3. That Rabbulas had said anathema to Theodore in that interval of time which elapsed between the dissolution of the Ephesian council and the peace of the Churches. 4. That Rabbulas had done this, not out of zeal for the faith, but for the sake of the enmities born therefrom that Theodore had refuted Rabbulas in a synod: but of what matter, and in which synod?

V. Concerning the synod, we can conjecture that it was an Antiochene one; for it was the province of both men, namely, Cilicia Secunda, which was Theodore’s, and Osrhoene, which was Ibas’, and was reckoned in the Antiochene diocese. Such a synod cannot be said to have been summoned by John of Antioch, but either by Theodotus, who preceded John, or by Alexander, Theodotus’ predecessor, or even by Porphyry, whom Alexander followed: ^B for only those three held the Antiochene see from the time that Rabbulas took up the episcopate.

A more difficult conjecture is the matter of which he was convicted; of a crime, or of heresy? Perhaps from the fact that immediately, upon the condemnation of Nestorius, Rabbulas had inveighed against Theodore, as if against the master of Nestorius, and did this for the sake of taking revenge, one might suspect that Rabbulas, having been accused by Theodore of the error of the Synusiasts, at about the time when Theodore himself was forced to revoke a word concerning Christ rashly uttered in an Antiochene sermon. But that seems to have happened under Porphyry, or rather Alexander, in whose times the tumults of the Synusiasts had not yet quieted down.

VI. The letter was indeed one of the three chapters, and that very one which was agitated with the greater envy of those who attacked it, or favor of those who defended it: for it alone seemed to have been received by the great synod, and thus could not be condemned without a crimination of the synod. Hence Ferrandus, in answering the Roman deacons who consulted him; Pontianus the African, when he wrote to Justinian; and the Illyrian synod, when it complained that the judgments of the Council of Chalcedon were being retracted, make mention of the epistle alone. ^C No Catholic, after the canons of the Fifth Synod were accepted by the universal Church, would justly deny that it was proscribed, at least under this title, that, since it asserted that the judgment against Nestorius was carried out with a defect, it was a cause why the Nestorians might proceed to stir up tumults under some appearance of right.

VII. In it some things are erred concerning history, not out of ignorance, I think, but by design: as that which is said to have happened on the fifth day after Nestorius was condemned. It was in their interest to err, so that that shortness of time might prove that Nestorius was condemned by the Fathers with haste. 2. It is said that Nestorius could not return to his own city because of the hostile spirits of the nobles, as if he had departed willingly, and not from the prince’s command. But it was in their interest to be silent, not only about the prince’s judgment concerning Nestorius, after the legates of both parties had been heard; but also about the mandate for ordaining Maximian in the place of the one removed by the Catholics. 3. The business of peace is reported invidiously, as if Cyril had sung a palinode, and by that act had not only excused but also absolved the deeds of the Orientals. But enough of the epistle.

VIII. Next, the letters of Proclus to John of Antioch concerning Ibas were read, so that objection might be made to the Constitutum, which denied that Ibas had been condemned when he was winning. ^D These letters, as we said in the notes to Liberatus, were given in the year 437; from which we learn: 1. That Ibas had translated the fragments of Theodore into the Syrian language. 4. [We learn] of the fame of the consultants, if he might approve the scroll of Proclus with other Orientals. 5. That he desired the holy archimandrite Dalmatius, whom Proclus himself the patriarch calls his father, because of his old age and sanctity. Ibas, I think, did not approve Proclus’ scroll: which was the reason why the Fathers made an interlocution against the epistle and the author of the epistle.

IX. After the interlocution, Theodore of Cappadocia, with three other bishops, accused Ibas with an action more prolix than it was good: yet from it we learn the entire series of the business that was done in Ibas’ case. For: 1. Almost immediately upon the beginning of his episcopate, he was accused before the emperor to Proclus by the clerics and other Edessene monks. Then Proclus wrote to John of Antioch. 2. He was made a defendant before Domnus, who had succeeded John. 3. Since Domnus did not exercise judgment as he should have, the case was again brought by the clerics to the emperor and Flavian, who had succeeded Proclus. 4. By the command of the emperor, a judgment was held at Tyre and Berytus, or rather a reconciliation was entered into. 5. The cause was again recognized in the second Council of Ephesus, and Ibas was deposed. 6. Finally, in the Synod of Chalcedon, the matter having been retracted, he received his see. The first happened towards the end of the year 436; the second, at the beginning of the year 457; the third, towards the end of same year; the fourth, the year 448; the fifth, the year 449; the sixth, the year 451.

X. The Cappadocian omits in silence: 1. That Ibas was accused by a few Edessenes, defended by many. 2. That he was ejected into exile by the arts of Eutyches and the power of Chrysaphius. 3. That he was deposed in his absence at Ephesus by Dioscorus, against law and justice. 4. That he was received by Pope Leo, when he had appealed to the apostolic see. 5. That he had sat in the Council of Chalcedon, after the cognition of his cause, and had even subscribed among the Fathers. 6. That the deeds had been done. 7. That Ibas was pronounced orthodox by the legates of the apostolic see, after the epistle had been heard. 8. That all the Fathers, that is, the patriarchs, had either praised the epistle or called Ibas orthodox. 9. That six hundred bishops, who at the same time gave their opinion through

their acclamation, professed that they felt the same as their Fathers.

XI. A portion of the Acts, whether of Ephesus or Chalcedon, was read, so that the epistle of Ibas might appear contrary to all the holy synods. For the faith of Chalcedon was the same as that of Ephesus, as the Acts of Chalcedon show; and that of Ephesus did not differ from the Nicene, as is evident from the Acts of Ephesus: and this was the reason why the collation of the epistle with the synod of Chalcedon excepted the reading of such acts. Concerning this collation, the master of a recent dissertation, Christian Lupus, has written thus: "The fifth synod compared the epistle of Ibas with Chalcedon, and attempted to show it was discordant with the eleven chapters. I say 'attempted,' for in truth it did not show this regarding each of the eleven chapters; and in some ^B places it distorted the epistle into a meaning alien to the mind of its author, and did him an injury. It could easily be shown, but the matter is long and most odious." By these words, he accuses the Fathers of the synod, whom the notaries said had noted the chapters, either of ignorance, if they were unable to grasp the author's meaning; or of bad faith, if, having grasped the truth, they calumniously attributed an alien meaning to them. It is in the interest of some at this time to accuse the Church, as if it had sometimes erred in understanding the books of famous men.

§ IX. Observations on the VII collation.

I. When the emperor saw that the bishops were held back by reverence for the supreme pontiff from rendering their judgment, and that he was inclining many to the notion that — as Vigilius had testified in his Encyclical — matters should be left in the state they were in during the reign of Justin, he sent four instruments via the quaestor of the sacred palace, three of which seemed to reveal the view of Vigilius, and the fourth the mind of Justin.

II. Therefore, the sentence was first read which Vigilius had brought against Rusticus and Sebastianus, deacons of the Roman Church and defenders of the Three Chapters. By that reading, the emperor was stirring up the minds of the Fathers, so that he might persuade them that it followed that whoever condemned the defenders of the Three Chapters should, if he acted rationally, proscribe the chapters ^C themselves. But the deacons, not because they defended the chapters, but because—as two subsequent letters show—they were spreading among the public that the fourth synod had been violated by the judgment of Vigilius, were condemned.

III. This condemnation of the deacons occurred, not in the year 550, as it appeared to a recent dissertator; but in the preceding year, which was 549; indeed, in an epistle to Valentinian there is mention of the condemnation as if it had happened some time ago, yet the epistle is dated the 15th of the Kalends of April, 550.

IV. This chronological calculation is easily demonstrated: for the "judicatum" was issued in the year 549 on Holy Saturday, that is, on the 2nd of April. After the "judicatum" was issued, Sebastianus the deacon came to Constantinople and praised the text; yet soon, seduced by an African monk, he criticized it as being contrary to the holy synod of Chalcedon; then he was warned by the pontiff on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, regarding his excesses in the commissioned procuration; afterwards, that is, in the following year, and indeed in a state of agitation, he was condemned. The condemnation therefore occurred in the year 549, and it cannot be put off any longer, since no other year intervened between the adjudication and the condemnation. All these things which I have said are certain from the reading of the pontiff's sentence against the rebellious deacons.

V. Rusticus, who is the subject here, wrote a book against the Acephali to Sebastianus, his companion in schism and punishment, in which he first describes his own lot and consoles his exile with the appearance of a confession for the faith. Then he lashes out at Pope Vigilius, his own paternal uncle, under the odious name of the Acephali. Finally, he commends himself and Sebastianus for their contempt of the dignity of which they had been despoiled. That work is found in Vol. IV of the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, Part 1; but, which is a cause for lament, it is mutilated in the part that is better for history.

VI. The sentence of condemnation is transmitted to the accused through three bishops, two deacons, two subdeacons, and also the primicerius of the notaries. So great was the dignity of the cardinal deacons, even from those times, that Rusticus himself, speaking to Sebastianus, said: "Remember that you are a Christian and a deacon, and this is to the total universality of the Church. If the burden of the order is unbearable," etc.

VII. Six others were condemned with the two cardinal deacons, ministers of a lesser rank of the Roman Church, and Felix the African, abbot of the Gillitan monastery, and Liberatus and Victor, as Liberatus and Victor have it.

Whoever that Felix might have been, no one could easily define, nor where the African Gillitan monastery was; yet one may suspect something from this.

In the African council in the year 525, Petrus the abbot offered a petition on behalf of the immunity of his monastery to Bonifacius, primate of Africa, and the Fathers of the synod: in it is read the subscribed name of a certain Felix, a monk and deacon. The monastery, the immunity of which was being sought, was without a doubt in the province of Byzacena; yet it was different from the Adrumetine, Baccensian, and Praecisuentian monasteries, which the petition cites as examples, and at the same time shows they existed in Byzacena, since the Baccensian is said to belong to the Maximian diocese, and the Praecisuentian to the Leptiminensian diocese; and there can be no question about the Adrumetine, since Adrumetum was the capital of Byzacium.

Since these things are so, I do not know if one might rashly conjecture: 1. That he is one and the same Felix who subscribed his name to the petition while he was a deacon; and who, having been made abbot, defended the Three Chapters.

2. That the monastery which Felix ruled, when he came to Constantinople, about the year 548, and for whose immunity Petrus strove for twenty-four years, was the same.

3. That it was named "Gillitan" from the estate on which it was situated, and "Tripolitan" from the province.

^A that it is not different from the abbot of the same name, who is said by Cassiodorus in his commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to have composed [them] from the fragments of Augustine? As the names, place, and time, and several associated circumstances agree extremely well, they contribute not a little to the conjecture.

VIII. The letter of Vigilius to Valentinian, bishop of the Tomitan Church in Scythia, is recorded in the common codices as being in the 23rd year of Justinian, the 9th after the consulship of Basil. The temporal note must be corrected: for the twenty-third year of Justinian does not coincide with the ninth after the consulship of Basil, but with the eighth, which ought to be substituted in its entirety, so that the letter is said to have been written in the year 549, on the 15th day before the Kalends of April, that is, March 18. It was, moreover, sent nearly a whole year after the *Judicatum* was issued: for it mentions both the *Judicatum* and the disturbances subsequently stirred up by Rusticus and Sebastian, and the suspension of both from office, and the deposition to be decreed unless they repent. And from this it is inferred that the sentence of deposition was not passed upon the rebels before the day on which the letter was signed.

IX. In the letter of the same Vigilius to Aurelian of Arles, which is read as written on the 1st of the Kalends of May, in the 24th year of Justinian, the 8th after the consulship of Basil, the temporal note must similarly be corrected, and the ninth year substituted for the eighth: for it seems the notary, through carelessness, added the year to the others when he should have ascribed it with single letters. Aurelian, as he was vicar of the Apostolic See, had warned the Supreme Pontiff that a rumor was being spread throughout Gaul that something had been determined by the *Judicatum*, or [that it was] contrary to the constitutions of the former pontiffs or to the faith of the four synods. The Pontiff received the letters of the one warning him on the day before the Ides of July of the year 549; he replied on the 3rd of the Kalends of May, indeed of the following year 550, which is both the twenty-fourth of Justinian and the ninth after the consulship of Basil. And this reasoning compels me to dissent from the learned Labbe, who refers both letters of Vigilius to the same year 550: for one was sent in the year 549, the other in the following.

X. From the letter to Aurelian we learn that a promise had been made to the Pontiff by Justinian in this year 550—if indeed it was made—of returning to his see shortly after a brief time; as if the business of the Three Chapters no longer held him, but rather the concern of procuring aid against the Goths. "When," he says, "the lord our most clement son, the Emperor, as he promised—God, who holds his heart, assisting—orders us to return, we will dispatch a man, God willing, who may inform us subtly of each thing. Which we have not yet done, for both the harshness of winter and the necessity of Italy, which does not escape you, have hindered us; until the most serene prince, as he desires, with the Lord's help, brings aid to himself." I said, "if indeed it was made": for, from the letter of the clerics of Italy to the legates of the King of the Franks, it appears ^B that Vigilius suffered this force from Justinian, when he was writing to the [bishop] of Arles, so that he could not freely open [the expression of] his own mind, but was compelled to serve the tyranny of the Emperor, who, with every art, was courting the friendship—necessary for his own affairs—of the Franks, who were devoted to the Apostolic See, and to obtain which he spared neither lies nor calumnies, to be spread through Gaul, whether by Greek legates or by a Gaulish man redeemed with gold. "You will," say the clerics, "quickly report all these things to your provinces, lest either those who have been sent steal in; or a certain Anastasius, whom the holy bishop Aurelian of the city of Arles had sent to the most blessed Pope two years ago, might tell some lies there in the Gauls: because he himself, too, when he could not leave Constantinople, used the counsel to promise that he would incline the minds of all the Gallican bishops to condemn the chapters on account of which these scandals have arisen, for which they also gave him very many rewards, and made him strictly provide oaths there concerning the fulfillment of this, and did not permit him to write to his brothers, the Gallican bishops, about what was being done in that very cause for the most blessed Pope through the same Anastasius, except only about other causes, and that he [Vigilius] guards and preserves the Catholic faith and the reverence of the four synods according to the tradition of the Fathers."

XI. After the two letters of Vigilius, the sacred [document] of the Emperor Justin was read to Hypatius, Prefect of the East, given at Constantinople on the 6th day before the Ides of August, in the consulship of Rufus, that is, on the 7th of August of the year 520; by which he commanded that it be inquired carefully whether those things were true, or fabricated, which were contained ^C in the acts completed by the defender of either Antioch or Cyrus, concerning the statue of Theodoret, placed on a chariot by the clerics and brought into the city in the manner of a triumph; concerning the hymn containing praises of Theodoret, sung by the exulting clerics; and concerning the collection in honor of Diodorus, Theodore, and Theodoret, and even of Nestorius the martyr, completed by Sergius, the bishop of Cyrus. This Sacred [document] was indeed read so that Justinian might mock the credulity of the peoples, and persuade them that nothing was being attempted against Theodore and Theodoret that had not long ago been acted upon by Justin, and that things were being kept in the same state in which they were under an excellent prince, which Vigilius was hoping for.

XII. If the sanction of Justin is compared with the allocution of Constantine the Questor, which is placed at the beginning of the collation, many things pertinent to ecclesiastical history will be understood. To pass over other things, certainly three things regarding Sergius, bishop of Cyrus, will become known, beyond the impious collection. Namely, first, that at the time when Justin was writing to the Prefect of the East, he [Sergius] had been at Antioch with Paul, the bishop; thereafter, the cause being known, he was cast from his see; finally, he remained without his see until his death. From the first it is clear that Paul, who succeeded Severus, ^D

^A whom Justin, as soon as he was substituted in the place of the emperor Anastasius, expelled from Antioch. He did not, therefore, sit under Anastasius, as Nicephorus wrote. This same Paul preceded Euphrasius, who, after having sat for five years, was crushed by the ruin of the city of Antioch and perished in the year 526, as the learned Labbeus demonstrates. Victor therefore errs in narrating that he died in the year 540.

From the latter, one can understand that the injunction of Justin had been ordered to be executed by Hypatius, the prefect of the East, and that therefore it was not a fable, as some have dared to write, but history, which is narrated regarding the insane clerics of Cyrus. But we have dealt at length with that matter in the *Life of Theodoret*, where we showed both the occasion on which that empty triumph was held, and how great a change it wrought for the fame of Theodoret.

Finally, the complicated question is solved: namely, whether that Sergius, bishop of Cyrus, who was the leader of the Severians against the Catholics in the Constantinopolitan collation which Justinian wished to be held in the year 533—and to whom he ordered Hypatius, having been brought back by the Roman legation, to preside over the Catholics—whether, I say, that Sergius is the same as the one guilty of that impious assembly: for he must be considered entirely different, if any faith is to be placed in Constantine the Quaestor, ^B and thus another of the same name must be said to have been substituted for the one deposited Sergius in the same episcopal see, whether by *autokeleusis* or by some other intervening party.

XIII. There is no great reason why anyone skilled in ecclesiastical history should marvel at the assembly of the martyr Nestorius: for there were, even from the times of the Council of Chalcedon, monks who were so much driven by a love for Nestorius that they would zealously seek out the relics of the departed and proclaim the holy man within the synod, while the emperor was listening. See Evagrius, book 1, chapter 2.

§ X. Observations on the VIII collation.

This is the summary of those things which were done in the seven preceding ones. In this exposition, I think the words of the synod concerning Pope Vigilius are to be noted: "Whereas he has been frequently urged by us all, and furthermore, with most glorious judges sent to him by the most pious emperor, has promised by himself to pronounce judgment on these same three chapters: having heard such a response, and having the admonitions of the apostles in our hearts, etc., gathered before all," etc. ^C From these it is evident that the *Constitutum*, by which Vigilius responded to the emperor, had been seen by the Fathers in some particular congregation preceding the public collation, in which, indeed, the aforementioned exposition of the acts was already prepared, and the canons composed: for the notary brought these and those into the assembly, and read them out before the synod.

Hence, the dispute can be settled which the most illustrious Marca intends against Cardinal Baronius: for Marca denies what Baronius asserts, that the *Constitutum* was sent by the emperor to the synod: "Lest," he says, "the reverence for the pontiff, forbidding the condemnation of persons who had died by fate, might frighten the Fathers from confirming by ecclesiastical authority what had been decreed by imperial edict." It was sent, of course, to those few only who, with Eutychius, according to the emperor's opinion, were managing everything of the VIII collation, just as once at Chalcedon some informed the definition of the synod with Anatolius.

II. These things are likewise to be noted. "When blasphemies inserted into the books were brought into the midst, we marveled at the patience of God in these, that the tongue and mind which emitted these was not immediately consumed by divine fire." For it is truly admirable that such and so unspeakable blasphemies of Theodore were understood by no one in his sense before the Ephesian council, that is, for the full forty years which flowed from the book published on the Incarnation until the Ephesian synod. It is equally stupefying that Theodore had been called to the second general synod as one of the excellent masters and defenders of the faith, when he was, however, not only guilty of such impiety, but even its author.

III. Anathema was pronounced against Theodore after his death, when he could not explain his intention, ^C 567 and so was judged from his writings alone. Anathema was likewise pronounced against all "who receive or defend him, and say that he expounded orthodoxly, and who have written for him," etc. By which anathema we understand those struck, not a few, but especially the Africans, who had published a defense of Theodore through Facundus; and strove to twist his very words into a Catholic sense, complaining, as some are still accustomed to do, that "an injury is done to a Catholic bishop, and an intolerable calumny," etc. ^D

§ XI. Observations on the anathematisms subjoined to the VIII collation.

I. The emperor, in the edict by which he proscribed the three chapters, published thirteen anathematisms; the synod likewise published them in the eighth collation. The synodal ones, although they are very much related to the imperial ones, nevertheless excel for at least a fourfold reason. For first, they surpass them in number, in the weight of the sentences, and in order. Then, they expound the orthodox faith much more clearly. Furthermore, they strike no one unless he either errs while living, or has remained in error until the end of his life. Finally, they adhere to the *Constitutum* of Pope Vigilius as far as the times allowed. For in them, just as in the *Constitutum*, both the dogmas which every faithful person rejects are rejected; and persons are not...

^A damned, which thus far have been shown to be free from damnation; the only one that seemed to be considered an impiety in the *Constitutum*. Therefore, anathema is said to be pronounced against Theodore alone, as one who long since had been expunged from the sacred records: but the writings of Theodoret and Ibas alone are proscribed, because the synod at Chalcedon had received the persons, after Nestorius had been abjured.

II. The canons were composed to this end, that the Ephesine faith against Nestorius, and the Chalcedonian against Eutyches, might be explained more distinctly, with the quibbles of either heresy, which a persistent desire for contention had devised, having been blunted. And this truly seemed to be desired in both synods: for the Fathers at Ephesus had not established any dogmatic canons, content to have delivered judgment on the epistles of Nestorius and Cyril, and to have condemned that one as heretical, and approved this other as a rule of faith. For as to the fact that Cyril's chapters were received among the Latins in place of the Ephesine canons themselves, the version of Dionysius Exiguus brought this about, rather than any greater authority. Likewise, the six hundred and thirty Fathers at Chalcedon published no dogmatic canons, but only a definition, which would comprise the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed.

III. Theodore of Cappadocia first formed these canons with a rough outline, when he was attaching an edict to Justinian; but Eutychius, a man most holy as well as most learned, bishop of the royal city, perfected it, so that he may deservedly be called the shaper, the other the author. ^B For he wiped away the stain of malevolence, as it were, sprinkled by Theodore, and added a brightness ^C of dignity, with which Catholic truth is accustomed to gain for itself value and trust.

IV. In perfecting these, the holy man used a moderation by which he might satisfy Justinian in what concerns the times, the supreme pontiff in what concerns his office, and the Church in what the faith required. For he most prudently followed the words of Justinian, the rule of the supreme pontiff, and the faith of the Church.

V. In them shines a certain admirable art: a middle way is indeed entered upon, which at that time seemed a nullity, at least to the common people: for, if any faith is to be placed in Facundus, before the synod of those fighting among themselves was held, popular error, by a common fraud, had invaded and settled deeply into the minds of the simple, that no one could stand between the Eutychians and the Nestorians: and because there is no middle sentiment in actual fact between the confession of one nature and two natures in Christ, that everyone who confessed two natures was a Nestorian; ^D and he who confessed one was a Eutychian, even if he said "one" in the manner of Cyril.

VI. Therefore, the whole of each error is condemned in the canons; but the Nestorian more expressly, the Eutychian more briefly: for so it was necessary, after ^A the synod of Chalcedon, which, since it had frayed the Eutychian heresy, seemed to the less observant to have restored the forces of the Nestorian. It was necessary, therefore, to show *κατὰ μέρος* [in detail] by what pretenses of words the Nestorians, the destroyers of the great synod, were deceiving the minds of the simpler ones.

VII. On this occasion, two things are to be observed. First, that such has been the character, or, as it were, the fate of heresies against the Catholic union of the natures of Christ, that the affliction of one was as it were the erection of the other. Photinus, just as he preached two natures in Christ, so also he preached two persons; when he was excluded, Apollinarius soon emerged, who, that he might defend one person, made one nature. Apollinarius being condemned, Theodore and Nestorius immediately emerged, the asserters of two natures, and indeed of two persons. After it was shouted down at Ephesus against Nestorius, Eutyches suddenly arose, and he confessed two natures before the union, and one after the union. The madness of Eutyches having been exploded at Chalcedon, the Nestorian heresy dared immediately to return under a changed appearance, and with the words of Nestorius, which seemed too harsh, softened, to feign the Chalcedonian faith. The Nestorians being thoroughly destroyed in the fifth synod, Eutyches immediately revived in the Monothelites: upon the extinction of whose heresy, Felix and Helipandus, with the disguise assumed again, brought back Nestorianism, by whom having been proscribed at Frankfurt, this plague long lay hidden as if in a sepulcher, until from there at length it dared to emerge again by the help of the Socinians, and, as is said, even now lives in men who turn away from the name and worship of the Mother of God.

VIII. So that the art may be perceived by which the first ten canons, by which the faith is expounded, were perfected, they should be compared with the two synodal epistles of Cyril to Nestorius, and the second of Nestorius to Cyril, the sermons of Nestorius, the twelve chapters of Cyril, the refutations of the chapters by Theodoret and Andrew of Samosata, the sermons of Eutherius against Cyril, the tomes of Proclus to the Armenians, of Leo to Flavian, the flower-gatherings of Theodore, the censure of Vigilius, which is contained in the *Constitutum*, and finally the anathemas of Justinian. For hardly any word is placed that does not look to those things which I have just mentioned.

IX. But one might wonder, since the faith of the Incarnation is expounded with such *ἀκριβείᾳ* [precision] in the aforementioned canons, that it is said nevertheless by Gregory the Great and other writers that in the fifth synod action was taken concerning persons alone. But that is said for three reasons especially. For first, since there was, or seemed to be, a consensus of all concerning the faith, the cause of the persons alone gave the occasion to the synod, and alone stirred up the contention. Then, no new heresy was condemned, but only the faith of the former ones was confirmed. Finally, since the Fathers w...

were ^A summoned to perform that task, concerning which some were claiming that something against the envy of the Chalcedonian synod was being done, nothing could be retracted regarding the faith without the judgment of the entire Church, concerning so great and holy a synod, being disapproved.

X. That the name of Origen was intruded into the eleventh canon, if anyone has proved it, in my opinion, it is manifest, not from that which the learned Halloixius contends in defense of Origen; but because only the authors of the Eutychians and Nestorians are condemned in this eleventh canon, as is fitting: for Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, and Eutyches, defenders of one nature, preceded the Eutychians, and Theodorus and Nestorius, patrons of two persons, preceded the Nestorians. But concerning authors of this kind, ^B we have spoken copiously in dissertation II on the latter part of the Works of Marius Mercator, whose testimony regarding Macedonius is clear: for he teaches, what no one had heretofore handed down, that Macedonius thought the same as Eunomius and Arius concerning the one nature of Christ.

§ XII. Observations on the subscriptions of the bishops.

I. Among the bishops who subscribed their names to the canons, seven Africans are counted in the eighth collation. Of these, I would wish four to be considered: Valerianus of Obba, Cresconius of Cuicul, Restitutus of Milevi, and Cresconius ^C of Zattara. In this order, by which they are named by me, they subscribed, though not indeed ἁμέσως (immediately), but with several Orientals intervening. But in the collation, where they are first named, the order is different: for the Cuiculitan precedes the Obban, the Zattaran the Milevitan, and other Orientals are inserted.

II. But what is the cause of this diversity? Is it a conflict of the Acts, so that one part is contrary to the other? Or a corruption of the codices? If it is a conflict of the Acts, which part's authority is stronger? The former, which has for its authors the notaries? Or the latter, which has the bishops themselves? If it is a corruption of the codices, in which part of the Acts has it occurred? Or what is the rule of emendation? If there be no rule of this kind, what will become of men who opine that from the order in which bishops are either listed or subscribe, the order of seating can be concluded, and from the seating the time of ordination be made certain? Or is it foreign to the truth, which is nevertheless popularly believed—as is done everywhere in the Church, but especially among the Africans, by an inviolable law—that the senior should precede the junior in sitting and subscribing?

III. It is helpful to inquire into this common opinion, whereby the seducer of the fifth synod, in a certain ungracious censure, wrote those things which for just causes did not please learned and upright men.

IV. He contends that "the Africans, according to the time of their episcopal appointment, both gave their names in synods and wrote [them] in letters of communion." He proves the one from canon 53 of the African code; the other from epistle 217 of Augustine to Victorinus. Memory has slipped, as is wont, in citing the canon: for he put 53 instead of 89. But let this be a fault of the printers, it is proper to him that he neither perceived the reason of the canon, nor the history of the letter contrary to himself. But of these things later.

V. Indeed I confess that it has been decreed by African laws, not once but often, that, which is agreeable to reason, and which is observed now, that among bishops equal in dignity, he who is greater in sacred age, so to speak, should also possess authority in session, and to each should belong, according as each one comes to the office, the right or privilege of presiding. Yet I deny that this law was religiously observed in Africa; indeed I contend that it was often spurned: I deny likewise that the order, whether of the sacred offices accessed or of the seating among African bishops, can be certainly detected from the Acts of the synods, such as have come down to us, the consideration of which seems to define the question lest it be extended to infinity. But I pledge that I will not only prove both, but will also demonstrate it from the history of nearly three hundred years, so that your own eyes may be the judges.

VI. Cyprian held four synods in the space of three years, namely from the year two hundred and fifty-three to two hundred and fifty-six. The first of all was about the lapsed, the second about Basilides and Martialis, the third and fourth about baptizing heretics. There are held even now among the works of Cyprian the synodical letters of each, as of the first three; or the Acts, as of the fourth.

VII. The synodical letters were sent, as I have said, from each of the first three; from the first indeed to pope Cornelius; from the second to the clergy and people of Spain; from the third to the Numidians; the Acts of the fourth are read also in Augustine, lib. VI and VII *De baptismo*, against the Donatists.

VIII. Many of the same bishops were present at these synods; yet they are counted in a different order in another: for Nicomedes of Segisama, for example, is counted in the third place in the first [synod] on the lapsed, and precedes Polycarp of Adrumetum by a great interval; he follows the same in the other three. Mammidus or Mommilus, in the first, is counted last after forty; he is called tenth in the fourth [synod] on baptizing heretics, where he precedes Hortensianus, whom he follows in the first [synod] with ten [others] intervening. Victoricus precedes Hortensianus in the first, and follows him in the last. Satius follows Rogatianus in the first; he precedes in the third, with six intervening. Junius is counted penultimate in the fourth, sixth in the first, fourth in the second. Demetrius follows Pomponius in the first; he precedes in the fourth, with eleven intervening. Quietus is named in the second before Victor, with nine intervening; he follows in the fourth. Venantius precedes Quietus in the second, and follows in the fourth, with twenty-one intervening. What more? Let your eyes judge, having seen the lists.

SCHULTZ'S NOTES.

63 See epistle LVIII in the Amsterdam edition of the Works of Cyprian, which appeared in 1700, vol. I, p. 252. 64 Loc. cit., p. 252, he is called Marrutius. 65 Ibid. There follow Tertullus, Lucianus, Eutyches, and Amplus. These are finally followed by Satius, Secundinus, and the rest. 66 Ibid. He is called Montanus. 67 Ibid. Verianus. 68 Ibid. Pompeius. 69 Ibid. Monulus. 70 See l. c. Epistle LXVII, p. 287. 71 Ibid. Secundus. 72 Ibid. The middle place between Pomponius and Petrus is held by Honoratus, Victor, Aurelius, and Satius. After him come Petrus, alius Januarius, Saturninus, alius Aurelius. Venantius follows with the rest. 73 Ibid. Between Faustus and Lucius are placed Quintus and alius Saturninus. 74 Ibid. Adelphius. Preceded l. c. by Jambus. 75 See l. c. Epist. LXX, p. 300. 76 Ibid. After Cyprian follow Liberalis, Caldonius, Junius, Primus, and Cæcilius. 77 After Nicomedes follow l. c. only twenty-four names not a little different from these. 78 See l. c. vol. I, p. 158 sqq. There Primus a Misgirpa. (Augustine has: Primus Felix). 79 Ibid. Lambaese. 80 Ibid. Castrogalbae. 81 Ibid. Monnulus a Girba. 82 a Viduis. Ibid. a Cedias. 83 Ibid. Bagai. 84 Ibid. postponed to Pollianus, s. Polianus. 85 a Birgerm. Ibid. ab Abbir Germaniciana. 86 Ibid. Thuchabori. 87 Ibid. Tuburbo. 88 Ibid. Buruch. 89 Ibid. Euchratius. 90 ab Agra, Ibid. a Vaga. 91 Ibid. Thebeste. 92 Ibid. Ammadera. 93 Ibid. Ammaccura. 94 Ibid. Muzulensis. 95 Ibid. Adelphius. 96 Alephmius. Ibid. a Leptininus. 97 Confessor. The earlier edition had Confessus. 98 Ibid. a Marrazana. 1 Ibid. a Bobba. 2 Ibid. a Dionysiana. 3 Ibid. ab Ausuaga. 4 Ibid. Saturninus. Confessor. Ibid. preceded by alius. 5 Ibid. Geminius. 6 Ibid. a Buslaceni. 7 Ibid. ab Avitinis. 8 Ibid. ab Aggya. 9 Ibid. a Marcelliana. 10 Zarito. Ibid. diarrhito. 11 Ibid. ab Ausafa. 12 Ibid. a Gazaufala.

Victor of Octavus. ^A Confessor Clarus of Mascula. Martyr Secundianus of Thabeis. Item another Aurelius of Gillani.

IX. I understand that three replies might be made: first, that by this diversity it is demonstrated that the codices are corrupted and ought to be corrected; second, that perhaps the same persons were not present, but others with the same names, in the various synods; lastly, that in those ancient times of Cyprian, what was later decreed concerning the order of seating was not yet observed.

X. But I ask the respondent, first: what is to be the method of correction in this matter? ^B For neither style, nor consistency of meaning, nor conformity with other indubitable sources, can have much weight. Are more recent codices to be corrected by older ones? But judgments regarding the age of codices are not easy, nor do the ancients agree among themselves. Should we use the testimony of the majority, so that the fewer may be corrected by the many? Yet this rule is entirely fallacious, unless the codices are sought out from diverse and distant regions: for from one region, they can all be seen to have been copied from one source.

XI. I ask, then, of what nature it is that so many bishops of the same cities—and of those same cities—should have succeeded the deceased, not merely in the space of three years, which is already a marvel, but in the space of one, which is like a fable. Add that the same order in the same synod does not exist in different codices, as is evident from the second synopsis.

XII. I ask likewise at what time the order of seating began to be religiously observed in Africa. Certainly, before canon 89 was sanctioned (it was sanctioned in the year 402), Augustine complains of order being neglected in the tractoria of Victorinus, as if it were a matter injurious to others and invidious to himself, since his name was written in the third place, when he had been a bishop for only six years. Therefore, this order was not being religiously observed.

XIII. Nor is this disturbance perceived only in different synods, but in one and the same, as is read in varied codices. In the Pamelius codex and in the Remensis, with which our Parisiensis agrees, the seventieth epistle of Cyprian, to the bishops of Numidia, lists the bishops in neither the same way, nor in the same order, nor in the same number.

Epistola LXX of Cyprian to the bishops of Numidia, concerning the baptizing of heretics.

Cyprian. Caecilius. Primus. Polycarpus. Nicomedes. Lucianus. Successus. Sedatus. Fortunatus. Januarius. Secundinus. Pomponius. Honoratus. Victor. Aurelius. ^C Confessor Licteus of Gemellis. Junius of Neapolis. Satius. Petrus. Alius Januarius. Saturninus. Alius Aurelius. Venantius. Quietus. Rogatianus. Tenax. Felix. Faustus. Quintus. Alius Saturninus. Lucius. Vincentius. Libosus. Geminius. Marcellus. Parisiensis. Of the Society of Jesus. Cyprianus. Liberalis. Caldonius. Junius. Primus. Polycarpus. Nicomedes. Felix. Marutius. Successus. Lucilianus. Honoratus. Fortunatus. Victor. Donatus. Lucilius. Herculanus. Pomponius. Demetrius. Quintus. Saturninus. Januarius. Marcus. Alius Saturninus. Alius Donatus. Rogatianus. Sedatus. Tertullus. Hortensianus. Item alius Saturninus. Sattius.

XIV. Around the year 397, upon the death of Megalius, primate of Numidia, by whom Augustine was ordained, a question seems to have arisen between Crescentianus and Aurelius concerning the primacy of Numidia, which was referred to the general council of Africa and judged according to Crescentianus. The Greek text of the council indicates this not obscurely, nay, it forces one to confess it: unless one wishes to claim that each Numidia had its own primate at that time, which one could scarcely prove. It is read thus in the African codex, can. 33: Πάλιν δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀδελφὸς Ριγίνος Βενετσελιτάνης χώρας γράμματα τῇ ἐμῇ μετριότητι ἐνεφάνισεν ἀπὸ Κρισκεντιανοῦ καὶ Αὐρηλίου τῶν συλλειτουργῶν ἡμῶν, τῶν τῆς πρώτης καθέδρας τῶν δύο Νουμιδιῶν. Ἐν οἷς γράμμασι τούτοις, etc. That is: "Again our brother Reginus, bishop of Vegetseli, presented to my mediocrity letters from our fellow-bishops, Crescentianus and Aurelius, who [hold] the first see of the two Numidias; in which letters, etc." ^D For why were those words placed: τῶν τῆς πρώτης καθέδρας τῶν δύο Νουμιδιῶν? Why is one first see spoken of for two Numidias, if each had its own? Why are both said to look to one see by the words τῶν τῆς πρώτης καθέδρας, unless they were contending for one?

XV. But for this dispute to appear doubtful—due to the difference between the Greek and Latin texts, and because perhaps the old man Crescentianus and Aurelius, who was next in age, had subscribed to the same letters, or for some other reason—this is certainly beyond doubt.

XVI. In the year 401, the same controversy arose between Xantippus and Victorinus concerning the primacy of the same province. Since it pertained to the senior by custom, as is known, each strove to vindicate it for himself by right of ordination, and each convoked bishops to himself by letters of summons. Thus...

the province was divided into three parts, with some attaching themselves to Xanthippus, others to Victorinus; the rest, like Augustine, maintained their own opinion.

These things being posited, I ask, how could there have been doubts as to the rights, whether of Crescentianus and Aurelius, or of Xanthippus and Victorinus, if the order of age had been religiously observed, both in sitting when the bishops gathered and in subscribing to the Acts of the councils? How could the contention not have been finished immediately, to finish which it would only have been necessary to examine the Acts of sixty and more councils, at which bishops of such advanced age could have been present? For twice each year were synods convened: how could the lawsuit, with such instruments openly produced, be sustained regarding this matter unless by the most shameless of men?

XVII. What was the cause why Augustine, in order to resolve the controversy, persuaded the bishops to convene those who were nearly equal in age from both sides of the contenders? What need was there to approve by the testimony of these men what public records spoke of? How does he write that he was ignorant of his equals, because he had not reached the origins of Xanthippus and Victorinus, as to which of them he should rather believe, if he had seen each of them sit and be counted in their own order in synods every year?

XVIII. Why was it decreed in the council of the following year, 402, "that whoever might henceforth be ordained by bishops throughout the African provinces should receive letters from their ordainers, subscribed by their own hand, containing the consul and the date, so that no altercation might arise regarding who were prior and who were posterior"? This is canon 89 of the African code, to which also canon 86 seems to pertain with the entire interlocution of Valentinus, Aurelius, Xanthippus, and Datianus, so that those who came later might not place themselves before those who were earlier, and so that the register and archive of Numidia should be held both at the primary see and at the metropolis, that is, Constantina. ^B

XIX. Although it was further recommended so strongly by those canons that the order of sitting should also be accommodated to the age of the episcopate, this was nevertheless not observed in the synod which preceded the noble conference of the Catholics with the Donatists, although no conference had been more famous in Africa to that day, nor any of the Catholics more numerous.

XX. A huge synod of Catholics and Donatists met, so that each side might commission seven men chosen from the total number of their body for that notable contest of the conference, with a mandate written for that purpose. To this mandate, as many as were present had subscribed; their names were recited first at the conference, in the same order as they had been written. It is indeed manifest that neither among the Catholics nor among the Donatists was any order observed, whether of provinces, or 578 of age, or of dignity. Not of provinces: for when the proconsular holds the first place and Numidia the second, the Numidians ^C nevertheless, two of the first are called among the Catholics, Silvanus and Valentinus: the first among the Donatists is Januarianus, and he himself a Numidian. Not of age, since bishops of a few years, or even months, are named before others who are far more advanced. Not of dignity: for Januarianus subscribed among the Donatists before Primianus of Carthage, the primate of Africa. How, therefore, can it be said that that order was always religiously observed, which was nowhere to be found in the noblest council of all Africa?

XXI. But neither in those two very synods, the Carthaginian and the Milevitan of the year 416, about which the question arose that caused Noris to turn from a dissertator into a censor—in these, I say, the order of age was not observed, as far as can be understood from the synodical letters of the kind that have reached us. For in the synodical letter of Numidia, such as it is commonly edited, whether among the epistles of Augustine, or in the collections of councils, Delphinus is called the last of all, and yet he had begun to hold the episcopate even before the conference, perhaps even some years before. Is it then credible that, out of nearly two hundred bishops who were counted in Numidia, not one had departed this life in that interval of six or seven years, to whose church another might have been appointed? Add that another MS. syllabus of the code has seven prelates after him. To which, in such great dissonance of codes, should more authority be given?

XXII. What of the fact that in the Carthaginian synodical letter, of the kind read in the collections of councils, after the ^D first, Restitutus, a second Restitutus is placed, while among them two others are inserted in the same synodical letter, such as we read in the editions of Augustine’s epistles? Which edition is to be emended by which? Especially since in the MS. codes there is no less discrepancy than there is in the printed ones.

XXIII. Next, in the Milevitan or Numidian synodical letter, as it is read in a MS. code of the best quality, Placentius is missing, and Cresconius is counted in the thirty-seventh place, whereas other codes represent him only in the thirty-second. To which should greater faith be given?

XXIV. A very ancient MS. Victorine code, which I consulted in the presence of an excellent man, endowed with the religion of his morals, nobility of birth, and singular kindness, lord Le Tonnelier, prefect of the Victorine library, exhibits a different order than other codes: other MS. codes, the Tellerian and our Parisian, also exhibit it 579 1. In printed books.

To the most blessed and deservedly venerable, and to be honored in Christ, Pope Innocent:

Silvanus. Valentinus. Aurelius. Donatus. Restitutus. Lucianus. Alipius. Augustine. Placentius. Severus. Fortunatus. Possidius. Novatus. Secundus. Maurentius. Leo. Faustinianus. Cresconius.

Lucius. Honorius. Adeodatus. Processus. Secundus. Felix. Asiaticus. Rufinus. Faustinus. Malchus. Victorius. Fortunatus. Donatus. Pontianus. Saturninus. Cresconius. Servius. Terentius. Cresconius. Sperantius. Quadratus. Lucillus. Sabinus. Item Sabinus. Cresconius. Victor. Gigantius. Possidonius. Antonius. Victor. Honoratus. Donatus. Petrus. Præsidius. Cresconius. Lampadius. Delphinus.

IV. Parisian Society of Jesus. In the Lord, greetings, to the most blessed lord, etc.

Silvanus. Valentinus. Aurelius. Donatus. Restitutus. Lucianus. Alipius. Augustinus. Severus. Fortunatus. Possidius. Novatus. Secundus. Maurentius. Leo. Faustinianus. Cresconius. Malchus. Littorius. Fortunatus. Donatus. Pontianus. Saturninus. Cresconius. Honorius. Cresconius. Lucius. Adeodatus. Processus. Secundus.

XXV. Which codex is to be preferred to the other? Victorinus to the others with whom it conflicts, or the others—not even themselves in agreement—to Victorinus? What can be certain in this question, in which one must act according to tables, yet those tables do not agree? ^A

XXVI. Another argument of this kind exists, which is derived from the disrupted order of the provinces: for not only a defined order of the individual bishops of one province, but also of the provinces themselves among each other, can be seen. This is gathered from the Council of Carthage of the year 525, where Boniface, primate of Africa, having heard the prosecution of Felix of Zatara, legate of the Council of Numidia, by which he had requested that the legitimate order between the provinces be observed, ordered the order of the provinces to be read from the canons: wherefore Canon 127 of the African Code, sanctioned in the year 418, was read, in which three judges chosen from each province for the ending of cases are listed, so that they might be titled first the proconsulars, then the Numidians, afterwards the Byzacenians, finally the Sitifensians and Caesarians (which must be entirely supplied), and lastly the Tripolitanians. And yet9 that order in the council of the following year, 419, was preserved indeed in the inscription, or rather the preface; but it was disrupted in the subscriptions. For the legates of Numidia, Alipius, Augustine, and Possidius, subscribed before the proconsulars, and the Caesarians after one Sitifensian, namely Novatus, but before another Sitifensian, Leo. Why is the order of subscription ^B different from that of the delegation? Certainly not because of the time of the beginning of the episcopacy: for Jocundus of Suffetula was without a doubt older than Candidus of Abitina of Germanicia, or Gallonius of Utica, or Utina (for it is read differently in other codices), seeing that he had been present at the collation, cap. 126. Others were not present, but their predecessors: Victor of Abitina, cap. 245; Victor of Utica, cap. 128; Isaac of Utica, cap. 133.

Neither is it by reason of age: for if this is said, every effort of the censor collapses. For thus it will easily be established how uncertain is the justification that is sought from the time of the beginning of the episcopacy, since the measure of life is not the same as the measure of dignity. ^C

XXVII. But since mention has occurred of the African synod of the year 419, an unanswerable argument ^D must be derived from it against the censor: for he says—destroying himself with his own weapons—that in the legitimate Acts of the synods, bishops are called or subscribe according to the time of their ordination. But the Acts of the collation of the year 411 and of the African Council of the year 419, I believe, were legitimate. Why, therefore, in the collation does Vincentius of Culusitanus, when the collators receive the mandate, precede Possidius of Calama, and yet follow him in the subscription of the council, even though Culusitanus was the legate of the first province, and Possidius of the second? These are the words of the mandate 266: "We mandate our brothers Aurelius, Alipius, Augustine, Vincentius, Fortunatus, Fortunatianus, and Possidius." Which mandate they testify to have received with their own subscriptions. The subscriptions of the council are in this manner: "Aurelius, Valentinus, Faustinus, Alipius, Augustine, Possidius, etc., I have subscribed to these acts."

XXVIII. Hence, it is not the act of a man of integrity to deny

that Rufinianus of Muzuensis ^A was present at the conference of 411 and the African council of 419. For although in the subscriptions the name is commonly read as Rufianus, in the preface he is called Rufinianus Muzucensis, or more accurately Muzuensis, since Muzuca pertains to Byzacena, and Muzua to the proconsular province, for which province Rufinianus performed the office of legate. Add that the better codices also have Rufinianus in the subscriptions, and the Greek interpreter [has] Μουσουεσιανόν: nonetheless, he is reckoned after Penthadius, whom the censor contends was ordained after the conference, in the place of Antonius of Carpitanus, who was present at the conference. Therefore, the order of the beginning of the episcopate has not been preserved between these two, if we believe the censor regarding Penthadius.

XXIX. That which he objects—that the Rufinianus of Muzuensis who was present at the council of 419 differs from the other of the same name and the same city whose name is read in the conference—is to refute [an absurdity]: otherwise, we shall also fancy two Vincentii of Culusitanus, and two Possidii of Calama, etc., and we shall present a fable of the Menaechmi in the very theater of the Church. But so much for the council of 419.

XXX. Again, after the year 420, the same dispute arose between two prelates of advanced age of the same province as to which of them held the primacy by right of ordination: therefore, in addition to the register deposited in two places, and the letters given by the ordainers as indices of time, another remedy had to be provided, by which the authority of the bishop of Carthage grew immensely, if indeed that ^B was primarily the occasion for such an increase to be taken. Two canons were sanctioned by the nineteenth council of Carthage, as is found in Ferrandus: 1. "It pleased that the primates of the various provinces should send the names of the bishops, whether of those dying or of those succeeding in their place, to the Church of Carthage." 2. "That the bishops of the first see be constituted from the council of the bishop of Carthage, when a contention has arisen." Therefore, some [contention] was arising, not rarely, nor without some probable cause, since there would be need for a controversy to be referred to the primate of the entire African diocese. But what need would there be, if the order of the beginning of the episcopate were conscientiously preserved in the synods and recorded in the Acts? For only those could contend who, because of the long time of their ordination, would precede the rest, and who had been present at many synods at once (two were gathered each year). Add that the Acts of the synods were not kept in one place. ^C

XXXI. So many remedies were of no great value for correcting the neglect of order and healing that African itch for presiding. But one hundred years later, it was necessary for both this and that to be amended again in the council which Bonifacius, bishop of Carthage, gathered from the entire diocese of Africa in the year 525. That there was a very great, or at least no small, cause for gathering it is evident from the mutual letters of Bonifacius and Messor, the primate of Numidia, in which is censured the temerity of Liberatus, the primate of Byzacena, who [sought] to make himself equal to Bonifacius of Carthage, or even, as ^D the times were, to boast of being superior; then of the minor bishops who refused to yield to their superiors. "Since," says Bonifacius, "whether through open assaults or through hidden ambushes, the enemy always strives to tear down the wall of the city, unwilling that the order which must be kept among the Lord's priests should be reserved. We feel that certain brethren wish to usurp for themselves rather than to claim [rightfully], to whom an indiscreet equality seems to be presumed in such a way that, wishing to be held as seniors by others, they disdain to show proper reverence to their own seniors, we must meet [the situation]." And afterwards: "We persuade them, mindful of ancient custom, that the register of bishops dying and succeeding one another should be sent to us, so that we may know how each one of them ought to sit, coming to us from many provinces, especially those who do not hesitate to place themselves before their own seniors."

XXXII. Messor, however, [says]: "I have been wounded by excessive griefs of sorrows, because certain brethren desire to trample upon the statutes of the canons and have contributed somewhat to the insult of our name, and wish, as has never happened, to place themselves before their seniors." And afterwards: "I have requested the register of this council, so that the authority of the ancients may not be blotted out," etc. Clearly, Liberatus of Byzacena was affecting equality with Bonifacius of Carthage, on account of the preeminence of Adrumetum over Carthage at that time, and other minor bishops wished to rise against their superiors, and that happened especially when, being placed outside their own province at Carthage, they were present at synods held there.

XXXIII. Moreover, there were also in Africa *endemousai* (resident) synods, to which the censor does not seem to have turned his attention, when he attributes all the bishops listed in the synodical [epistle] of the proconsular council to Paul of Constantinople to the province of Carthage, and is compelled to invent cities or to deport with some incredible authority: but this is the more easily to be pardoned him, because he followed, as is his custom, Carolus a S. Paulo and Holstenius with eyes all but closed, and did not detect the error of his leaders.

583 XXXIV. But before we leave this place, it is worth noting, which contributes greatly to the matter, that in almost all councils it happened that the same bishops are not always reckoned in the same order, but those whom they follow later sometimes precede them. Thus, in the act of the Council of Ephesus, Memnon is inscribed in the third place, [but] subscribes in the fifth. Thus, Firmus in the same place gives his opinion before Flavianus, after whom he subscribes. Similarly, Theodorus of Ancyra gives his opinion before Acacius of Melitene, yet subscribes after. Iconius of Gortyna in Crete precedes Palladius of Amasea in giving his opinion, [but] follows [him] in subscribing.

XXXV. What of the fact that the Orientals are reckoned in one order in their own Acts, and in another in the Catholic [collections]; nay, in the Catholic [collections] differently in different ones? Macarius, bishop of Laodicea, after Meletius of Neocaesarea and Heliades of Zeugma...

is ordained, as we learn from the letter of John of Antioch to Nestorius: ^A “These I have dictated in the presence of Archelaus, most pious bishop, Apringius, Theodoret, Heliades, Meletius, and Macarius, who, by the grace of God, has most recently been appointed to preside over the Church of Laodicea.” Before them, however, he subscribes to the action of the schismatics, not by any prerogative of the Church or province, since he follows Theodoret and is liable to the metropolitan of Hierapolis, and to that same province with Heliades. Nor does Theodoret, who was neither primate nor adorned with any prerogative thus far, allow the force of the argument to be deflected by a distinction of churches and dignities.

XXXVI. If these things are as they truly are, as is the case in the order of the recension, as it is now held in the Acts, can anyone, whether prudent or knowledgeable in African affairs, affirm that the age of the prelates can be known with certainty? Since not even Augustine himself would have been sufficiently able to conjecture it, even with those past times in which the Acts could scarcely have been seen to be corrupted.

XXXVII. But what shall I say, that from that very place from which the question arose, an argument is drawn which is invincible, if it is considered by a sensible man, against the presumption of the critic upon which the whole criticism almost entirely relies? For if in the two synods, of which we have spoken, the names are said to be listed in the order in which the prelates reached the episcopacy: then one must confess that something wonderful or rather incredible, and similar to a fable, has happened: namely, that within the space of five years and a few months, which elapsed from the collation held on the Kalends of June, 411, to the two synods celebrated in the month of September, 416, more than eighteen bishops died, and in whose cities, as if by an arrangement, just as many bishops with the same names were appointed, and so Rufinianus succeeded Rufinianus in the see of Muzu, Quodvultdeus succeeded Quodvultdeus in the see of Vere, Praetextatus succeeded Praetextatus in the see of Siciliba, etc.

584 CHAPTER VI

Regarding the approval of the Fifth Synod by the Supreme Pontiffs, who held the Apostolic See from Vigilius up to Leo II.

I. It has been believed in the Church, since ancient times, that the full and entire authority of the synods, even ecumenical ones, does not exist as long as they are not approved by the Supreme Pontiffs; that is, until the head of the Church concurs with the members in one opinion. This opinion, deeply implanted in the minds, has brought it about that the fifth synod was not revered by everyone in the same way as the first four, as long as it was believed by some to have been held while the Supreme Pontiff Vigilius was protesting, or, with him remaining silent and other successors likewise not revealing their minds, to have been merely tolerated rather than approved.

II. Nor were the ancients of this view alone, ^B among whom the memory of Justinian was fresh, as they almost labored through tyranny so that his edict on the Three Chapters might have the force of a confession of faith. This has also been felt in our own age by certain learned men, one of whom, Halloix, in the work in which he undertook to defend Origen, curiously collected many things on this matter. When a certain dissertator attempted to attack these, he achieved, I confess, something, but with the arms of others: for what could he accomplish with his own, when men who are truly learned are accustomed to say that insults, gibes, and contumelies are the womanly defenses of those conscious of their own infirmity?

III. I do not wish myself to adjudicate the dispute between Halloix and the dissertator: for who now could judge or even settle such a thing? For Halloix has departed to the world above, and the dissertator thinks he knows something only if he takes away from the works of others. It is better, therefore, to deal with the matter that is proposed, and to bring forward those arguments which would have led Halloix away—as he was a seeker of truth—from the opinion which, although he made it almost probable through his erudition, he did not, however, state as a probable case.

IV. Furthermore, there is no reason at all why, in inquiring into the opinion of the Supreme Pontiffs regarding the fifth synod, I should labor more arduously beyond the times of the sixth synod, or at least beyond the pontificate of Leo II or Sergius I. For I am now bringing to light for the first time two confessions of faith, long sought by the learned, and not yet seen, which, when they were issued by the Supreme Pontiffs at their ordination, they professed before the whole Church that they received the fifth synod and honored it with the same honor as the previous four.

V. It must be inquired, therefore, what the Supreme Pontiffs felt about the fifth synod over the space of almost 132 years (for so much time elapsed from the fifth synod to Sergius I). For when the synod was being celebrated, ^C Vigilius was in the seventeenth year of his pontificate; but he died in the year 554. Sergius, however, began to sit in the year 687, on the 26th of December.

VI. In that interval of time, twenty-five prelates held the Apostolic See, if Vigilius and Sergius are counted, among whom those who stood out in writings that have reached us were Vigilius, the two Pelagiuses, Gregory the Great, Martin I, Agatho, Leo II, and Sergius I. Regarding whom it is helpful to have a primary question, for ^D there is a constant opinion, as I believe, that others—whose memory is more obscure—did not differ from the more distinguished ones.

§ I. Regarding Vigilius.

I. Halloix fights with many arguments that Vigilius never assented to the fifth synod, and therefore was sent into exile by Justinian, from which he was at last permitted to return through the prayers of Narses, and died in Sicily while he was returning to Rome.

II. He arrived at that opinion because he followed

many ancient and modern writers: but since the most illustrious Marca contended that he had strayed from the truth, he brought forth from the Royal library a letter of Vigilius to Eutychius for the confirmation of the synod.

III. Vigilius, of course, having permitted a synod to be held by his letter given to Eutychius on January 7, 553, approved the same, after it was completed on June 2, by letters given again to Eutychius on December 8. Both letters are exhibited by the collection of general councils, whether the Royal one or the most recent.

IV. In the former, the pontiff writes these things: "Recognizing your desire, in accordance with the aforementioned petitions, we grant that, concerning the three chapters from which the question arose, having made a regular assembly and observed equity, with the holy Gospels in our midst, we may have a conference with the united brethren," etc.

V. In the latter, after he had prefaced many things concerning the three chapters and their condemnation, he says: "Whosoever," he says, "believes that those chapters should at any time be received or defended, or has attempted to subvert this present condemnation, we subject to a like authority: but whosoever, keeping the right faith, have condemned or even now condemn the aforementioned three chapters, decreed by said synods, we define as brothers and fellow-priests. And those things which were done either by me or by others for the defense of the aforementioned three chapters, by the definition of this our present writing, we evacuate."

VI. From there, six things are gathered by some. 1. That the Fifth Synod was received by Vigilius in the sixth month after it was completed. 2. That the *Constitutum* was revoked in the part where it appears to contain some defense of the three chapters. 3. That the Greek writers thought correctly for the truth when they reported that Vigilius had consented to the Fifth Synod [ἐγγράφως]. 4. That the exile of Vigilius, which some have extended to 586, is fictitious: and that nothing else is to be understood by this name than the almost ten-year violent absence of the Pope from the city of Rome. 5. That by the favor and prayers of Narses, this one thing was granted, that the man whom Justinian desired to retain in his city might be permitted to return to Italy, which was also to Justinian's interest. 6. That an approbatory letter of such a kind to the synod was truly synodical: for pontiffs in former times were not wont to transact a matter of such great importance, as was the reception of a council, except in a synod. And indeed, how could a *Constitutum* solemnly edited in a synod be evacuated, unless by an act of equal authority, and thus a synodical one?

VII. Nor indeed could anyone reasonably object that this letter of Vigilius to Eutychius appears to be familial rather than synodical: since there is no mention in it of any council, nor did the bishops of Vigilius’ party subscribe to it, just as they did the *Constitutum*: for let him who so objects remember ^A the letters, whether those which Innocent I gave to the two African synods, the Carthaginian and the Milevitan; or those which Celestine gave to Nestorius, or other pontiffs. For we have demonstrated both that these were synodical, and no one skilled in ecclesiastical history is ignorant of it. Yet those are neither inscribed with the name of a synod, nor are they subscribed to by a synod, but only by the supreme pontiff: for this was a privilege of the apostolic see above other patriarchal ones—although the Africans wished to arrogate that to their own Aurelius—that what the pontiff had defined in a synod, unless it were a celebrated synod that deserved to be called western, he might command to be observed in his own name alone. This can be demonstrated by almost infinite examples.

VIII. I know that for some learned men some doubt still remains concerning the later letters of Vigilius; nor has Marca, with his learned dissertation, prudently rooted out the scruple of some regarding this matter. Nevertheless, an argument of that kind, which has its own not unlearned supporters, ought not to have been omitted.

IX. Moreover, letters of this kind, whether the former ones, which are indubitable, or the latter, if they are genuine—which will shortly be seen—warn me to profess openly that I am not able to assent to those who hold Vigilius in this instance guilty of inconstancy of mind and excessive facility in changing his opinion: for I would prefer, were there nothing else to the contrary, not only out of reverence for the vicar of Christ, but even by the persuasion of virtue itself, to call this manner of acting—which Vigilius is said by Marca to have observed—by which, out of concern for the faith and public peace, he was able to use now the rigor of law and canons, and now their remission, a prudent ^{B C} *oikonomia*, as does the most illustrious Marca (lib. III *de Concord.*, cap. 13): for I know that the Holy Spirit, according to time and place, as He gives light to His Church, so also gives it to the head of the Church.

587 X. But it is in the interest of historical truth to inquire into the letter of Vigilius brought from the shadows of the Royal library to the light by the most illustrious Marca in the year 1642. ^D It is read to have been given before December 8, in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of Justinian, in the twelfth year after the consulship of Basil, that is, on December 8, 553, six months after the synod was concluded. The most illustrious editor proves that it is not supposititious, with not a few, nor weak arguments. For first, he says, it was transcribed from a volume which, written by hand, was preserved in the ancient library of the Roman Church ever since the year 753: it was transcribed, I say, in the year of Christ 1276, by a man of noble learning, Leo Cinnomus, and at the same time commended to the Imperial library of the Greeks, along with many others, and especially the Acts of the V synod, to which it was subjoined.

Then Enagrius, *Hist.* lib. IV, cap. 34, wrote that Vigilius had consented to the Fifth Synod [ἐγγράφως]. But what other writing? Now the authority of Evagrius is weightier, the closer it is to the times of the synod.

Third, Photius, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Euthymius, and Nicephorus Callistus report that Vigilius consented to the synod; yet they received this information from no other source than the Acts of the Fifth Synod, to which was appended the decretal.

Fourth, the Sixth Synod relates in its *Prosphoneticus* to Pogonatus that Vigilius agreed with Justinian, just as Leo I did with Marcian.

Finally, Pelagius II, in his letter to the bishops of Istria, says that the apostolic see, after long struggles over the Three Chapters and having suffered many things, finally yielded when the truth revealed itself. This is the very same reasoning Vigilius gives for rescinding his *Constitutum* by means of a decretal, because the light had shone upon him, all confusion of mind having been removed.

Nevertheless, those who consider this suspicious bring forward arguments of their own which are undeniably grave, and by bending the arguments of the most illustrious editor toward their own side, they weaken them not a little. They say, first, that this decretal contains many things that are not so much contrary to the dignity of the apostolic see as they are false and absurd. For what is more unworthy than that the Vicar of Christ should confess that in a matter which he agitated in his own council, he had composed many things—both in word and in writing—under the impulse of the devil; that he had been divided from his brothers by the same devil’s deceit; that he had departed into discord, having scorned charity; that his mind had previously been in a state of confusion, etc.?

What could be more false than this, in both respects: regarding the time when the decretal is consigned—that is, the sixth month after the synod was finished, when the whole world and the Church had already been recalled to peace—and regarding the claim that it was only at the time he wrote that he first discovered the blasphemies of Theodore in the bright light of day? For it can be taken as certain that after the synod was concluded, the entire West was in turmoil, and in his *Constitutum*, the mark of infamy was branded upon each of Theodore’s chapters.

How inappropriately the example of Augustine is brought forward to excuse this change of opinion! For there is scarcely any similarity between the case of Augustine and that of Vigilius. Augustine was just one bishop; Vigilius was the head of the Church. Augustine was a doctor of one local Church; Vigilius of the universal world. Augustine retracted the works of a private man; Vigilius retracted a decretal sent from a synod to all the faithful of the world. Augustine corrected properly only those things he wrote as a layman, or certainly before his episcopate; as for the rest, he merely reviewed them. Vigilius is said to have corrected things that he had issued as pontiff for almost seventeen years. Augustine corrected what he had written concerning various topics; Vigilius, what he had defined with the mature judgment and council of his brothers.

They say, second, that it seems wondrous why Leo Cinnomus, when he testifies that he obtained the letter in question from a paper volume that was preserved ^A in the old library of the Roman Church, reported only that single item and omitted the rest that were attached to it. Why was he silent as to whether he transcribed the Greek found in that place, or whether he made a Latin version from the Greek? If he found the Greek, but not the Latin, the credibility of the narrator is deservedly suspect; for why should one not believe it was composed either by Cinnomus himself or by some other little Greek? Why is the Latin letter of the Roman pontiff found nowhere, and certainly mentioned by no Latin author? If he made the Greek from the Latin, there arises once again matter for not unreasonable suspicion: whether he translated in good faith or otherwise; whether he added things of his own which are unbecoming; or whether he found it in an autograph copy?

Certainly, if in the year 753—that is, two hundred years after the synod was finished—the Latin decretal still existed in the library of the Roman Church, how did it remain hidden from the successors of Vigilius? If it did not remain hidden, how is it that it was not mentioned by them, especially when it most certainly should have been, at least at the time when Pelagius II and Gregory the Great were disputing most vehemently against the schismatics? And this is the third thing that the detractors of the letter allege.

But they also add a fourth: that there appear to be clear indications of a forgery. For, beyond what has been explained so far, Vigilius is not brought forward in a scholarly manner to offer the example of his fathers, who retracted and corrected their own statements. For by the name of "fathers," I suppose he means his predecessors, as is gathered from the *Constitutum*. But which of his predecessors retracted and corrected his own statements? Hormisdas? For this one seems to be the only one who could be produced. But his method is, as every learned person knows, ^B wonderfully different from the method of Vigilius.

Then, when Augustine is set up as an example that the pontiff imitates imprudently, not to say ineptly, he is proclaimed a master of Roman eloquence. But that is of no great moment, since it might perhaps be read not as *euglōttias* (eloquence) but as *eudoxias didaskalos* (teacher of true doctrine); in which sense Hormisdas wrote to Possessor that one could learn from Augustine what the Roman Church thinks about free will and the grace of God.

It is more pressing that, contrary to public faith and known truth, the sermons of Theodore are said everywhere—at the time when Vigilius was writing—to have been refuted: for in that period, not only Africa, but also many among the Orientals were fighting for the books of Theodore.

The fact that the last three canons concerning Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas are described maliciously and almost verbatim from the edict and the synod makes it seem as if the pontiff is swearing by the very words of those against whom he was struggling while exercising his judgment, and by that act, is confessing the former blindness or obstinacy of his mind. ^{C D}

^A Certainly, if the pontiff actually wrote the letter, either he did not act with the greatest wisdom, since he did not consult the dignity of his own see, when he could have done so, having a crown of most learned men assisting him; or he suffered the harshest necessity of writing under the tyranny of Justinian, who himself served his own mentors. In which case, since the letter was extorted by force and fear, it has no authority.

They add this final point, that the arguments brought forward to the contrary have no more weight than the amount they borrow from the authority of the most illustrious Marca.

For first, what the Greeks hand down—that Vigilius consented to the Fifth Synod *ἐγγράφως* (in writing)—can or even must be understood either as referring to the first letters to Eutychius, by which the pontiff consented to the celebration of the synod; or to the *Constitutum*, where all the same things are condemned as in the Fifth Synod, except for the person of Theodore; or even to the *Judicatum* issued long before, and which was the cause of the disturbances in the West, which disturbances the Greeks clutched at to serve as wealthy witnesses to their own fiction.

Nor is an exception of this kind rash: for it is favored by what is adduced by the most illustrious Marca from the *Prosphoneticum* of the Sixth Synod; for in that place the matter concerns the consent of Vigilius and Justinian, by which the synod was convened.

^B Furthermore, what the same most illustrious dissertator adds at number 3, that the remarkable testimony of Pelagius II from his *Epistle to the Bishops of Istria* can be added to his earlier reasons—whose words are so clear that one is led to wonder how such an express judgment concerning Vigilius could have escaped men who were otherwise most clear-sighted: for it is recounted there in long-winded language that the Apostolic See indeed initially approved the Three Chapters through Vigilius, and labored for a long time on their defense, and struggled for a long time even to the point of suffering injuries (which can only be understood of Vigilius himself). Then, it yielded when the truth revealed itself. These words refer to the letter of Vigilius, who, after having handled the matter more diligently, writes that the truth had shone upon him and that he condemned the Three Chapters. This, I say, does not urge the point vehemently: for those very clear-sighted men, perhaps, argue that just as Pelagius II’s words are not cited *word for word* (κατὰ λέξιν), so they are not fully explained. Thus, those words in number 3 run as follows: "The Latins, indeed, being men ignorant of Greek, while they were unaware of the language, recognized the error late; and they ought to be believed all the more quickly, given the extent to which their constancy did not rest from the struggle until they recognized the truth—a consent of theirs which your fraternity would certainly despise had they consented with precipitous daring before they recognized the truth. But after long labor on their part, and a long time spent struggling even unto the point of injuries, your fraternity should consider that they would not have suddenly abandoned so many labors unless they had recognized what things were true." And a little later: "Therefore, your dilection must consider that the consensus of our predecessors in this cause was not in vain, inasmuch as they had first sweated over the labors of contradictions." And afterwards: ^C "If, in the matter of the Three Chapters, another thing was said, but then, when the truth was found, another [was said]: why is a change of opinion charged as a crime against this see, which is venerated by the entire Church for its humility in its author? For it is not a change of opinion, but an inconstancy of mind, that is at fault. When, therefore, the intention remains immutable toward the recognition of what is right, what prevents one from changing his words, if he is forsaking his own ignorance?"

For the issue is indeed concerning the truth, which lay hidden from Pope Vigilius and the princes of the Latin provinces; and concerning an error recognized late, due to a lack of knowledge of the Greek language. Such hidden truth, or unknown error, pertained without doubt to the blasphemies of Theodore, and the sentiments of Theodoret and Ibas; and that truth, coming to light—being recognized here—caused Vigilius to change the sentence he had passed on the way while traveling from Rome to Constantinople in favor of the Three Chapters, changing it in the *Judicatum* after a year, and in the *Constitutum* issued after seven years, and to condemn everything that was contained in the Three Chapters, except for the persons.

For the most erudite prelate’s argument concerning the twofold truth—unknown to Vigilius before and detected afterward—to the effect that everything that happened in the councils can be retracted, except for the faith, and that the dead can also be condemned, provided they have professed heresy: this will hardly persuade anyone, I believe, who either remembers the history of the matter or has read through the epistle of Pelagius II. For neither truth lay hidden due to ignorance of the Greek language, since the latter was proven in the fifth session before the *Constitutum* was issued, by the testimony of Holy Scripture and Augustine; and the former is evident from the manifest words of Leo the Great. Wherefore, the change of sentiment that Pelagius mentions pertains entirely to the *Judicatum*, or rather to the *Constitutum*, and this is concluded even by the witnesses produced by the most illustrious prelate himself at 591. For Photius, when he writes about Vigilius, was present in the city, but he was not participating in the synod; yet, although he was not of a mind particularly inclined toward the assembly of the holy council, he nevertheless confirmed the common faith of the Fathers in a letter; and those things from the Arabic Code of canons: "The synod excommunicated both the living and the dead, which had not been done previously except against those alone, and this fact occurred with the knowledge of the Roman patriarch, who confirmed it, and in a writing given to the emperor professed his own faith"—these should be understood as referring to the *Constitutum* sent to the emperor, the censure of which confirms the faith of the Fathers as comprised in the canons: not to the *decretalis* which was given to Eutychius. ^D These are, for the most part, the arguments of both sides, which, whoever has weighed more diligently, if he does not disapprove—as he certainly ought not to—the very grave judgment of the most illustrious Marca concerning the epistle of Vigilius, he will not, however, approve it in such a way (as the recent dissertator did) as to think that an invincible argument can be derived from it, by which the rashness of Halloix, who denies that the synod was immediately approved by Vigilius, becomes apparent.

§ II. Concerning Pelagius I.

I. Vigilius was succeeded by Pelagius I, who himself was said to be...

could have received the synod, even then while he was still a deacon, provided that the synodal letter of Vigilius—by which the synod was confirmed, as Marca contends—were not spurious; for without a doubt, he would have subscribed to this, just as he had done previously to the *Constitutum*.

II. A more certain truth must be stated: but first, the fable must be exploded which deceived the commentator, and which seems to have been inserted into the Chronicle of Victor of Tunnuna, at the 18th year after the consulship of Basil, regarding the exile of Pelagius on account of his steadfastness of mind in defending the Three Chapters, his persuasion by the Emperor Justinian, the return of Pelagius from exile, the condemnation of the chapters by him, and the Apostolic See being redeemed at that price, and finally the ordination of Pelagius by the prevaricators of the synod, and his five-year pontificate.

III. For how much more contradictory is that passage of Victor than the following one regarding the 37th year of Justinian? How much more abhorrent to the truth is this and that? But so that the defect of the author who deceives the simple-minded may be apparent, both must be transcribed. First: "In the 18th year after the consulship of Basil, the distinguished man, Pelagius, archdeacon of Rome, the third to defend the aforementioned chapters, returns from exile through the persuasion of Prince Justinian, and condemning those things which it is clear he had long defended, is ordained bishop of the Roman Church by the prevaricators of the synod, and he presided for 5 years." Second: "In the 37th year of the reign of the aforementioned prince, Justinian (which was 24 years after the consulship of Basil, if ^A the number is reckoned in the manner of Victor), Pelagius is ordained Roman bishop, and he presided for 11 years." If he is ordained in the 18th year after the consulship of Basil, how is he ordained in the 24th year after the consulship of Basil? If he presided for 5 years, how did he preside for 11 years?

IV. I know what the commentator objects, namely, that what was said before ought to be understood of Pelagius I, and what was said later of Pelagius II, whose eulogy was intruded by some imprudent person into a place where it does not belong. But even if we liberally grant this to one who argues thus, the hallucination of the chronicler regarding Pelagius I and others is still not defended. For there are many letters of Pelagius dated in the 15th year after the consulship of Basil. Therefore, he is not ordained in the 18th year, as the chronicler writes. Next, the Lord—or rather, the Lord of the Church of Antioch—was presiding when the fifth synod was held, and Victor himself reports that; how then is it said by the chronicler that he was ordained in the 18th year after the consulship of Basil, which, in the manner of Victor, is 556, that is, the third year from the synod? Afterward, Datius, the prelate of Milan, died in the year 552, as the learned commonly teach, although there are some who postpone his death to the following year. By what reasoning, then, does the chronicler write that he came to Constantinople in the year 554? I omit speaking of the victory of Narses being delayed for two years, etc.

V. These and other historical monsters can persuade a reader who is not imprudent that whatever is in Victor's Chronicle from the 15th year after the consulship of Basil up to the end, and where the praises and contests of Victor are proclaimed, was added by a man entirely unskilled in chronology, and those things were attributed to the one Victor Chronicle—the same that is called the ^B appendix, in the way that appendices are accustomed to be joined to their bodies, so to speak.

VI. With this inept fable rejected, along with its consequences which some manufacture; and with the conjecture also rejected, which rests upon the supposititious letter of Vigilius, that Pelagius, when he was a deacon at Constantinople and was most devoted to the affairs of Vigilius, had subscribed to the final synodal letter of Vigilius regarding the confirmation of the fifth council; we must inquire next: what did Pelagius, once he had become pontiff, perform regarding this matter? He was in fact made pope after the death of Vigilius, in the year 555, as will soon be shown, around the 15th of April, that is, not two years after the synod was concluded. ^C He does not appear to have spoken of the fifth synod in express words anywhere; however, it is not obscurely known that he fought for it to be received by all, from the letters directed to Narses, the bishops of Tuscany, Childebert the king, and the whole people of God.

VIII. Although the last two are not so much letters as a profession of faith or an oath taken at his ordination; yet whatever kind of instrument this was, it certainly shows that Theodorus of Mopsuestia was condemned by Pelagius, that assent was given to the fifth synod, and that the *Constitutum* of Vigilius was not retained in the part that concerns Theodorus, but was retained in the part which concerns Theodoret and Ibas. For he considers these two among the orthodox in these words: "I profess that I also hold as condemned those whom they condemned, and that I venerate among the orthodox those whom they received, especially the venerable bishops Theodoret and Ibas." Since therefore he considers Theodoret ^D among the Catholics, but not Theodorus, he sufficiently intimates that he agrees with the fifth synod regarding the person of Theodorus.

IX. Writers do not agree in what year Pelagius died; certain things, however, are three. 1. That Pelagius held the pontificate in the year 556, on the 15th of February. 2. That he was deposited in the tomb on the 4th of the Nones of March. 3. That he sat for four years, ten months, and eighteen days. The first is clear from the letters sent to the bishops of Tuscany on the 15th of the Kalends of March in the 15th year after the consulship of Basil (that year was of Christ, as the *Fasti* teach, 556). The other two are testified to by the epitaph inscribed on the tomb: "Here rests Pope Pelagius, who sat for four years, ten months, and eighteen days. Deposited on the 4th of the Nones of March." This fourth point is also certain, that regarding the proposed question, writers have departed into three altogether probable opinions. For some report the death to the year 559, as Baronius; others to the year 560, as the commentator; others to the year 561, as Panvinius. Nor is the supplementer of the Victorine Chronicle worthy of being heard as the author of a fourth opinion.

X. But if, furthermore, Pelagius was deposited on the 4th of the Nones of March, it is necessary to admit that that month of March was of the year 559, 560, or 561. It is necessary, therefore, that he began to sit around the 15th day of April of the year 555, 556, or 557. And yet he sat on the 15th of the Kalends of March of the year 556.

Nones of March. ^A Dissertator and Panvinius have therefore departed from the truth, and have undeservedly accused Baronius and other noble chronologers.

XI. From his knowledge of the death or the accession of Pelagius, the end of the life of Vigilius becomes easily known, if one believes Anastasius, who asserts that his episcopate ceased for three months and five days. For if this time is subtracted from that in which Pelagius entered, it will immediately appear to be the 10th day of January of the year 555, in which Vigilius died, about nineteen months after the Vth Synod was concluded.

XII. Since, however, mention has been made of the letters of Pelagius to Childebert and to the whole people of God, it will not be irrelevant to note what the most learned old man, P. Chifflet, wrote to me, that neither of them contains the whole profession of faith, but rather one part in some and another in others, whereas, according to the intention of the author, the whole ought to have been contained in each. The codex of Saint-Bénigne of Dijon, which the excellent man transmitted to me transcribed by his own hand, exhibits it complete, which I have decided to insert here, lest so learned a man’s warning and labor perish.

THE FAITH OF SAINT POPE PELAGIUS

I believe in one God, Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit: the Father, that is, omnipotent, eternal, unbegotten: the Son, born from the substance or nature of the same Father before every beginning, whether of time or of anything else whatsoever; that is, that He is ^B equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial with the Begetter. The Holy Spirit also, omnipotent: equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial to both, that is, to the Father and the Son; who, proceeding untemporally from the Father, is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. This is three persons, or three subsistences of one essence or nature, of one virtue, of one operation, of one beatitude, and of one power; so that there is a threefold unity, and one Trinity, according to the truth of the Lord’s voice, saying: Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In the name, He says, not in the names; so that He might show one God through the indistinct name of the divine substance, and might teach the distinguishing of persons demonstrated by their own properties: because while there is one name of the deity for the three, the equality of the persons is shown; and again the equality of the persons permits nothing extraneous, nothing accidental to be understood in them: so that each one of them is true and perfect God. That is to say, from the fullness of the divinity, nothing less is understood in the individuals, and nothing more in the three.

From this holy, most blessed, and consubstantial Trinity, I believe and confess one person, that is, the Son of God, to have descended from heaven in the latest times for the salvation of the human race; not leaving the paternal seat nor the governance of the world: and by the Holy Spirit coming upon the blessed Virgin Mary, and the power of the Most High overshadowing her, the same Word and Son of God gently entered into the womb of the same holy Virgin Mary: and from her flesh He united to Himself flesh, animated by a rational and intellectual soul. Nor was the flesh created first, and the Son of God come afterwards; but (as it is written) *Wisdom building a house for herself*, immediately the flesh was in the womb of the Virgin, immediately the Word of God was made flesh: and from thence, without any permutation or conversion of the nature of the Word and of the flesh, the Word and Son of God was made man: ^C one in both natures, that is, divine and human, Christ Jesus, true God, and the same one true man, progressed—that is, was born—with the integrity of maternal virginity preserved: because in this way the virgin remained and gave birth, just as the virgin conceived. On account of which we most truly confess the same blessed Virgin Mary to be the mother of God: for she brought forth the incarnate Word of God.

There is therefore one and the same Christ God, true Son of God, and the same Himself true Son of man; perfect in Deity, and the same Himself perfect in humanity; being whole in His own, and the same Himself whole in ours: thus, by a second birth, taking from the human mother what He was not, so that He would not cease to be what He was by the first, by which He was born from the Father. On account of this, we believe Him to be from two, and in two remaining, indivisible and unconfused, natures; indivisible indeed, because even after the assumption of our nature, one Christ Son of God remained and remains; unconfused, however, because we believe the natures were so united into one person and subsistence that, with the property of each preserved, neither was converted into the other. And therefore, as we have often said, we confess one and the same Christ to be the true Son of God, and the same Himself to be the true Son of man, consubstantial with the Father according to the Deity, and the same consubstantial with us according to the humanity, like us in all things without sin: passible in the flesh, the same Himself impassible in the Deity: whom under Pontius Pilate we confess to have suffered of His own will for our salvation in the flesh, to have been crucified in the flesh, to have died in the flesh; to have risen on the third day, the same flesh having been glorified and rendered incorruptible; and to have conversed with His disciples after the resurrection, and to have clearly shown them in many ways the truth of His body, and on the fortieth day, ^D while the same disciples were watching, to have ascended into heaven and also to sit at the right hand of the Father. Whom I believe and confess, according to the testimony of the angels, that as He ascended into heaven, so He will come to judge the living and the dead. For all men, from Adam even

to the consummation of the age, and those born and dead, together with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born from other parents, but one created from the earth and the other from the rib of man, I confess will rise again, and will stand before the tribunal of Christ, that each one may receive his own things of the body, according to what he has done, whether good or evil. And the just indeed, through the most bountiful grace of God, as vessels of mercy prepared for glory, He will endow with the rewards of eternal life; in the company, that is, of the angels, to live without end without any fear of falling of their own; but the wicked, vessels by the choice of their own will remaining apt for destruction, who either did not know the way of the Lord, or having known it, left it captured by various transgressions, in the punishments of eternal and unquenchable fire, that they may burn without end, He will deliver to most just judgment. ^A This, therefore, is my faith and hope, which is in me by the gift of God’s mercy; for which the blessed Apostle Peter commands that we should be especially prepared to give an answer to every man who asks us for a reason.

Regarding the four holy councils, that is, the Nicene of three hundred and eighteen; the Constantinopolitan of one hundred and fifty; the first Ephesine of two hundred; but also the Chalcedonian of six hundred and thirty, I profess with my whole heart and all my strength that, with divine mercy protecting me, I have held this conviction and will hold it until the end of my life; so that I shall guard them in the holy defense of the faith, and in the condemnations of heresies and heretics, as being confirmed by the holy Spirit, with all devotion. Whose firmness, because it is the firmness of the universal Church, I profess that I will guard and defend just as it is certain my predecessors defended them. In which I desire especially to follow and imitate him whom we know to have been the author of the Chalcedonian synod: who, consistent with his name, evidently showed himself to be a member of Him who came forth a lion from the tribe of Judah, through his most lively diligence for the faith. I trust, therefore, that I will always show similar reverence to the aforementioned synods: and whosoever are absolved by the same four councils, I shall hold as orthodox: nor will I ever in my life, with God protecting us in all things, diminish anything from the authority of their holy and true preaching.

^B This, therefore, is my faith and my hope, which is in me by the gift of God’s mercy; for which the blessed Peter commanded us to be especially prepared, to give an answer to every man who asks us for a reason. With this profession I desire to live, and with it to stand before the tribunal of Christ: by this I believe that I am absolved from my sins, and am to be carried to the right hand of divine mercy’s glory. But whoever has felt, believed, or preached otherwise, him the holy and universal Church anathemitizes.

^B § III. On John III, the successor of Pelagius, and Benedict, who followed John.

^C I. John III succeeded Pelagius I; Benedict succeeded John. Neither left anything written which has reached us, from which the express opinion of either or both could be known; yet it is credible that both adhered to their predecessors: and the book of prayers, which the prelates of Istria offered to Emperor Maurice, suggests this; its place will be provided in the following paragraph.

II. The dissertator believed it could be persuaded of this same thing by the words of Pelagius II, or rather of Gregory the Great: ‘The consensus of our predecessors in this cause was not as futile after so long a time, 597 as it labored before with the hard toils of contradictions.’ But those predecessors who suffered hard things are without doubt not John and Benedict, but Vigilius and Pelagius: nor was the consensus of the supreme pontiffs, of which mention is made, between Pelagius and his elders, but with the Orientals, to whom they gave way, having suffered hard things.

III. Furthermore, that it was acted lightly, or even dissemblingly, by John and Benedict with the adversaries of the fifth synod, is suggested primarily by the act of Emperor Justin, to whom it was a matter of prudence for the pontiffs to accommodate themselves. For he, by an edict, as the Biclarensian has it, a defender of the Three Chapters, ‘in the first year of his reign, destroyed those things which had been agreed upon against the Chalcedonian synod.’ The words of the edict, seizing a long and subsequently useless pretext concerning the persons of Theodore, etc., or to quarrel over syllables (φθαρτοῦ καὶ ἀφθάρτου); since the syllables lead to one and the same faith and understanding.

^D But also the canons, which the apostolic see has received, and the exposition of peace and faith, are these: I, whom I follow and venerate, and with God’s help, defend: nor do I promise ever to be silent or to depart from this profession. The epistles also of the blessed memory of Pope Celestine, Xystus, and above all of blessed Leo: and also of his successors, Hilary, Simplicius, Felix, Gelasius, Anastasius, Symmachus, Hormisdas, John, Felix, Boniface, John the younger, and Agapetus, sent at various times for the defense of the catholic faith, and for the firmness of the above-written four synods, and against heretics, both to princes and bishops, or to any others throughout the Orient, and Illyricum, and Dardania, and other provinces, I profess that I will guard inviolably (with Christ our Lord helping me).

IV. Observe, Reader, that questions were restrained by Justin, which had arisen in the times of Justinian concerning the three persons or chapters, and concerning the corruptible or incorruptible body of Christ: of which the first pertains to the fifth synod, the other to the subsequent other Constantinopolitan conventicle.

V. Observe also the dissertator, when he had obliged his faith in the title of the third paragraph, and had promised that he would speak about Benedict, who succeeded John, and about his struggle for the synod, many things, which ma-

- ^A gister Labbeus had occupied, to have poured forth, concerning the recall of Narses from Italy, concerning Alboin ravaging Aquileia, concerning the urban prefecture of Gregory, concerning the bishops of Milan, concerning the inauguration of Tiberius, concerning the years of Justin and Tiberius, concerning the death of Eutychius of Constantinople, concerning the chronology of the Emperor Maurice, concerning the urban prefecture again and the monastic life of Gregory, concerning the errors—as he himself says—of Baronius, Panvinius, Riccioli, and Halloix; but that he had touched nothing concerning Benedict, except that upon the death of John III, Benedict had succeeded.

§ IV. Concerning Pelagius II.

I. Pelagius II succeeded Benedict and held the apostolic see, not for eleven years only, as Biclarensis has it in the published codices, but for twelve years in all, with about three months.

II. He did not merely accept the Fifth Synod, but also urged others to accept it, partly by admonitions and prayers, and partly by power, even secular, he compelled them.

III. There exists in his name, written by Gregory the Great when he was a deacon, a letter to Elias and the bishops of Istria—if indeed it ought to be called a letter and not rather a book, and in reality a learned and copious defense of the Fifth Synod. For in it, not only are those things dissolved which the schismatics were objecting, but it is also demonstrated at length by what right Theodorus, 598 along with his writings, and also some things of Theodoret and Ibas, were condemned.

IV. The learned Halloix supposed that Pelagius II had not read the *Constitutum* of Vigilius, and for that reason had been deceived by the false Acts of the Fifth Council. He supported his own opinion by the testimony of Pelagius himself, which he believed to be evident, in which he denies, of course, that that was ever said by Leo the Great which Vigilius nevertheless reports in the *Constitutum* as being said by Leo. The dissertator, the adversary of Halloix, did not tolerate this; but as if Halloix had accused the supreme pontiff of something so simple as ignorance, he attacked him no less bitterly than unworthily, partly by conjectural declamation, partly by reasoning. Why should I dwell upon the declamation, when the declaimer himself admits that it can be deflected? It is worth the effort to weigh the reasoning: although it will not be laborious, since it rests entirely upon a false principle.

V. The dissertator, therefore, citing from a booklet which the schismatics of Istria offered to the Emperor Maurice, adduces these things: "To Vigilius, then Roman pontiff, and to almost all the priests, that condemnation itself (of the Three Chapters), as being contrary to the holy Council of Chalcedon, is known to have been execrable. Which Vigilius also, sending his writings throughout all the provinces, bound the whole people with the shackles of anathema, if anyone should at any time offer consent to the condemnation of the Three Chapters; and although afterward, by imperial weight, they were one by one compelled to consent to the condemnation of those same Three Chapters; nevertheless the venerable predecessors of our provinces, to whom we, though unworthy, have succeeded, were in no way able to incline to this..." ^B

VI. For since the same schismatics were writing to the supreme pontiff in the same sense, he adduces also those words of theirs which were inserted into the letter of Pelagius II: "Again, they say, it is said through your letter that we have been taught by the apostolic see, and confirmed by the archives of the holy Church, over which, with God's help, we preside, that you ought not to consent to this matter, which was done under Justinian of pious memory, and you join this assistance to your excuse, saying that at the beginning of the cause, both the apostolic see through Pope Vigilius, and all the princes of the Latin provinces, stoutly resisted the condemnation of the Three Chapters." Having adduced these things, he adds: "Behold the decree of Vigilius hurled into the face of Pelagius by those schismatics."

VII. I greatly marvel how a man, with whom the matter rests, since he is of good memory and of much reading, and since he had promised an accurate dissertation and exercises a didactic censorship, has forgotten what the history of the event was: what was the beginning of the cause; what were the instructions of Vigilius; what is read concerning that in Facundus, partly in book IV, chapter 3, partly in the work against Mocianus; what Vigilius published on the way; and finally what he himself 599 wrote in chapter 3 of his dissertation toward the end concerning the journey of Vigilius through Hellas and Illyricum, and concerning the deeds on the way, etc.

VIII. For, if there is any faith in Facundus, when Justinian first sent an edict for the condemnation of the Three Chapters into all the provinces of the empire, "Vigilius the Roman pontiff resisted, almost all the priests resisted, Mennas of Constantinople, Zoilus of Alexandria, Ephremius of Antioch, Peter of Jerusalem, Datius of Milan, Reparatus of Carthage," etc. Everyone put forward this common cause for resisting, that the holiness and integrity of the Council of Chalcedon seemed to be violated thereby.

IX. The emperor bore it ill that resistance was made to him: wherefore he brought such force upon Vigilius and the remaining patriarchs that Vigilius was compelled to come to Constantinople; the remaining patriarchs were struck with fear of deposition; ^D individual ones of them were constrained by imperial weight to consent to the condemnation of the Three Chapters. Vigilius, however, consented by that script which he called the *Iudicatum*; the others by synodical subscription in the council which Mennas held at that time, when Vigilius was tending toward the royal city.

X. When the pontiff was proceeding to Constantinople, "the Roman universals, those of Africa and Sardinia by legates, and those of Hellas and Illyricum as he was departing and coming, struck him with public protestation, so that by no reason would he agree to the novelty that had been done."

XI. Vigilius heard the prayers of those protesting, and constantly promised that he would act on behalf of the council, and pledged his faith, having sent letters into the provinces, but especially to Mennas, in which he [bound them with] the shackles of anathema...

^A over the entire people, if anyone should at any time offer consent to the condemnation of the Three Chapters.

XII. The pontiff, while on his journey, having entered the royal city, immediately suspended from his communion Mennas, the condemner of the chapters.

XIII. But after a year had passed, in a document he published, which he called the *Judicatum*, he himself condemned the Three Chapters. Whence the Illyrians, the Africans, and two deacons of the Roman Church, Rusticus and Sebastianus, were driven into a fury.

XIV. Two synods, the Illyrian and the African, with the utmost impudence withdrew themselves from the communion of Vigilius; Rusticus and Sebastianus, having perfidiously sent copies of the *Judicatum* throughout the whole world, denounced the supreme pontiff as a violator of the Council of Chalcedon.

XV. These events occurred for the most part in the years 546, 547, and 548, and thus a long time before the Fifth Synod; for it was begun in the 27th year of Justinian, that is, in the year of the Christian era 553, on the 5th of May. The *Constitutum*, however, was signed on the day before the Ides of May in the 27th year of Justinian, and so it was written in that interval of time which flowed between the fourth and fifth collations of the synod. These things were at the beginning of the case; the *Constitutum* was almost at the end: these things were then, when ^B the apostolic see, through Pope Vigilius and all the princes of the Latin provinces, was stoutly resisting the condemnation of the Three Chapters; the *Constitutum* came forth after the Roman Church had been vexed by the factions of Rusticus and Sebastianus, ^C and the Illyrian synod had made a secession, and the African prelates had dared, in a synod, to exclude the supreme pontiff himself from catholic communion. Those instructions, by which [the schismatics were] informed, could in no way incline the predecessors toward the condemnation of the chapters. These are the very writings which Vigilius, promising throughout all the provinces, bound the entire people with the shackles of anathema: after which, by imperial pressure, individuals were gradually coerced into consent to the condemnation of the Three Chapters. The *Constitutum* was published after all the patriarchs of the East had consented.

XVI. What more? Facundus reproaches Vigilius with such instructions, and complains that the *Judicatum* was rescinded, though he was writing before the *Constitutum*, as no learned man is unaware. Therefore, the dissertator inveighs against Halloix, either not in good faith, if he understood the meaning of the words brought forward; or with insufficient consideration, if the meaning escaped him.

XVII. He dissolves no better the argument which Halloix had used: since he is driven into straits from which he can only extricate himself by admitting that things were set forth by Gregory the Great, the most learned man of his time, from Leo the Great, which, because they were not to the point of what was being discussed, the schismatics rejected. But enough on these matters.

V. On Gregory the Great.

I. What has been said concerning Pelagius is of the greatest value ^D to demonstrate clearly that the synod was not only not accepted by Gregory the Great, but even defended. For in the name of Pelagius, he wrote to the prelates of Istria, besides that learned third epistle—which he calls a book—two earlier ones as well, as the style proves.

II. Being made pontiff, he transmitted this third epistle to the bishops of Ireland, as is commonly reported, denying that, once it was read, it was possible for anyone to remain in the defense of the Three Chapters, unless he remained obstinate. And from there it is clearly evident that Gregory, contrary to what the learned Halloix wished, did not arrive at an agreement with the Fifth Synod through error, but through certain knowledge: for he approves the judgment of the synod in such a way as to show that, if it had not yet been issued, it ought to be.

III. What then? He compelled the dissenters not only by ecclesiastical authority, but also by secular power, to present themselves at the tribunal of the Roman pontiff, and from there to receive the laws of teaching, where the pillar of truth was found. Thence arose the complaint of the Istrians before the Emperor Maurice. "We have learned that the reverend Pope Gregory has sent for the exhibition of our same father, along with the most sacred mandate of your piety, so that for the cause of communion itself he should be brought to the Roman city: and indeed we have met with the aforementioned most blessed archbishop, our Severus, in frequent constitution, so that in our absence, and while [they are] for the present divided from themselves, he might be able to define something concerning the common cause of the Church: adding, moreover, that we have arrived, crushed and wounded by the most grievous sorrow, at the ultimate despair, so that our metropolitan might be compelled to appear for his judgment, with whom the cause itself is known to exist, and whose communion, from the beginning of the motion of this cause until now, our predecessors, and we with all the people, avoid."

IV. These words are worthy of being observed: "Whose communion, from the beginning of the motion of this cause until now, our predecessors, and we with all the people, avoid." For they contribute greatly to the understanding of what was said in the chapter on Pelagius regarding the instructions of Vigilius, and the common agreement of the Roman pontiffs with the Fifth Synod.

V. He provides another argument, even more valid than both: the 24th epistle of Gregory to John of Constantinople, in which, after he professed that he receives and venerates the four councils just as he does the four books of the holy Gospel, he says: "I also venerate the Fifth Council equally, in which the epistle which is called that of Ibas is condemned as full of error," etc. Afterwards: "The persons whom the aforementioned venerable councils reject, I reject; whom they venerate, I embrace," etc.

VI. Regarding this epistle I observe the following. First, that it was synodical, of the kind that supreme pontiffs were wont to give at their ordination to the prelates of the major sees, as symbols of catholic communion and tokens of the true faith: they gave them, indeed, from the synod in which they were ordained, whence the name was derived

from the synod. The Fathers of the synod often joined their letters to those of the person ordained, as witnesses both to what was done according to the prescription of the canons and to the catholic faith professed by the ordained. Examples of this custom appear everywhere for the reader; an illustrious instance is provided by the third part of the Council of Ephesus, where the Acts of the ordination of Maximian are recorded, who took the place of the deposed Nestorius; the case of John Talaia of Alexandria with Acacius, the bishop of the royal city, also provides this, for because he had not sent his synodical letters to him as he had to the other patriarchs, he created for himself a matter that occupied almost the entire Church. Furthermore, the supreme pontiff wrote differently, as did other patriarchs, and differently again did subordinate prelates. The Roman *libellus diurnus* exhibits the form used by the supreme pontiffs and by lesser bishops; the Fifth Synod contains the letters of the patriarch Eutychius.

VII. I observe, next, that the letter in question was not different from the final profession of faith which Gregory made: for he issued three in accordance with custom; the first upon the tomb of St. Peter; the second in the synod, before the Fathers, the clergy, and the people; the third in letters sent throughout the provinces. The aforementioned *libellus* exhibits the form for each.

VIII. I observe also that this was sent either to John of Constantinople alone, that he might transmit it to the other patriarchs, or to each individually by a direct route, but in the same formula and, as they say, *a pari*. I approve of the first less, and the second more: for although in the times of Gregory the dignity of the prelate of Constantinople had grown to such an extent (the supreme pontiffs gradually consented to it, though they had previously resisted it vehemently) that he was called the first of the patriarchs of the East; yet the Apostolic See bore with difficulty the authority usurped over the others, on account of which the prelate of New Rome arrogated to himself the name of "Ecumenical," as it seems to some.

IX. I observe, finally, that although Gregory wrote this synodical letter according to the custom of the ancients, there is not, as far as I can recall, any letter to be found of any other pope of this kind before it, except for that which is the seventh of Pelagius I, inscribed to the whole people of God concerning the catholic faith, to which can be added the tenth and thirteenth to King Childebert, which two I believe were requested by the king on the grounds that Pelagius, having taken up the governance of the Church in troubled times, had not warned the bishops of Gaul by a synodical letter regarding his ordination. For patriarchs used to send letters regarding their own ordination not only to other patriarchs, but also to the metropolitans of their own diocese. ^A

VI. Concerning the supreme pontiffs who held the Apostolic See after Gregory the Great until the Sixth Synod.

I. Those thirteen pontiffs, from the death of Gregory the Great until the Sixth Synod, or indeed until Agatho, under whom the sixth synod assembled—that is, over the course of about seventy-six years—governed the Church in such a way that they left almost nothing that might serve the cause ^B of the fifth synod; so they did not transmit their own opinion regarding the fifth synod in writing, if you exclude Martin I. Yet it is certain that they followed in the footsteps of Gregory the Great: for they professed the same faith when they were ordained; they retained communion with the Eastern Church, which was addicted to the fifth synod in a marvelous way; and they kept the remnants of the Western schismatics in their duty.

II. Honorius, certainly, who was the fifth after Gregory, could not but assent to the fifth synod, whether it be said that he adhered to the Monothelites or merely favored them through an imprudent policy, which is better to believe. For the Monothelites, as they were a certain offshoot of the Eutychians and Acephali, so they highly honored the fifth synod, which they perceived to be contrary to their own adversaries.

III. Severinus, the successor of Honorius, ought not to be judged a stranger to the fifth synod on the grounds that he rejected the *Ecthesis* of Heraclius, which praised the fifth synod: for he did not reject it under the title that it contained praises of the fifth synod, but because it contained Monothelitism. For which cause it was reprobated not only by Severinus, but also by John IV in a Roman synod; by Theodore in both his letters; and by Martin I in the Lateran Council.

IV. I have said that the *Ecthesis* was rejected by Severinus, although Cyrus of Alexandria wrote in letters to Sergius that it was accepted, or rather should be accepted. "Eustathius," he says, "brought me a copy of the *Ecthesis* which our common brother, the most holy Severinus, who is being ordained in Rome, ought to profess with God’s help." ^C

V. St. Martin accuses Sergius of calumnies. They had fallen from their own hope, having lied against their own head: for it was not received or admitted at all according to their new hope; rather, it was condemned and anathematized by Apostolic authority, the *Ecthesis* of their worst and presumptuous novelty having been sent ahead for this purpose.

VI. John IV left nothing that could seem to pertain to this, unless perhaps the defense of Honorius, which is his letter to the Emperor Constantine, the son of Heraclius. For of the council held at Rome by John against the Monothelites and the *Ecthesis* of Heraclius, there remains, as far as I know, only a memory, and that very confused, in Theophanes. ^D

§ VII. Concerning the Ecthesis, which Sergius the Monothelite composed in the name of Heraclius.

I. The things which the dissertator asserts about the *Ecthesis* are wonderful. "It was," he says, "a profession of faith or an edict of faith, which had been approved by the Roman Church." And as if to bring forward the reason for so astonishing a claim: "Theophylact," he says, "the primicerius of the notaries, testified that the same *Ecthesis* is kept in the Apostolic archives."

II. Those are, I say, wonderful fabrications of the dissertator: for the *Ecthesis* is openly heretical, it is openly condemned by the supreme pontiffs, and in no synod, except that of the Monothelites, has it been approved.

III. It is heretical. For what else is signified by these words: "The utterance of two operations causes many scan-

- ^A dalizes, as being spoken by none of the holy and prominent Fathers; and thence it follows that we confess two wills coming into conflict with one another, etc. Afterward: "Whence, following the holy Fathers in all things and in this, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, etc."

IV. It was condemned by the supreme pontiffs, and by Severinus indeed—who suffered terribly, if we are to believe Saint Martin—because he refused to approve such an impious edict.

V. By John IV, who convened a Roman council, in which he proscribed the abominable document.

VI. By Theodore, who in a letter to Paul of Constantinople says: "Wherefore, he says, did your fraternity not remove the document from public places, which had been suspended and long since rescinded? ^B which, indeed, has brought no small scandal upon the holy Churches." And afterward: "It remains, therefore, that what was promulgated against the faith be made void and be destroyed along with its author." In his second letter, to the ordaining bishops of Paul, when he brings forward the reasons why Pyrrhus could be legitimately deposed: "First, because Heraclius, who anathematized the catholic faith and extolled in his own lands the Fathers who thought orthodoxly, attempted, through trickery and through certain priests who had subscribed their names, to confirm the sophistical document against the apostolic see, and hastened to hang it in public places, as if setting up a new faith and creed against the holy Church of Chalcedon."

VII. Finally, by Martin, whose words were just quoted, who collected the Lateran synod against the Ecthesis; who believed that Sergius and Pyrrhus were most especially to be condemned on the grounds that they had approved the Ecthesis in their synods; who, finally, after the Lateran synod, revealed his mind in an encyclical, in words from which terror might be struck into the patrons of the Ecthesis: "We have anathematized the impious heretics, with all their most depraved dogmas, and the impious Ecthesis, or the most impious Type, and all who receive or defend them, or any of those things that are set forth in them, or who speak in their favor in writing." And afterward: "May you also anathematize all the heretics who have presumptuously assaulted this (orthodox faith), both formerly and now, along with the wicked Ecthesis ^D and the most impious Type," etc.

VIII. Here someone might challenge the dissertator: Do you truly think this edict, which the apostolic see called an impious fabrication, a document promulgated against the faith and a creed against the Council of Chalcedon, was approved by the Roman Church—that is, by the pillar of truth? Has the Roman Church, the teacher of the faith, approved a profession of faith which Peter, through the mouth of his successors, declared in a synod to be a "sophistical document of the worst and most impious novelty"? Has the impious and wicked Ecthesis been approved by the Roman Church, which is pure of all heresy, and at the command of the vicar of Christ, by all the bishops, priests, deacons, abbots of monasteries, and monks who live in sanctity and justice, and by the holy multitude of the catholic Church, been struck with anathema?

IX. The words of his critic in Halloix might be aptly applied to the dissertator here: "Alas, to what precipice did blind envy drive the man into Halloix? If the Ecthesis was approved by the Roman Church, it was up to you to name some decaying manuscript, in some part of the learned world or even the barbarian, where that Ecthesis was not reckoned among the documents proscribed by the apostolic see," etc.

X. But what great cause could have led the theologian of the great duke of Tuscany, a professor of sacred doctrine, a qualifier of the inquisition, into such an enormous opinion? Is it because the Ecthesis was called by Theophylact, the primicerius of the notaries, a document brought out from the apostolic archives, in which nothing is kept but what the Roman Church approves? Or because the Acts of the Lateran synod say it was praised in three synods? Or because in the letters of Honorius to Sergius, almost the same words are read as are in the Ecthesis?

XI. But neither are the words of Theophylact reported in good faith; for he did not say that the Ecthesis itself is kept in the apostolic archives, but the Acts of the synods of Sergius and Pyrrhus; and if he had said so, who would dare to assert that what is kept in the apostolic archives is approved by the Roman Church, when the Acts of heretical synods are kept in the same place?

XII. Next, it is a certain unbearable thoughtlessness not to distinguish, from a catholic council, the synods of the Monothelites, because they are referred to in the Acts of the Lateran council; as if a man could be tolerated who attributed the Ephesian "robber synod," and the praises of Eutyches inserted into the Acts of the Chalcedonians, to the Council of Chalcedon!

XIII. Finally, Honorius had died before the Ecthesis was issued, as is certain from the calculation of the times. Even if, therefore, Honorius uses the same words as the Ecthesis, by what reasoning can it be said that he approved the Ecthesis? For he does not use the same words in the same sense; and Sergius wickedly inserted the pontiff’s words into his edict to deceive.

XIV. But although Honorius had approved the Ecthesis, as if by anticipation, could the Roman Church immediately be said to have approved it? When in the synod from which Leo II writes to Pogonatus, and in the [regular] synods of ordinations, he pronounces anathema on Honorius, as one who "did not purify the apostolic Church with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but allowed the immaculate faith to be stained by profane betrayal through his own sloth, *mateinai parechōrēse* [gave way to folly], and who provided fuel for the depraved assertions of the heretics."

XV. Perhaps there is one who, against the charge brought against the dissertator, would defend him with the excuse of thoughtlessness. But even if it were thoughtlessness to have erred once, to error in the same thing more than once, nay, and more frequently, is the mark of a worse sort of... [thinking]. But again, the dissertator on page 59, line 10, affirms that the Ecthesis of the Emperor Heraclius, which he had already called approved by the Roman Church, was praised in the Lateran synod; while yet openly in

synod, as wicked, impious, sophistical, fabricated, ^A and contrary to the Council of Chalcedon, full of the worst and most presumptuous novelty, etc., let it be said: if this is to praise it, then what exactly is it to condemn?

XVI. But perhaps some dissertator, missing the mark, might again offer the excuse that his memory or his eyes failed him, that he had confused the acts of the heretics, which were inserted into the Acts of the ecumenical council, with the Acts themselves. I, for my part, believe that this is what happened: yet I do not see how, for whatever reason, this sin—whatever it may be—can be pardoned in a man to whom Baronius, to whom Sirmondus, to whom his own Panvinius, to whom his own master 606 Lupus assigns penalties, and indeed disgraceful ones, as often as they seem to have suffered some human failing? But enough of this.

§ VIII. Concerning Martin I and the four supreme pontiffs who followed him.

I. After Theodore succeeded Martin I; whose judgment concerning the fifth synod is known from nowhere more clearly or more certainly than from the Lateran synod. For he ordered that «The most reverend definitions of the five holy universal synods, or the venerable sermons and decrees, be offered to the secretary.» After these were read, he added: «You ought to say this, concerning the holy and universal five councils, which the Lord Himself said concerning Himself: The prince of this world cometh, and in me he shall find nothing, etc.» The secretary having proceeded, at the request of Leontius, bishop of Neapolis, the pontiff commanded the Acts of the venerable fifth council to be produced, and that part to be reread which pertains to the authority of the holy Fathers. See canon 18.

II. It must further be observed that Martin I was skilled above all not only in the Sergius heresy, or Monothelitism, but also in the teaching of those Latin and Greek Fathers which would destroy the new heresy. For he frequently had meetings with Sergius and Pyrrhus, and with Paul himself at Constantinople, where he served as apocrisiarius of the apostolic see, at the time when the case of Paul, who succeeded Pyrrhus, was being investigated. Pope Theodore clearly teaches this in epistle 4 to Paul of Constantinople: «We have commanded concerning this matter also to our most beloved sons Siricius the archdeacon and Martin the deacon and apocrisiarius, to whom we also entrust our place for the deliberation of this matter, so that with your fraternity the guilt of the aforementioned Pyrrhus may be regularly examined.» ^D

III. Now, after Martin I, four pontiffs held the apostolic see up to Agatho: Eugenius, Vitalianus, Adeodatus, and Donus, in whose times either the Catholic world was in consensus in receiving the five universal synods, ^A or at any rate the question died down because of the tumult that the Monothelites were violently inflicting upon the Church.

§ IX. Concerning Agatho, the successor of Donus, and the sixth synod, and the subsequent pontiffs.

I. Pope Agatho, during whose governance of the Church the sixth synod was assembled, openly revealed his opinion concerning the fifth synod in his epistle to Constantine Pogonatus. For he calls this synod holy, and cites its seventh canon as a definition of faith which it is necessary to confess faithfully.

II. The epistle which I mentioned has all the greater weight of authority because the pontiff wrote: *σὺν πᾶσαις ταῖς συνόδοις ἀνηκούσαις τῇ συνόδῳ τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ θρόνου*, with all the synods subject to the council of the apostolic see. ^B The studious reader of ecclesiastical matters 607 can observe this passage to good effect: for it is worth the effort, if it is only considered more attentively from which provinces the 125 bishops whose names are subscribed originated; it is worth the effort, I say, to understand which provinces the *ἀποστολικοῦ θρόνου σύνοδος* had subject to it specifically; whence also an occasion is given for inquiring more curiously what is signified by the name *συνόδῳ ἀποστολικοῦ θρόνου*; and why, besides the provinces of Italy, others of the Gauls, though not all, are mentioned.

III. The sixth synod followed the example of Agatho, as in all other things, so also in this. For in the third session it ordered the Acts of the fifth synod to be reread, and, as they had been corrupted by heretics, it cleansed them, rejecting what had been inserted by the heretics, namely the sermon of Mennas to Pope Vigilius, and the letters of Vigilius to Justinian and Theodora; and it did not merely cleanse them, but it also vindicated them from the calumny of Macarius, bishop of Antioch.

IV. There is no need in this place to warn again that no fraud was practiced upon the sixth synod by the Acts of the fifth: for those who claim that it was done, I believe, have allowed themselves to be swayed by the popular opinion by which many people commonly are accustomed to take the name of the fifth synod in a sense far different from that of old, as we have shown in the dissertation appended to the Breviarium of Liberatus.

V. The pontiffs who follow Agatho cause no difficulty: for in their ordination they all ^D not once or twice, but a third time; and not with voice alone, but also in writing—and that a most famous one—professed before the body of Saint Peter, before the Roman clergy, and with the whole Church as witness, that they honored the fifth synod with the same respect and the same reverence as the other four holy ones.

DISS. V. ON THE CAUSE OF THEODORET AND THE ORIENTALS

ADMONITION TO THE READER

This Dissertation comprises those letters which Christian Lupus and Stephen Baluze had published long ago. Garnerius did not exhibit all of them in this new collection, but he noted that the first—and many others—exist in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and others elsewhere. But so that we might provide for those who either cannot draw from the sources or who desire to have a complete volume of those letters, we have judged that these lacunae must be filled from the Collection of Councils by Mansi. There have also been added, from Volume V of this most excellent Collection, various readings and scholia, which are owed to the assiduous study of Mansi, Baluze, and Hardouin in these letters. These are distinguished by the initial letters M., B., and H. from the scholia of Garnerius and our own brief remarks. It remains for us to append those things which Garnerius deemed should be put forward beforehand.

GARNERIUS TO THE READER

That the Nestorian heresy stirred up huge tempests throughout the whole world is unknown to no one who is even moderately versed in these ecclesiastical matters; yet it was in the East, that is, in Syria and the diocese of Antioch, that it was most prominent. For almost all the bishops of the Orient judged that they ought to assist their fellow citizen and countryman Nestorius, and that it was their duty to defend his cause as if it were the cause of their homeland, and that their own affairs and honor depended upon it. What were the sentiments of most of these men, what were their partisan interests, how great was their obstinacy of spirit in defending Nestorius, how vehement their hatred toward Cyril, what the disturbances were, and finally what the outcome of those movements was, will be clear primarily from these letters of Theodoret himself, who held the leading role on this stage and was the torch of the conflagrations in almost every part of this cause, and from the letters of others. Soon it will be clear from the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, by which this whole cause was brought to a close. Those letters were indeed published a while ago by Christian Lupus, brought to light from the Cassinese monastery, but they were swarming with very many errors, which we, with God’s favor, shall purge, and they were burdened with scholia partly useless—which we shall pass over—and partly false—which we shall refute—having appended much more certain notes to almost every letter.

NOTES OF SCHULZE

Garnerius would certainly have made these more extensive and more numerous, had he not been snatched away from us by an untimely fate.

HARD.

GARNERIUS' DISSERTATION V ON THE CAUSE OF THEODORET AND THE ORIENTALS

SYNODICON AGAINST THE TRAGEDY OF IRENAEUS

PREMONITION OF GIOVANNI DOMENICO MANSI

That which I announced in the preface to this new edition—namely, that I would present this Synodicon in a new recension based upon the Cassino codex—the readers now acknowledge to have been carried out in part. It remains for me to fulfill the promise in its entirety, and the opportunity to do so now presents itself. Therefore, the Cassino codex bears no other title than that which has been indicated above; thus, there was no reason for Baluze to complain of Father Christian Lupus for his having prefixed no title to these documents. We, however, have judged it right to retain in this edition the title which Baluze devised of his own accord for the sake of the scholars who have become accustomed to it. We have also divided the whole work into chapters, a step that aids Lupus by providing greater clarity, since in the Cassino codex the documents are merely numbered. But do not believe that the documents themselves occur in order in the codex; Lupus selected from here and there the ones he found to be unpublished.

It ^A is well known that there exists in the Vatican a codex marked 1319, which carries the same Cassino collection; but I found, upon investigation, that it ends at chapter 11 of the Synodicon—whether because it contained nothing further from the beginning, or because pages have been torn out, as I am more inclined to believe. In that codex, however, I encountered the letters of St. Isidore of Pelusium in an ancient translation, which Lupus attested that he likewise found in the Cassino codex; but he omitted them intact, a matter regarding which ^B a contention is brought against him by Baluze. Since, however, I found them as they appear in the Vatican codex, I selected from the whole collection those which seemed to touch upon the Council in any way; from which it came about that I judged those four letters of Isidore provided by Baluze should be expunged, seeing as I could better present them from the Vatican codex, which likewise represents them. Furthermore, here at the foot of this my premonition, I judge that credit must be given to the diligence of Father Christian Lupus, who copied the Cassino codex with sufficient accuracy that it has been possible to extract very rare variants from a new collation. But who instituted and perfected this collation, I judge it superfluous to repeat here; for I have already declared more than once that I owe it to the kindness and erudition of his Eminence, Cardinal Tamburini.

PREFACE OF STEPHANE BALUZE

Two ancient copies of an old Latin version of the Council of Ephesus came into our hands in the year 1677: one which belonged formerly to the Church of Beauvais, and is now kept in the Colbert Library, the other of the monastery of Saint-Julian of Tours. And indeed the Beauvais copy, or rather its remains (for it is quite imperfect), we compared with the Conté edition. We found in it, however, a memorandum given by Pope Celestine to the bishops and presbyters going to the East, who in his name and that of the entire Western Church attended the Ephesian Synod. I rejoiced quite vehemently when I came upon that outstanding monument of ecclesiastical antiquity, which hitherto had been unknown; and since the opportunity then presented itself of writing to the most eminent and most learned, and one most dear to me, Girolamo Casanata, Cardinal of the S. R. C., I asked him to order a search in the ancient codices of the Vatican Library for the instructions which Celestine shows, in that same memorandum, had been given to those same bishops and presbyters. He did, out of his singular kindness and his leanings toward these studies of ours, what was requested of him, and on the 26th of October of the same year he sent me a copy of that same memorandum, transcribed from codex 1320 of the Vatican Library. Nor was that most excellent man content with these things; he wrote to Venice, Florence, and Milan, to see if peradventure the things sought could be found there; and, that he might omit nothing, as he himself wrote to me on the 14th of November in the year 1679, he also ordered an investigation in the library of the Cassino monastery to see if anything of that kind might be found. Two most ancient codices were discovered, in which were contained many acts pertaining to the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon; for the reviewing and examining of which the same most eminent Cardinal utilized the labors of a man of great learning, Christian Lupus, an Augustinian, who

was at that time by chance in Rome. He, however, resolved to publish all those things immediately, and secured from the Cardinal that it should be lawful for no one to transcribe or publish those materials against his own will. Lupus therefore sent them forth not long ago, but so carelessly that he did not even give notice of what title that collection has in the Cassinese books, what order is maintained therein, or what had been omitted or changed by himself. Learned readers will indeed sufficiently understand that very many things have been omitted and altered by him. I left no means untried by which I might be able to become master of the things that are contained in those Cassinese manuscripts, but the obstinacy of the monks of that monastery was so great and so persistent that I could obtain nothing from them by any art or by any entreaties. If I had not suffered a refusal, I could have noted many things which were omitted by Lupus, from the reporting of which much utility might have redounded to the public. I decided, therefore, to provide this collection just as it was issued by Lupus. But before I proceed to it, I shall preface a few words concerning this work and its author.

It is certain that the work is by a man writing after Justinian, a defender, moreover, of the Three Chapters, and, unless conjecture fails, an African. This is gathered from chapter 193, where it reads thus: "Did they not, through the Emperor Justinian, with all the power of the whole century conspiring, during the entire space of nearly thirty years, labor to have the writings of Theodore, Ibas, and Theodoret most bitterly condemned?" Certainly, everywhere he reveals himself to be a devotee of Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and Ibas, and an adversary of Nestorius and his followers. Furthermore, he inscribed his collection *Synodicon*, as is evident from the final chapter, 205. He wrote, however, against the books which Irenæus, a devotee of Nestorius, called *Tragedy*—that is, perhaps a prophecy of the impending constitution, as Anastasius says regarding a similar book in his *Ecclesiastical History*, p. 51, from Theophanes. For that reason, since we did not know what title this collection has in the Cassinese manuscript, we have called it *Synodicon against the Tragedy of Irenæus*. It was, however, transcribed from the manuscript of the Acoemetae monastery, as is gathered from the end of the first chapter and from chapters 22 and 221.

INDEX OF CHAPTERS

Cap. I. To the most reverend and God-loving fellow-minister Nestorius, Cyril and the synod which with him has come together in Alexandria from the Egyptian diocese, greeting in the Lord. Cap. II. Epistle of holy John, archbishop of Antioch, to the Eastern bishops concerning the peace brought to the universal Church, which he named from the epistle of the blessed Cyril to Acacius. Cap. III. Epistle of Nestorius, which he sent to the holy John, bishop of Antioch, concerning the city of Constantinople, responding to his epistle, which he had sent before he received the epistle of holy Pope Celestine of the Roman city with the third letters of the blessed Cyril, that is, before the holy Ephesine synod took place. Cap. IV. Epistle of John, bishop of Antioch, to Firmus, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia. Cap. V. Protest proposed in public against the Constantinopolitan clerics, and notified in the Church, because Nestorius was a follower of Paul of Samosata, who had been anathematized one hundred and twenty years before by the orthodox bishops. Cap. VI. Epistles of the most holy doctor of the Church, Isidore, priest and abbot of the monastery near Pelusium, to the most blessed Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria. Cap. VII. Protest directed to the blessed Cyril and to those who had arrived with him by others—bishops of various provinces—who wished John of Antioch to be upheld, and for a synod to be held then in his presence, for the reason that, as he had written to the blessed Cyril, a journey of three days hardly remained for him. It was, however, directed on the day before the proceedings were celebrated against Nestorius, by which his deposition was effected. Cap. VIII. Epistle of Nestorius and those with him to the Emperor Theodosius concerning the things which happened then at Ephesus. Cap. IX. Protest of Candidian the Count, which, hearing that the synod was being held, he publicly proposed in Ephesus. Cap. X. Also another protest of the most magnificent Count Candidian after the synod. Cap. XI. Also an edict of the most magnificent Count to the synod. Cap. XII. Here begin the second comments of the synod which met in Ephesus with John, bishop of Antioch. Cap. XIII. To the reverend and honorable lords, the priests and deacons and the rest of the clergy and the Christ-loving people, the holy synod of the Orientals and of those who from various regions and provinces have by the grace of God come together to Ephesus, greeting in the Lord. Cap. XIV. Another epistle of the same synod to the Emperor Theodosius, which they wrote after the departure of Irenæus, learning what the opposing party had done against them. They did, however, send it to the already mentioned Count, in order that he might offer this also to the prince along with the others. Cap. XV. Epistle of Nestorius to the scholastic eunuch of the Emperor Theodosius. Cap. XVI. After these things, the Count of the Imperial Largesses, John, was sent with the imperial letters concerning the deposition of Nestorius and of the blessed Cyril and Memnon, which we have placed in the earlier part of the manuscript. This is the report of that Count. Cap. XVII. Epistle of John, bishop of Antioch, and of the synod which met with him, to the Emperor Theodosius, which they sent through the same John the Count; in which is contained that confession of the Catholic faith which later Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, praised through his peace-epistle, writing to the same John, prelate of Antioch, through Paul, bishop of Emesa, the legate of peace. Cap. XVIII. To the most honorable and God-loving priests and deacons and the rest of the clergy and monks and the Christ-loving people which is in Antioch of the East, the holy synod of the Orientals and of other regions and provinces which, by the grace of God, is gathered in Ephesus. Cap. XIX. To my lord, in all things most holy father and bishop Acacius, John, John, Alexander, Alexander, Dexianus, Paul, Macarius, Apringius, Theodoret, Musæus, Meletius, Diogenes. Cap. XX. Epistle of bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus to Andrew, bishop of the Samosatenes. Cap. XXI. Epistle of the Count Irenæus, which he wrote back to all the bishops to whom he had been sent before the arrival of John, the Count of the Imperial Largesses.

^A Cap. XXII. The holy synod of the eastern regions and of those who were gathered together from diverse provinces and parts—that is to say, from Bithynia, Second Pisidia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, Europe, Rhodope, Thessaly, and Dacia—has held an interlocution, the points of which are annexed below.

Cap. XXIII. The mandate of the synod of the eastern bishops and of the others who were likewise gathered in Ephesus, to their legates.

Cap. XXIV. The letter of the prefects to Nestorius, that he should return with honor to his monastery, from whence he had been called to the episcopate.

Cap. XXV. The letter of Nestorius written in reply to the same Praetorian Prefect of the Orient, concerning the aforementioned letter.

Cap. XXVI. Again, another letter from the eastern bishops and those sitting with them at Ephesus, by which response is made to the aforementioned letters.

Cap. XXVII. Again, another letter of the same bishops mentioned above to the same bishops mentioned above.

Cap. XXVIII. To our brethren in all things, the God-beloved, most sacred, and most holy fellow-ministers John, Himerius, Paul, Macarius, Apringius, and Theodoret, the bishops: the synod which met at Ephesus sends greetings.

Cap. XXIX. The Emperors Caesars Theodosius and Valentinian, victors, triumphers, greatest ones, ever to be worshiped, to the holy synod which met in the city of Ephesus.

Cap. XXX. The letter of Bishop Theodoret to Alexander, the Bishop of Hierapolis, which Irenæus records.

Cap. XXXI. To the most honorable and God-beloved lords and bishops who dwell in Ephesus: John, Himerius, Paul, Macarius, Apringius, and Theodoret, the bishops, send greetings in the Lord.

Cap. XXXII. The first protestation of John, patriarch of the Antiochene see, and the other six, which they sent to the Emperor Theodosius from Chalcedon, when, having been left there by them, he entered Constantinople with those envoys who were on a mission from the blessed Cyril and the synod that had likewise met at Ephesus.

Cap. XXXIII. After the protestation of John and the other bishops who were detained in Chalcedon while the emperor was entering Constantinople with the opposing party, this sacred document was directed to Ephesus to the bishops who had met with the Alexandrian bishop; the text of this, after the preface, is as follows.

Cap. XXXIV. The second protestation which John, the Bishop of Antioch, and the others, as well as the entire synod from which they were sent, directed to the Emperor Theodosius at Constantinople.

Cap. XXXV. The third protestation, which the same seven bishops directed to the Emperor Theodosius.

Cap. XXXVI. A fragment of a sermon in which they say that at Chalcedon they used Bishop Theodoret of the church of Cyrrhus.

Cap. XXXVII. The sermon of John of Antioch, which he delivered in Chalcedon after the sermon of Aphthonius the presbyter and Bishop Theodoret.

Cap. XXXVIII. The letter of the holy Bishop John of Antioch, which he wrote to the prefect from Ancyra.

Cap. XXXIX. The letter of John, Patriarch of Antioch, and of all the bishops who had met together in the same city, to the Emperor Theodosius, after the struggles which those bishops had had in Ephesus and Chalcedon.

Cap. XL. The letter of Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus which he wrote to the people of Constantinople; by which it is shown that not only before and after, but also when he returned from Ephesus to Chalcedon, and from Chalcedon to his own church, he always preached the Catholic faith, even though he delayed in condemning Nestorius, not believing those to be his doctrines which Nestorius himself denied, and which he believed had been proven in Ephesus from notebooks under his name without any witness. ^B

Cap. XLI. The letter of the holy Acacius, Bishop of Berrhoea, a most ancient and at that time renowned priest, who was also a confessor during the times of the Arians; whose writings against the chapters of the blessed Cyril, Emperor Theodosius approved, writing to the synod which was gathered in Ephesus through John, the Count of the Largesses, as was shown above; to whom, even when placed in this very discord, both the Apostolic See and the blessed Cyril wrote back with great veneration.

Cap. XLII. The letter which the aforementioned Irenæus directed, sent by the blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, to Candidian, the Count of the Domestics, before the peace.

Cap. XLIII. The letter of the holy memory of the venerable Andrew, Bishop of the city of Samosata, to Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, concerning Rabulas, Bishop of Edessa, who separated himself from the eastern synod.

Cap. XLIV. The synodical decree of John, Bishop of Antioch, and others, to the bishops of the province of Osrhoene against the same Rabulas, Bishop of the city of Edessa.

Cap. XLV. The hypomnesis of Theodoret to the metropolitan Alexander.

Cap. XLVI. The letter of the metropolitan Dorotheus sent to the people of Constantinople.

Cap. XLVII. Another letter of Theodoret to the people of Constantinople, a letter of commendation.

Cap. XLVIII. The letter of John, Bishop of Antioch, to Helladius, Bishop of Tarsus, when the synodical letter of Maximianus was brought to him, and he refused to receive his name into the diptychs.

Cap. XLIX. Likewise, the letter of John, Bishop of Antioch, to the clergy and people of the church of Tarsus, when it had been rumored that the emperor had ordered that Helladius be driven out because he had in no way received the synodical letter of Maximianus of Constantinople.

Cap. L. The letter of John, Bishop of Antioch, to Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, concerning Aristolaus, whom the Emperor Theodosius sent to effect peace to the same John and to Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, with his letters, through which he ordered that peace be made between them in every way.

Cap. LI. The hypomnesis of the Emperor Theodosius to Acacius, Bishop of Berrhoea.

Cap. LII. The hypomnesis to the holy Symeon the Stylite, through the same Aristolaus.

Cap. LIII. The proposals which were directed by Acacius, Bishop of Berrhoea, through the tribune and notary Aristolaus, to Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, from the council of the bishops John of Antioch, Alexander of Hierapolis, Macarius of Laodicea, Andrew of Samosata, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, concerning the making of peace.

Cap. LIV. The letter of the bishops Alexander, Andrew, and Theodoret to Helladius, Bishop of Tarsus, as Irenæus set it forth.

Cap. LV. The letter of the holy Bishop Acacius of Berrhoea to Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis.

Cap. LVI. To my most beloved lord, brother, and fellow-minister Acacius, Cyril sends greetings in the Lord.

Cap. LVII. The letter of Alexander of Hierapolis to the Bishop Acacius of Berrhoea.

Cap. LVIII. The letter of the same Alexander to Andrew, Bishop of Samosata.

Cap. LIX. The letter of Bishop Andrew, by which he replied to this letter of Alexander.

Cap. LX. The letter of Bishop Theodoret, written to Acacius, Bishop of Berrhoea, concerning the letters which came from Egypt to the same Acacius.

Cap. LXI. The letter of the same Theodoret to Bishop Andrew concerning this same matter.

Cap. LXII. The letter of Bishop Andrew, which he wrote back to Bishop Theodoret in reply to his own.

Cap. LXIII. The letter of the same Bishop Andrew to Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis.

Cap. LXIV. The letter of Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, written back to Bishop Andrew.

^A Cap. LXV. The letter of the same Bishop Alexander to Bishop Theodoret.

Cap. LXVI. The letter of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, which he wrote to Bishop Alexander, as Irenæus has set it forth.

Cap. LXVII. The letter of Maximinus, Bishop of Anazarbus, to Bishop Alexander.

Cap. LXVIII. The letter of Helladius, Bishop of Tarsus, to the same Bishop Alexander.

Cap. LXIX. The letter of Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, which he wrote back to Archbishop Helladius of Tarsus.

Cap. LXX. The letter of Bishop Theodoret to Bishop Helladius concerning Himerius, Bishop of Nicomedia; and this also, as Irenæus has set it forth, we have thought fit to translate.

Cap. LXXI. The letter of Bishop Theodoret, as the same Irenæus has set it forth, to Himerius, Bishop of Nicomedia.

Cap. LXXII. The letter of Theodoret written back to Alexander of Hierapolis; which Irenæus, as has clearly appeared, says is suspect.

Cap. LXXIII. The letter of Eutherius, Metropolitan Bishop of the second province of Cappadocia, of the city of Tyana, to John, Archbishop of Antioch, regarding the same letters.

Cap. LXXIV. The letter of the same Eutherius, Archbishop of Tyana, which he writes to Helladius, Archbishop of Tarsus, after having read the letters from Alexandria, and those of Archbishop John to Bishop Alexander, and of Alexander to John.

Cap. LXXV. After this letter, Irenæus has set forth his own words, saying as follows.

Cap. LXXVI. The letter of John, Archbishop of Antioch, to Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, which he wrote back concerning the letters from Egypt, for which he was blamed by Andrew, Bishop of Samosata.

Cap. LXXVII. The letter of Archbishop John to Bishop Alexander concerning Bishop Paul.

^B Cap. LXXVIII. The letter of Dorotheus, Metropolitan of Moesia, and the bishops of the same province, to John, Patriarch of Antioch, concerning that very legation of Paul who was setting out to Alexandria.

Cap. LXXIX. In order to manifest the division between those who sided with John, Archbishop of the Antiochians, and those who [opposed] Nestorius along with his dogmas—which he himself had also denied—we shall transcribe after this letter the introduction of Irenæus, of which we have often spoken. It is as follows.

Cap. LXXX. The first letter after the schism of the Church, which John, Bishop of Antioch, sent through Paul, Bishop of Emesa, to Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, for the sake of making peace.

Cap. LXXXI. The letter of Bishop Theodoret to Alexander, Metropolitan of the province of Euphratensis. Irenæus said [this].

Cap. LXXXII. The letter of Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, to Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis.

Cap. LXXXIII. The letter of Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, to Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, regarding the peace that was made between him and the Eastern bishops.

Cap. LXXXIV. Testimony from the letter of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, to Successus, Bishop of the city of Diocæsarea in the second province of Isauria.

Cap. LXXXV. Cyril to the priests Theognostus and Charmosynus and the deacon Leontius, greeting in the Lord.

Cap. LXXXVI. The letter of John, Bishop of Antioch, to Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, regarding the peace made between the Churches.

Cap. LXXXVII. The letter of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, written back to John, Bishop of Antioch, responding also to the preceding announcement of peace. ^C

Cap. LXXXVIII. The letter of the same to Bishop Theosebius. Irenæus sets forth both.

Cap. LXXXIX. The words of Irenæus which he spoke against Theodoret after the letter of John written above.

Cap. XC. The letter of Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, to Alexander of Hierapolis.

Cap. XCI. The letter of John of Antioch to Emperor Theodosius, concerning the peace of the Church.

Cap. XCII. The letter of Bishop Meletius written back to Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, against Paul, Bishop of Emesa.

Cap. XCIII. Likewise, a letter from Bishop Alexander to Bishop Andrew, proving this same thing.

Cap. XCIV. A similar letter from the same Bishop Alexander to Bishop Theodoret.

Cap. XCV. Begins the letter, as they say, of Bishop Theodoret to John of Antioch.

Cap. XCVI. A letter of Alexander to Theodoret, through which he indeed accuses him of betrayal of the word, but also declares how those about Paul of Emesa, who were falsifying the letter, offered it to Cyril of Egypt.

Cap. XCVII. The letter of Theodoret which he wrote back to Bishop Alexander.

Cap. XCVIII. The letter of Andrew to Alexander, indicating that he himself does not in any way judge against the person of Nestorius, but rather against those who did not hold [the doctrine] in this way.

Cap. XCIX. The letter, he says, of Theodoret to Alexander, through which he promises to anathematize those things [concerning the doctrine of John's person], ^D and that he himself would not exist as a communicant with them. I have set these forth for this reason especially, so that it may be known what the things are concerning which either the blessed Theodoret, or whoever may have written it, is being attacked.

Cap. C. The letter, he says, of Alexander to Theodoret, through which he promised his arrival on such a condition, if he were satisfied by letters concerning those things for which he was attempting to demand satisfaction.

Cap. CI. The letter, he says, of Andrew to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which he wrote inviting him to consent immediately to the peace agreement that had been made.

Cap. CII. The letter, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which he wrote back, asking that he not be urged further by them concerning this.

Cap. CIII. The letter, he says, of Andrew which he wrote back upon these matters to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, again asking that he assent to the others.

Cap. CIV. The letter of Bishop Alexander, which he wrote back to Andrew, blaming him because, while they preach the right faith, he nevertheless communicates with Cyril, who in no way departs from heresy.

Cap. CV. The letter, he says, of the same, which he wrote to John of Germanicia, who had similarly asked him for peace.

Cap. CVI. The letter, he says, of Andrew to the oeconomi of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander; that he had communicated with the Antiochenes and all the rest.

Cap. CVII. The letter of Paul, Bishop of Emesa, showing his intentions.

Cap. CVIII. The letter, he says, of Cyril to Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa, announcing that he does not at all receive the propositions which have been directed by John.

Cap. CIX. The letter of Maximinus to Alexander, which he wrote when he had learned about Andrew and about (John of) Germanicia.

Cap. CX. The letter, he says, of Theodoret to Helladius, indicating that he has not departed from those things which were once agreed upon among them in the matter, nor does he suffer to acquiesce to the injustice which has been committed against that person.

Cap. CXI. The letter, he says, of Helladius to Alexander, indicating that it was decided that the Cilicians should meet because of the betrayal that had occurred.

Cap. CXII. The letter, he says, of Maximinus of the second province of Cilicia to Alexander, which indicated that they, meeting together, had defined certain things concerning the matter that was being discussed.

Cap. CXIII. The Synod of Anazarbus. The holy synod of the second Cilicia, which by the grace of God in Ana-

Anazarbus, the metropolis, convened, deliberated on the subjects placed before it.

Cap. CXIV. A letter, he says, from the God-beloved Helladius to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, by which he indicated that the bishops of the second Cilicia, having gathered, had provided a certain formula concerning the matter that is being discussed; which the bishops of the first Cilicia also approve.

Cap. CXV. A letter, he says, from the God-beloved Bishop Dorotheus, Metropolitan ^A of Moesia, to John of Antioch, which he wrote having perceived the opinion that agreement had been reached at Alexandria between Paul and Cyril.

Cap. CXVI. The same man placed this letter [here]. To my God-beloved and most holy lords and fellow-ministers, to be mentioned with all reverence, Alexander and Theodoret, Eutherius wishes joy.

Cap. CXVII. A letter, he says, of the God-beloved Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana, and Helladius of Tarsus, written to the bishop of the great name, Sixtus of Rome.

Cap. CXVIII. Between these letters I have removed many things which Irenæus included in his own person. But these things which follow, said by him, not being useless like the others, he brought over to this, believing that, as a man most attached to Nestorius, it ^B is sufficiently apparent how hostile he is to the things contained in the letter of Ibas, which was made known to all in his region to Marius the Persian, as also regarding the other pursuits of the aforementioned supporters. 608

Cap. CXIX. To my lord, in all things God-beloved and most holy Bishop Alexander, Theodoret, Abbibus, Heliadius, Maris, David, Acilinus, Meletius [wish joy].

Cap. CXX. To the God-beloved in truth and most holy father, Bishop Nestorius, Theodoret [wishes joy].

Cap. CXXI. The things which were written in response, he says, to the prophecy concerning that which is called the Egyptian repentance. And whether one might think the Egyptian repentance to be true or false, to me at any rate it is an object of the greatest hatred.

Cap. CXXII. To my most reverend and God-fearing fellow-minister, Bishop Theodoret, John in the Lord [wishes] health.

Cap. CXXIII. A letter, he says, of John of Antioch, which he wrote to Taurus (the Praetorian Prefect) and Patricius, rejoicing with him indeed at the ordination of Proclus as Bishop of Constantinople, but asking him to assist him against the obstinate ones who had separated themselves from his communion.

Cap. CXXIV. A letter, he says, of Bishop Meletius to Maximinus of Anazarbus, by which he signified [matters] concerning the quaestor Domitianus and the sacred [imperial] decrees which John of Antioch had obtained against them.

Cap. CXXV. A letter, he says, or a memorandum of the most magnificent quaestor to Helladius, the Bishop of Tarsus, urging him to join the Antiochene.

Cap. CXXVI. A letter, he says, of John, Bishop of Antioch, to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, by which he indicated that the Emperor commanded that no bishop from the East should set out for Constantinople.

Cap. CXXVII. A letter, he says, of Bishop Alexander in the person of the Magistrianus, who had brought the aforementioned letters.

Cap. CXXVIII. Irenæus says: And this is a letter of Theodoret to Meletius of Neocaesarea concerning these things which John has unjustly committed on various occasions.

Cap. CXXIX. The same Irenæus says: To the in all things God-beloved and most holy bishops of Syria and of the first and second Cilicia and of the second Cappadocia, Alexander, Theodoret, Heliades, Abbibus, Maras, David, Acilinus, in the Lord [wish] joy.

Cap. CXXX. To my lords, ^C in all things God-beloved fathers and most holy (bishops), Alexander, Theodoret, Heliadius, Abbibus, Mara, David, Acilinus, Helladius, Matronianus, Cyrillus, Zenobius, in the Lord [wish] joy.

Cap. CXXXI. To my lords, and in all things God-beloved and most holy bishops Alexander, Theodoret, Heliadius, Abbibus, Mara, David, Acilinus, Hermogenes, Meletius, Hesychius, Heliodorus, in the Lord [wish] joy.

Cap. CXXXII. A letter, he says, of Alexander, Bishop of Apamea, to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which he wrote in response, asking that, where it is possible, they might meet to deliberate about these things which are occurring, and what ought to be done.

Cap. CXXXIII. A letter, he says, of Bishop Theodoret to the most magnificent Master of Soldiers, written concerning these things.

Cap. CXXXIV. A petition to the most reverend and God-beloved bishops Alexander, Theodoret, Maras, David, Acilinus, sent by Abbibus, Bishop of Dolichus, by which he indicated what had been unjustly committed by the Antiochene.

Cap. CXXXV. A letter, he says, of the same [man], of the God-beloved bishops Alexander, Theodoret, Abbibus, Heliadius, Mara, David, Acilinus, bishops of the province of Euphratensis, to those at Augustas, in which they wrote, informing them what had been unjustly committed against them by the Antiochene on different occasions.

Cap. CXXXVI. A letter of Bishop Alexander responding concerning these things to Archbishop John.

Cap. CXXXVII. A letter, he says, of Dorotheus, Metropolitan of Moesia, to the God-beloved Alexander, Bishop of Euphratensis, and to Theodoret.

Cap. CXXXVIII. A letter, he says, of Bishop Theodoret to Dorotheus, Metropolitan of Moesia.

Cap. CXXXIX. A letter, he says, of the same to the friend of Christ, of the orthodox peoples of Constantinople, by which he exhorts them to patience, and declares repentance regarding the dogmas of the opponents.

Cap. CXL. A sacred [imperial] decree, he says, obtained by John of Antioch, as much against the God-beloved and most holy Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, as against Helladius, Maximinus, and Theodoret, the God-beloved bishops.

Cap. CXLI. A letter, he says, of Meletius to the Count Neotherius, who had exhorted and admonished him by letter to be reconciled with the Antiochene.

Cap. CXLII. A rescript, ^D he says, published as the conclusion of these things which were written to the most magnificent Count and Vicar Titus by the most glorious Master of Soldiers, Dionysius.

Cap. CXLIII. A letter, he says, of the most magnificent Dionysius, Master of Soldiers, when he wrote to each one of the bishops who are named in the sacred [decree], that they should either consent to these things which have been done by the Antiochene, and communicate with him, or depart from the churches and the cities.

Cap. CXLIV. A letter, he says, of Bishop Helladius to the God-beloved Bishop Meletius, which he wrote informing him of the things which were commanded from Constantinople, and seeking counsel about what should be done regarding these.

Cap. CXLV. A letter, he says, of the God-beloved and most holy Bishop Meletius to Helladius, by which he wrote in response that he would neither depart from the things which once had been piously resolved, nor would it be right to believe those who reported these things, as they had shown by their own deeds that they were stirred up by the supporters of Proclus for the sake of the moment.

Cap. CXLVI. A letter of Bishop Theodoret, he says, to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, by which he signified that the most magnificent Count Titus and the most holy monks had risen up against him by letter, as though he ought to embrace the peace and communion of John of Antioch.

Cap. CXLVII. A letter, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander to Theodoret, which he wrote in response.

to those things which were written by him, directing toward him certain conditions regarding the business itself.

Cap. CXLVIII. A letter, says Irenaeus, to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which (Theodoret) wrote in response, signifying to him that he had read the conditions directed to him, and that one of them, as being less than well-disposed, he did not approve.

Cap. CXLIX. A letter, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which he again wrote in response to the God-beloved Theodoret, directing to him also the prooemium of the synodicals of Proclus.

Cap. CL. The beginning of the synodical of the Church regarding that which was done by Proclus.

Cap. CLI. A letter, he says, of Theodoret to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which he wrote indicating that one must think much about peace, and especially because those were certain who were lying in wait for their thrones.

Cap. CLII. A letter, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander to Theodoret, which he wrote in response, asking indeed that importunity not be made to him regarding the same matters, but directing to him the letters from Constantinople of the God-beloved monk Parthenius.

Cap. CLIII. A letter, he says, of Parthenius, presbyter and archimandrite, to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander.

Cap. CLIV. A letter, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander to Acilinus, Bishop of Barbalissos, who had indicated to him that he was enduring much pressure from the guards of the magnificent place, commanding those who are in the camp either to prepare him to enter into the communion of the Antiochene, or else to drive him out of the same camp.

Cap. CLV. A letter, he says, of Meletius to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which he wrote upon learning that after the entry of the God-beloved Bishop Theodoret into Antioch, the Cilicians who were stirred up were managing the proposed matters in diverse ways. ^A

Cap. CLVI. A letter, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander to the God-beloved Bishop Meletius, which he wrote approving of him for such constancy, but reproving the inconstancy of the others, and indicating the persecution made against the God-beloved Bishop Acilinus.

Cap. CLVII. A letter, he says, of Hesychius, Bishop of Castabala, to Bishop Meletius, indicating that by persuading the Antiochene so that nothing superfluous might be placed in the letters—that is, regarding the deposition of Nestorius—those who were from Secunda Cilicia had entered into communion.

Cap. CLVIII. As if for reading aloud, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Meletius to Maximinus, Bishop of Anazarbus.

Cap. CLIX. A synodical, he says, of Maximinus and those who were from Secunda Cilicia to the Antiochene regarding communion. And of the chapters, he caused mention to be made concerning the heretics.

Cap. CLX. A letter, he says, of Bishop Theodoret to Helladius of Tarsus, who had written to him, and had directed the letters which had come from Constantinople. He wrote to him, however, urging him to be united with the Antiochene, affirming that by no one was he forced to agree to the deposition of a person.

Cap. CLXI. A letter, he says, of the same to Cyril of Adana, which he wrote asking him also to strive for peace, confident that nothing would be sought from him except communion alone.

Cap. CLXII. A letter, he says, of the same to Mocimus, the God-beloved oeconomus of the Church of Hierapolis, through which he signifies that, having entered into Antioch, he had spoken with John, and had settled the matters which were being discussed in a decent and desirable manner.

Cap. CLXIII. A letter, he says, of Meletius, which he wrote to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, indicating that the priests of Secunda Cilicia had entered into communion, although he would have preferred that they follow first. ^B

Cap. CLXIV. A letter, he says, of Helladius to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, whereby he indicated that the Cilicians of the second province had indeed entered into communion, but that he himself was also being compelled by the entire clergy and bishops of his province to be joined to the Antiochene, with the aforementioned saying to him that worse evils might not befall those for whom the Church is now being constrained.

Cap. CLXV. A letter, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which he wrote in response to the Tarsian, vituperating indeed his writings, but admonishing him not to desert those things which he had once judged in a God-pleasing manner.

Cap. CLXVI. A letter, he says, of Bishop Theodoret to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which he wrote after he had entered Antioch and had spoken to John, and the aged God-beloved man, that is, his [Alexander’s] own, did not allow further colloquy for Theodoret.

Cap. CLXVII. A letter, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, with which he replied, indicating indeed the causes which did not allow this to be done, but asking that he not be pressed further about this for the future.

Cap. CLXVIII. A letter, he says, of Theodoret to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, by which he signified that the Cilicians and Isaurians had been united to the Antiochene under the written conditions.

Cap. CLXIX. A letter, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which he wrote in response to the God-beloved Bishop Theodoret, insinuating that it mattered nothing to him that the Cilicians and Isaurians had entered into communion with the Antiochene, since he himself had chosen to endure all things for piety's sake. ^C

Cap. CLXX. To my Lord and Truth-beloved God-beloved and most holy Father and Bishop Nestorius, Theodoret sends greetings in the Lord.

Cap. CLXXI. A letter, he says, of Meletius to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, by which he wrote that those who were from Secunda Cilicia had indeed entered into communion, but that other Cilicians and Isaurians had similarly transgressed those things which they had once judged piously.

Cap. CLXXII. A letter of the God-beloved Bishop Theodoret to John of Antioch, on account of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander.

Cap. CLXXIII. To my Lord in all things God-beloved and most holy Bishop Meletius, Titus.

Cap. CLXXIV. To my Lord in all things most reverend and most admirable and most magnificent Titus, Meletius.

Cap. CLXXV. A letter, he says, of Bishop Zenobius of Zephyrium to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, insinuating that the God-beloved Bishop Meletius had departed from the Church.

Cap. CLXXVI. To our most pious and Christ-loving Emperors, Flavius Theodosius and Valentinian, triumphant, victorious, Augusti, a petition and supplication from John, Bishop of the Church of God at Antioch.

Cap. CLXXVII. A letter, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Meletius to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which he wrote after he was expelled by the arrival of soldiers.

Cap. CLXXVIII. A letter, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander to the God-beloved Bishop Meletius, which he wrote in response to the aforementioned letters after his exile.

Cap. CLXXIX. An interpretation, he says, of the order of the Master of Soldiers Dionysius, which he wrote to the most illustrious judge of Secunda Cilicia. ^D

Cap. CLXXX. To my Lord, God-beloved and most holy, he says, father Bishop Alexander, Titus.

Cap. CLXXXI. To my Lord, he says, most holy and God-beloved father, Bishop Alexander, Dionysius.

Cap. CLXXXII. A letter, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which he wrote in response to the letters written above, in the same affair, demonstrating his own purpose.

^A Cap. CLXXXIII. Flavius Titus, most glorious count of the most devoted domestics, fulfilling the place of the master of the soldiers in power, to Flavius Libyanus, most illustrious president of the province of Euphratensis.

Cap. CLXXXIV. A report, he says, of Libyanus, judge of Euphratensis, to the most magnificent vicar Titus.

Cap. CLXXXV. A second report, he says, of the judge of Euphratensis, who, recognizing the disturbance of the city caused by the departure of the most holy Bishop Alexander, directed it to the most magnificent count of the East, transmitting also the acclamations of the people made both to himself and to the most magnificent count Titus, and to the prelate of Antioch himself as well.

Cap. CLXXXVI. To these Irenæus added those. We have placed them here for this reason, lest anyone wonder why he did not record the voices of the people here.

Cap. CLXXXVII. A memorandum to the God-beloved clergy of Hierapolis and to the Christ-loving laity, from John.

Cap. CLXXXVIII. An interpretation, he says, of the sacred [decree] which was promulgated to the most magnificent and glorious prefects concerning the exile to Petra of the most magnificent Count Irenæus.

Cap. CLXXXIX. An interpretation, he says, of the aforesaid mandate.

Cap. CXC. How many, he says, departed from the holy churches, not wishing to wound their own conscience, nor to acquiesce to the deeds of Cyril, or to endure his communion.

Cap. CXCI. The law which was proposed against Nestorius.

Cap. CXCII. To our most religious and pious emperors, worthily honored by God, Theodosius and Valentinian Augusti, from Helladius, Cyril, Valentinus, Minodorus, Jatianus, bishops of your First Cilicia.

Cap. CXCIII. To my lord, the God-beloved and most holy Bishop Nestorius, Helladius: greeting in the Lord.

Cap. CXCIV. A letter, he says, of Cyril to the tribune Aristolaus, which he wrote at the request of Beronicianus, bishop of Tyre, giving the forms of the anathema which ought to have been made by them.

Cap. CXCV. The same Irenæus, when on account of these things he railed against the bishops of the East, says: A letter of Cyril to John of Antioch, by which he complains that although the Orientals had indeed anathematized Nestorius, they nevertheless preached the same things that he did to him. He also gives the format of how an anathema ought to be requested in the future.

Cap. CXCVI. A letter written to Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople, by the Oriental council on behalf of Theodore and Diodore, formerly bishops.

Cap. CXCVII. A letter of John to Proclus, by which he boasts that he had perverted the whole East, and yet he accused his person in those very letters.

Cap. CXCVIII. A letter, he says, of Cyril to the emperor, accusing those who were around John of Antioch, stating that those who, as he says, supposedly anathematized Nestorius, feel the very same things that he did, for the reason that they admire the writings of Theodore and Diodore.

Cap. CXCIX. A part, he says, of the letter of Theodore of Ancyra to the holy monk Vitalis, who was in Cappadocia.

Cap. CC. A part, he says, of the letter of Rabbula of Edessa ^B written to Egypt, signifying that he who was being opposed by them, that is, Nestorius, thus followed those who were around blessed Theodore, and made use of such doctrines before the Church.

Cap. CCI. A letter of Eutherius, formerly Bishop of Tyana, to Alexander of Hierapolis, written against the peace of the Church of God which was made between Cyril and Bishop John.

Cap. CCII. Presbyter Claudianus.

Cap. CCIII. To my lord, most holy and God-beloved bishop, father of fathers, and archbishop, Maximianus: your Epiphanius.

Cap. CCIV. To my lord, most beloved brother and fellow-minister Donatus, Cyril: greeting in the Lord.

Cap. CCV. A letter of the same to Acacius, Bishop of Melitene.

Cap. CCVI. A certain letter to Lampon, presbyter and the clergy.

Cap. CCVII. A letter of the same to John, Bishop of Antioch.

Cap. CCVIII. A letter of the same to Maximus, John, and Thalassus, presbyters and archimandrites.

Cap. CCIX. A letter of the same Cyril to the tribune and notary Aristolaus.

Cap. CCX. Following this is that which Irenæus also placed, written by the same Cyril to Aristolaus. A letter of the same to John of Antioch against Theodoret.

Cap. CCXI. A letter of the same to Mosæus, Bishop of Antaradus.

Cap. CCXII. A letter of the same to Acacius of Melitene.

Cap. CCXIII. A letter of Acacius of Melitene to Cyril after the synod held at Ephesus.

Cap. CCXIV. A letter of the same to Successus, bishop of Diocæsarea in the province of Isauria.

Cap. CCXV. A second letter of the same most holy Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, to the same most holy Bishop of Diocæsarea in Isauria.

Cap. CCXVI. A copy from Hypatia, who taught philosophy in Alexandria, to blessed Cyril, the archbishop in the diptychs.

Cap. CCXVII. From the sermon on the faith of Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, the beginning of which is: This preface.

Cap. CCXVIII. From the same, from the interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Cap. CCXIX. A letter of Emperor Theodosius to the aforementioned.

Cap. CCXX. A so-called "tractoria" or general letter ^C from the most holy and universal council.

Cap. CCXXI. Similarly, I have translated from an ancient Acœmetan codex what is prefaced thus: The confession of faith of Acacius, Bishop of Berrhœa.

Cap. CCXXII. A letter of Eutyches the heretic, wherein, writing to Pope Leo of the city of Rome, he denies two natures in Christ, that is, of divinity and humanity.

Cap. CCXXIII. Likewise, the words of Eutyches.

Cap. CCXXIV. A copy of Julius, Bishop of the city of Rome, as the writings of Eutyches assert, to Bishop Dionysius, through whose interpretation Eutyches himself fell into error.

Cap. CCXXV. A copy of a letter, without a name, to an old man desirous to know what Eutyches held contrary to the Catholic faith.

SYNODICON AGAINST THE TRAGEDY OF IRENAEUS.

^A 609 CHAPTER ONE. Synodical Epistle of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, to Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople.

To the most reverend and God-beloved fellow-minister Nestorius, Cyril and the synod which is gathered in Alexandria from the Egyptian diocese, greeting in the Lord.

Since our Savior says openly, "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me," what must we suffer, we who are demanded by your Reverence to love you more than our Savior Christ, who is above all? What will be able to help us on the day of judgment, or what excuse will we find, we who by such long silence have honored the blasphemies committed by you against Him? And if indeed you were injuring only yourself by such opinions and teachings, the concern would be less. But since you have scandalized the whole Church and have cast into the peoples the leaven of an unusual and foreign heresy, and not only to those established there, but also to those who are everywhere (for copies of your expositions have been delivered), what speech will now suffice for our silence? Or how is it not necessary to remember Christ saying: "Do you not think that I have come to send peace upon the earth? I have not come to send peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother." For when ^B the faith is injured, the reverence for parents is held as indeed vain and deceitful, and let the law of affection which is toward children and brothers also be at rest, and to the pious let death now be better than life, that we may merit a better resurrection, according to what is written. Therefore, behold, together with the holy synod which is gathered in great Rome, presided over by our most holy and God-beloved brother and fellow-minister Celestine the bishop, and for the third time, we testify to you by this letter, persuading you to desist from such base and distorted dogmas, which you conceive and teach, and to choose rather the right faith, which from the beginning has been handed down to the Churches by the holy apostles and evangelists, who also became beholders and ministers. But if your Reverence does not do this according to the 610 terms defined in the letters of the aforementioned most holy and most reverend bishop and our fellow-minister of the Romans, Celestine, know that you have no lot with us, nor any place among the priests and bishops of God. For it is not possible for us to disregard Churches so troubled, and peoples scandalized, and the right faith abjured, and the flocks scattered by you, whom you should have saved, if indeed you were, according to us, a lover of true glory, investigating the piety of the holy Fathers. As for all those who have been separated by your Reverence on account of the faith or ^C deposed, both laymen and clerics, we are all communicants. For it is not right that those who know how to discern the truth should be injured by your doctrines, because those who have done well by you have gainsaid you. You yourself indicated this very thing in the letter which was written by you to our fellow-minister Celestine, the bishop of the most holy Church of great Rome. But it will not suffice for your Reverence to confess only the symbol of faith, which was set forth in due time through the holy Spirit by the holy and great synod then gathered in Nicaea. For you have understood and interpreted this not rightly, but rather distortedly, although you confess the voice in speech; but it is required that in writing and with an oath you confess that you also anathematize your corrupt and profane dogmas, and that you will conceive and teach what all of us, and the bishops and doctors and those set over the peoples in the West and in the East, hold. The holy Roman synod and all of us have also consented that those who hold the right faith be addressed by the Church of the Alexandrians in letters written without reproach to your Reverence. And we have subjoined to these letters of ours what it behooves you to conceive and teach, and from what it is convenient to abstain. For this is the faith of the catholic and apostolic Church, to which all agree, and those who are orthodox bishops in the West and those who are in the East:

^A We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say, "There was a time when he was not," and that he was made out of things that were not, or from another subsistence or substance, and those who say that the Son of God is either changeable or mutable, the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Following everywhere the confessions of the holy Fathers, which they made the Holy Spirit speaking within them, and investigating the intention of the sense that is in them, proceeding by the royal road, we say that the only-begotten Word of God himself, who is born from the very substance of the Father, God truly from true God, light from light, he through whom all things were made that are in heaven and on earth, descending for our salvation, and emptying himself into humiliation, was incarnate and made man, that is, taking flesh from the holy Virgin, and making it his own, from the womb according to us he endured birth and proceeded ^B man from a woman, not losing what he was, but even though he was made in the assumption of flesh and blood, still remaining what he was, namely God in nature and truth. But we do not say that the flesh was changed into the nature of deity, nor that the nature of the Word of God was transferred into the nature of flesh. For he is inconvertible and altogether immutable, the same always remaining according to the Scriptures. While he was seen as a child and existing in swaddling clothes, and in the bosom of her who gave birth to him, the Virgin, he as God was filling every creature, and was a confessor of his Begetter. For the divinity is without quantity and magnitude, and does not sustain circumscription. But confessing the Word to be united to the flesh according to subsistence, we adore one Son and Lord Jesus Christ, not setting apart and defining the man and God, as if they were joined to each other by a union of dignity and authority (for this is a novelty of words, and nothing else), nor indeed naming Christ specifically the Word from God, and similarly specifically naming the one from the woman as another Christ, but ^C knowing one alone, Christ from God the Father the Word with his flesh. For then he was humanly joined with us, when he himself was giving to those who were worthy to receive the Spirit, and was not receiving from measure, as the blessed evangelist John says. But neither do we say this, that the Word from God dwelt as if in a common man born from the holy Virgin, so that Christ is understood as a man bearing God. For even if the Word dwelt in us, yet it is said that in Christ also dwells all the fullness of the godhead bodily; but nonetheless we feel that, having been made flesh, not as he is said to dwell in the saints, so we define a habitation also to happen about him according to a like ^D mode; but united according to nature, and not changed into flesh, he made such a habitation as is also said to be had by the soul of man to its own proper body. Therefore, there is one Christ and Son and Lord, not having a certain conjunction simply in a union of dignity or even of authority as a man does to God. For equal honor does not unite natures. For Peter and John are indeed peers in honor to each other, according to which they are also apostles and holy disciples, yet they are not one, but two. Nor indeed do we understand the mode according to an apposition of conjunction. For this does not suffice for a natural union. Nor indeed as if according to an affective participation, as we who also adhere to the Lord, according to what is written: "We are one spirit with him." But rather we refuse the name of conjunction, as being not suitable to signify the union. But we do not name the Word from God the Father as God, nor the Lord of Christ, lest again we openly cut the individual Christ and Son and Lord, and incur the crime of blasphemy, making him his own God and Lord. For the Word of God, as we have already said, having been united to the flesh according to subsistence, is indeed God of all, but he governs the universe. Nor is he himself his own servant, nor his own lord. It is foolish, or rather impious, to think or say so. He does indeed call the Father his own God, when he is certainly God by nature and from his substance. But we are not ignorant that, while being God, he was also made man under God according to the law which befits human nature. But how will he himself become his own God or Lord? Therefore, as a man, and as far as pertains and befits the measures of humiliation, he himself says he is under God with us. Thus he was made also under the law, when he himself had spoken the law, and being Legislator as God. But we refuse to say concerning Christ: "Because of him who puts on, he is him whom he puts on."

^A nor do we divide him into two subsistences nor even into two persons. For Christ is not double, one and only, although he is understood to be coadunated from two diverse things by an indivisible union; just as surely a human being is understood from both soul and body, and is not double, but one from both. We are also certain that human and divine utterances are rightly spoken by one [person], and we are wise in this. For when [he speaks] in a way fitting to God about himself: "He who sees me, sees also the Father," and "I and the Father are one," we perceive his divine and ineffable nature, according to which he is one with his own Father, by reason of the identity of substance, the image and figure and splendor of his glory. But when, not ^B disparaging the measure of his humanity, he addresses the Jews: "Now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you," nevertheless we acknowledge the same one, who is in equality and likeness to the Father, as God the Word, and we recognize him from the measures of his humanity. For if it is necessary to believe that he, being God by nature, was made flesh or a human being quickened by a rational soul, what reason could anyone have to fear his words, if they were made in a manner befitting a human being? For if he rejects words befitting a human being, who was it that compelled him to become a human being like us? But he who emptied himself into a voluntary emptying, for what reason would he reject words befitting that emptying? To one person, we apply all the utterances in the Gospels concerning the subsistence of the one incarnate Word. For there is one Lord Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures. If, however, he is also called apostle and high priest of ^C our confession, so that he sacrifices to God and the Father the confession of faith which is from us—which is offered to God and the Father through him and by him, and also to the holy Spirit—we say again that he is the same, the Only-begotten from God by nature, and we do not grant to any other person besides him the name of priesthood, nor the thing itself. For he has been made mediator of God and men and reconciler for peace, consecrating himself as an odor of sweetness to God and the Father. For he also said: "Burnt offerings for sin you didst not require, but a body you have prepared for me. Then I said: Behold, I come. In the head of the book it is written of me, to do, O God, your will." For he offered for us, as an odor of sweetness, his own body, and not for himself. For of what sacrificial offering or sacrifice for his own sake would he have need, being as God, stronger than every sin? For if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of ^D God, according to the fact that we were made inclined to transgression, and human nature fell ill in sin, but he [is] not so, and for this reason we have need of his glory, how then can it still be ambiguous that he was sacrificed for us and on our behalf as the true Lamb of God, and

^A to say that he offered himself for himself and for us, he will in no way be free from the charges of impiety. For he did not fail in any way, nor did he commit sin. Who, then, had need of an offering, when there was no sin for which it might be made? And very congruously. But when he says concerning the Spirit, "He shall glorify me," we, understanding correctly—not that he is in need of another’s glory—say that one Christ and Son receives glory from the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is neither more powerful than him, nor above him. But because for the demonstration of his divinity he used his own Spirit for great operations, he said he was glorified by him; just as if one of those who are according to us were to say concerning the fortitude or discipline inherent in himself, or concerning anything else, that "it shall glorify me." For even if the Spirit exists in a special subsistence, or is certainly understood by himself in that he is Spirit and not the Son, yet he is nonetheless not alien to him. For he is named the Spirit of truth, and he is the Spirit of truth, and he proceeds from him, just as he does from God the Father. For the Spirit worked, and through the hands of the holy apostles [he performed] miracles after the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ into the heavens, and he glorified him. For it was believed that he is God according to nature, and the Spirit himself worked again through his own Spirit. On account of this he also said: "He shall take from mine, and shall announce it to you." And nowhere do we say that he is wise and powerful from participation in the Spirit. For he is perfect everywhere and in every way, and is not in need of any good. But the Spirit, who is of the power and wisdom of the Father—that is, of the Son—is himself wisdom and power in his own essence. But because the holy Virgin brought forth carnally the God united to the flesh according to subsistence, hence we also say that she is the Theotokos, not as though the nature of the Word had the beginning of its subsistence from the flesh (for "the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and he himself is the maker of the ages, coeternal with the Father, and the artificer of all things), but, as we have already said, because [he], uniting that human [nature] to himself according to subsistence, endured birth from the womb itself in the flesh, not as in need of it necessarily or on account of his own eternal nature, even in time and in the last times of the age by birth, but so that he might bless the very beginning of our essence, ^B and [that] when the woman brought forth [him] united to the Word according to the Scriptures, the curse which was being transmitted against the whole human race to death from our earth and bodies might now cease, and that which is, "In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children," might be truly shown [to be] destroyed through him. Which was said by the voice of the prophet: "Death is swallowed up, ^C prevailing." And again: "God hath taken away every tear from every face." For on account of this cause we say that he likewise blessed the very nuptials by dispensation, and went to the wedding in Cana of Galilee, ^D just as he was taught to understand from the holy apostles, and we are informed as much by the holy apostles as by the evangelists and all God-inspired Scripture and by the true confession of the most blessed Fathers. To all these things it is necessary that your reverence also confess and consent without any guile. But those things which it is necessary for your reverence to anathematize are subject to this our letter.

ANATHEMATISM I. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and that on this account the holy Virgin is the Theotokos (for she brought forth carnally the Word made flesh from God), let him be anathema.

ANATHEMATISM II. If anyone does not confess the Word from God the Father to be united to the flesh according to subsistence, and that Christ is one with his own flesh, to wit, the same [being] God simultaneously and man, let him be anathema.

ANATHEMATISM III. If anyone in one Christ divides the subsistences after the union, joining them only by a conjunction which is according to dignity or authority, or according to power, and not rather by a coming together according to natural union, let him be anathema.

ANATHEMATISM IV. If anyone divides the expressions in the evangelical and apostolic Scriptures to two persons or subsistences, whether those that were spoken concerning Christ by the holy men, or by him concerning himself, and applies some as to a man, specifically understood apart from that Word from God, and others, as to God, to the Word from God the Father alone, let him be anathema.

ANATHEMATISM V. If anyone dares to say that Christ is a man-bearing God, and not rather that he is God in truth, as the one Son and nature, in that the Word was made flesh and similarly communicated to us in flesh and blood, let him be anathema.

ANATHEMATISM VI. If anyone says that the Word from God the Father is the God or Lord of Christ, and does not rather confess him the same to be God and man at once, as having been made flesh according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema.

ANATHEMATISM VII. If anyone says that Jesus was made by the Word of God as a man, and that he was encompassed with the glory of the Only-begotten, as though he were another existing apart from him, let him be anathema.

ANATHEMATISM VIII. If anyone dares to say that the assumed man ought to be co-worshipped with the Word of God and co-glorified and [index: entries preserved]

as one person with another—for this is what the term "co-" always implies, whenever it is added, and it does not rather honor Emmanuel with a single adoration and attribute one glorification to him, according to the fact that the Word became flesh—let him be anathema.

ANATHEMATISM IX If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ is glorified by the Spirit, as if he were using an alien power that is through him and were able to operate against unclean spirits and fulfill the miracles of God among men by receiving it from him, and does not rather call it his own Spirit, through whom he also worked the signs of God, let him be anathema.

ANATHEMATISM X The divine Scripture says that Christ, who was made the High Priest and Apostle of our confession, offered himself also for us as an odor of sweetness to God and the Father. If anyone, therefore, says that our High Priest and Apostle is not the Word himself from God, when he was made flesh and man according to us, but as it were another man specially from a woman; or if anyone says that he offered the sacrifice for himself, and not rather for us alone—for he who knows no sin did not need a sacrifice—let him be anathema.

ANATHEMATISM XI If anyone does not confess the flesh of the Lord to be life-giving and the own flesh of the Word itself which is from God the Father, but speaks as if it belonged to another who is joined to him ^B in dignity, or as though it had only a divine indwelling, and does not rather speak of it as life-giving—as we have said—because it has become the own flesh of the Word who has the power to quicken all things, let him be anathema.

ANATHEMATISM XII If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh, and that he tasted death in the flesh, and has also become the firstborn from the dead, according to what he is as God, Life and Life-giver, let him be anathema.

Given on the thirtieth day of November, the thirteenth indiction.

In the *Acœmitæ* Collection, XCI.

CHAPTER II

^{A B C} The letter of Saint John, Archbishop of Antioch, to the Eastern bishops concerning the peace made for the universal Church, which he called the letter from the blessed Cyril to Acacius.

Piety has prevailed, and let all the devil's envy depart. It prevailed, and it will admit no place hereafter for those who attempt to slander the exposition of the faith of the masters of the Church ^A shamelessly. It has prevailed thus, in that the pious confession of the divine inhumanation could not be received among us in one way, and in another way elsewhere. For we and my lord, the God-beloved Cyril, have come to an agreement with each other, keeping one and the same faith according to the true rule of the Gospels. For there is nothing intermediate, nor anything worthy of doubt, in the things which he wrote to us about the faith, but he set forth all things clearly and openly, weaving them in according to our own propositions for his satisfaction, which he directed to us. Therefore, God being propitious, a single communion and concord of all the Churches of the whole world has been brought about through these things. We have not approached the peace of the Church deceitfully, nor, as far as the aforementioned most beloved man is concerned, do we utter any word foreign to our own, beyond what divine Scripture wills. For thus the doubt which was between us was dissolved pure and clean and without guile, so that it left no occasion for those who wish to dissent from him regarding divine dogmas.

Let us therefore receive the consonance of pious faith, and with it the peace of the Church, not yielding henceforth to those who, from a pretense of piety, desire to prove themselves zealots and followers of our way. For the whole doubt and contradiction concerning the dispensation of the Lord according to the flesh has been dissolved by the grace of ^B the faith. And whoever wishes to contend, it is manifest that they have not held to this from the beginning, but have envied the concord of the Churches of God. For some preach Christ out of truth, but others out of contention. And your holiness knows this better than I. For there were even among the adversaries those who wavered on both sides. Their minds indeed assented to the truth, but their tongue and their zeal directed their efforts toward things that were contrary to their sentiments. For they served enmities and gratifications, that they might attack us by finding occasions.

All these things have now, by the grace of God, been extinguished. For the things that we dictated—some indeed composing the statement on the right faith at Ephesus, and others here, that is, in Antioch, through the discussion held between us—these the most holy Cyril not only received, but also anticipated by praising them, calling our words most sacred, and approving and confirming them. According to which he himself also set forth similar things, weaving together for us the ancestral tradition, which had almost perished from among men—so to speak—and was in peril; according to it, he agrees with us—that is, with the Orientals. ^{C D}

[alt-version omitted]

^A And he gives an exposition of the true faith; he interposes nothing intermediary, nor anything which might raise even the smallest doubt in his letters to us; but he teaches even those who still resist the truth to confess with a clear voice the distinction of natures, while dividing the divine utterances, likewise as the natures, while indeed confessing the identity of the person of the only-begotten Son of God.

And I believe, brethren most beloved of God, when this document has been dispatched, as he himself promised, to the faithful who are everywhere in the world, that those who are of good will shall be satisfied, but confusion shall arise for the unbelieving, and they shall be subjected to final conviction. And that prophetic saying shall be brought to pass even by current times, "Because the tongues of the stammerers speak clearly," for those who have haste or zeal, so that, abusing the matter, the most holy man might draw all to believe easily, and throw into confusion all those things which pertain to pious dogmas, and renew the impious heresy of the unclean and polluted Apollinaris. But that I may not speak at greater length, I have directed to you the book of his epistle, composed by him in the likeness of a satisfaction, but received by us undoubtedly with communion: which, furthermore, ^B we are encouraged for the rectitude of the faith, and it lies before you, most beloved brethren, to read, and to satisfy yourselves, and to give glory to the most holy God. In it, Egypt indeed thinks of and embraces those things which are of the Orient; and the Orient thinks of and embraces those things which are of Egypt. For the pious confession shall be transmitted to the generations which shall be after us, which, by our own blood and many sufferings, by the grace of God, we shall preserve for the world. The spark of faith remained, and God granting a changing of the times, he raised up the flame of piety, so that they might shine with the light of divine knowledge, both those who are there and those who are here: nay, indeed, even those who are faithful in the whole world, for whom, as I think, it was a prayer, a wish, and a desire to obtain one and the same confession, which ^C after the desperation of all would raise up their minds.

I have also directed a letter of communion together with my letters, which I wrote to the religious Bishop Cyril himself, so that you may know that we have not come to this blessedness of pacts disgracefully or slavishly by making use of the intellect of piety. I ask God even now; I also ask you, that we may give glory to him, and that no labor may henceforth be brought upon us by others, whom it behooves to build up, not to pervert those things which are good by the will of the Lord. ^D

Chapter III [18]. The Epistle of Nestorius which he directed to the holy John, Bishop of Antioch, concerning the city of Constantinople, responding to his epistle which he had directed to him before he received with the third letters of the blessed Cyril the epistle of St. Celestine, Pope of the City of Rome, that is, before the Council of Ephesus took place.

Nestorius to his fellow-minister John, most beloved of God and most holy.

I thought that every matter could be more easily moved against me by men than calumny, as if I did not rightly understand the piety of the faith, I who until now, because of the battle which I have against all heretics, delight to have many thousands of hostilities rise up against me. Nevertheless, it is necessary to endure this temptation also with joy, because it itself, if we are very watchful, can confer much confidence toward piety for us. But this which has befallen us results in this, that it becomes clear how much your religious self thinks on our behalf. For those things which you recently wrote to us, and to the most magnificent lover of Christ, Irenæus, our son, and furthermore to the bishops most beloved of God, Musæus and Helladius, have proclaimed the sincere love of your religious self toward us more clearly than a trumpet. And also how much care you have for the quiet of the whole universal Church, for which we also, having special care, believe it is a matter of extreme madness, and of fraternal hatred, for us alone to assume authority against all the others regarding these very things which have been moved.

Knowing indeed that the term by which "Theotokos" is said 40 is assumed by many heretics as their own. But holding firmly, because some, who are here, taking this word incautiously, fall through this very thing into heretical and least pious thoughts; and especially those of the impious Arius and Apollinaris. Knowing therefore from these things which you have written, as I had said, both the benevolence of your religious self toward us, and the care which is competent for the churches of God, I have hastened through these my letters to resolve the struggle of the cause which has been moved before your God-beloved soul, lord. And we intend for this to be known, that even before the letters of your religious self, so to speak, I myself was released, looking to the fact that it was necessary out of the deliberation of all of us unanimously and consonantly to expound the word by which she is named Mother of God: not so that confession of this word might be delayed even by a little, but so that no opportunity might be permitted to any of those who think little of the things which are of God, even if he, taking (them) for this, might cause a schism against the Church.

^A For I believe your devoutness has realized that, as soon as we arrived here, we found some among those belonging to the Church who were seditiously disagreeing with one another; of whom some called the holy Virgin only *Theotokos*, while others called her *anthropotokos* [Mother of man]. Hence, in order that I might carefully gather both sides, and that I might not despise any sheep that might perish, just as we see that the Lord Himself made man, we have called her *Christotokos* [Mother of Christ], so that this term might clearly signify both, that is, God and man. Regarding the expressions of the Gospel, I have allowed those who wish, so that they may piously call the Virgin *Genitrix* [Mother] or *Particen* [Bearer] of God, that is, not according to the sense of Apollinarius, nor according to the sense of Arius, nor yet as if the divinity of the Only-Begotten had taken its beginning from the holy Virgin, but rather on account of the reason of the union, which was made from the very beginning of the words of the angel, which he spoke concerning the conception. I ask, therefore, that, resting from such cares regarding the present cause, and knowing that through the grace of God we have always thought, and do think, in those things which pertain to the piety of the faith, you pray as usual, that both in these things and in all the rest we may obtain help from the Lord Christ, and be made worthy to confer with one another. For it is manifest that if we see one another, so long as He grants us this very synod, for which we hope, we shall settle both this and all other things whatsoever that need to be done, for the correction of the many and for their help, without scandal and with concord, so that all things that shall have been ordained may receive the dignity of belief by a common and universal decree, and may provide to no one an opportunity for contradiction, or, if so, that it may be easy to overcome. But regarding the customary ^B presumption of the Egyptian, your devoutness should not be surprised, while you have very many ancient examples of this. But after a little while, God willing, our counsel regarding this matter also shall be praised. I, and those who are with me, greet all the brotherhood that is with you. May you remain safe and praying for us, worthy of all honor and most dear to God.

^C 620 After the subscription, observing, as I think, against those who seek an opportunity, we use another [method], which is more expedient. For previously we attracted the letters of your devoutness in that doctrine which we performed publicly in the Church, more fully through the grace of God, and the clergy, and the people, and those who are in the imperial courts.

50 The Sermon of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, ^D which he delivered when he had entered the dining hall somewhat late, because needs in the *secretarium* had demanded his attention. When all the clergy had gathered to him, he disputed much about the dogma, and those who heard him so admired his teaching that they anathematized those who do not think thus.

Since different things are expedient for different people upon the earth, and to some indeed military service is beneficial, to others the business of the marketplace, to others maritime arts, and now to some earthly exercises; the knowledge of piety is equally useful to all men, both to princes, and to priests, and to the peoples. But this very thing, that is, the knowledge of piety—to speak briefly, for I am weary, and you are altogether constrained—is the de-utterance of the Trinity, the humanation of the Only-Begotten, and the ineffable union of the divine nature with our human nature in the virginal womb, and the contemplation of two natures in one Son. For these things we have said to you more frequently, that Christ, that is, this name of appellation, is significative of both, that is, of God and of man. And if someone should say that Christ alone signifies both; the understanding ^C of the things which are said is adjusted to each nature. Hence the blessed writer of the Gospels, Matthew, coming to the mystery of the genealogy, did not start the beginning of the generation from either nature, unless from Christ Himself, who is the Lord of all. It is necessary, however, to say this same thing more clearly, so that the understanding may be made easier for all to perceive. The book, he says, of the generation of Jesus Christ. He does not say, The book of the generation of the Word of God; nor, The book of the genesis of man. For if he had said, The book of the generation of man, he would seem to demonstrate to us a pure man, Christ: but if he had said, The book [of...]

[the genesis] of God the Word, he would introduce his divinity partly from his humanity. ^A He embraces, therefore, both natures in the appellation of the Lord Christ, so that neither of these can be understood without the other. Hence it is that it is also appropriate to the blessed and holy Virgin that she be called Christ-bearer, by a double significance of the term, that is, as bearer of God and bearer of man.

Since, however, it is fitting for the sake of those who demand an even clearer understanding of the birth of Christ, and especially since they are sons of the Church, that this usage be clearer among them, for this reason those things which we proclaimed before in a brief appellation concerning that blessed and holy Virgin, we now proclaim with more manifest names: since the holy Virgin ^B is also Theotokos, for the reason that the temple which was created in her by the Holy Spirit was united to the deity; but she is the bearer of man, for the reason that God assumed the firstfruits of our nature. These are the dogmas of piety in brief. Keep these always in your memory, everywhere turning away from the doctrines of heretics. Do not believe that because the name is accustomed among them, that she should be called God-bearer (Theotokos), that the Church also says this out of theology; because although the appellation of "Son" is one among us and among them, the understanding of the sonship itself between us and them is not one. For among them the word "Son" is a name only, and stripped of that similarity which the Son has to the Father: among us the appellation of Son is established as true. So, again, among them the Lord of all, Christ, is called God, which we also confess: but among them, God is believed as created; among us, however, as his begetter, he is uncreated. ^C

Therefore, let us not be led astray by the heretics from the understanding of those things which we speak for the similarity of the name; but let us confess one Son, God and man. Nor [is he] confused with God in the flesh, ^D for whatever is divine is immutable. And showing this to the Jews, God says: "I am, I am, and I am not changed" (Mal. iii, 6). Nor is the incorporeal nature translated into flesh. For he does not blush, seeing the nature which he assumed. Nor is he confused to reign in it. For if he held it in reverence, he would by no means have assumed it. But assuming it on account of his incommensurable charity, he possesses inseparably that which he assumed. It is good to keep the memory of these things always in Christ, to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

CHAPTER IV

The Epistle of John, Bishop of Antioch, to Firmus, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia.

Affection which is according to God cannot be extinguished by time, nor can it ^A be corrupted in any way. Whence we remain mindful of your religiousness, we who enjoyed your friendship for a short time at Constantinople; but we have experienced your virtue for a longer time. For beyond others, you are sweet in associations, and to those who see you, you display humility with sweetness. Truly, while you follow after humility, you have lofty thoughts. But let this be said for now regarding these matters. For the enumeration of your virtues exceeds the measure of an epistolary style. ^B

Moreover, regarding that which now presses, I signify this to your God-belovedness: that by the grace of God the disturbance which was at Constantinople has now quieted, concerning the question of the pious reception of the opinion of the dispensation: not that penitence or correction have followed, but because of sound understanding. And the name of Theotokos was fittingly received. Indeed, the most holy Bishop Nestorius had thought so before, just as the things themselves have shown. But he avoided the name, just as we said, as he was able to give [cause] whence we might be blamed by the followers of the heretic Apollinarius. But that he had thought so even before is proven from thence, that he quickly stood firm, upon our admonition, as he [did] from his own [convictions], and he received the name itself, and in two sermons he directed to us a sound and irreprehensible exposition of the faith. Moreover, he transmitted to us also certain chapters, or propositions, ^C which are circulated in the royal city to the injury of the common Church, as if they were those of the most religious Bishop Cyril. Which indeed I do not believe to be his, in that the composition itself differs from his character; and they are very foreign to those who have been nourished by learning pious doctrine. For they do not agree; rather, they are the same as those on account of which Apollinarius was severed from the Church of Christ, having been judged a heretic in each of the ancient synods, who is not even now condemned.

For these chapters intend, just as it is permitted to you reading to know, that the body which God the Word assumed from the holy Virgin is of the same nature as his divinity, [the divinity] not being able, as you know, to undergo mutation. For it is pious to speak of a supreme union and conjunction, but to speak of the identity of nature is too illicit: which ^D the followers of Apollinarius of old presumed both to say and to think: although they themselves, who devised this for the destruction of the faith, nevertheless denied this impious perfidy. But truly of those who are now, some teach this very thing with confidence, saying the nature of humanity and divinity to be one and the same. And that we might not suffer this ourselves, I ask your religiousness—

to look upon these things yourself, and recognizing the incongruity that is in them, abjure them before all the God-loving bishops who feel the same way. We neither know nor believe the unnamed author or father of these words, if we learn them. For the Word became flesh, not through a mutation of nature—far be it!—for that which is divine is immutable. But because, existing in the form of God, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, that is, assuming a perfect man. You will find, indeed, in these wise propositions or chapters also other innovations of terms, which are entirely alien to the ecclesiastical character and to the faith that is in us. I, for my part, have announced these things as in a brief chapter, studying only this for the time being, that I might make these things known to your God-belovedness. Your diligence, however, will ensure everywhere that if they have been carried thither, they are by no means approved, that we may be able to keep the ancestral faith unmoved and intact, which it behooves us to defend and protect, even if we must lay down our lives, bidding farewell to the wicked credulity of Apollinarius. The same 67 John is also read to have written similar things to many archbishops.

[Following the previous words, the Cassinese codex adds what Lupus, for an uncertain reason, omitted.]

The imperial letter of Theodosius to the synod already gathered by Candidianus, the count of the domestics, whom the emperor had ordered now (or then) to preside for the sake of discipline, lest any disturbance arise in the city or any of the bishops depart before the end of the cause. The emperor commanded them in these on how the order of audience ought to be preserved, if everyone who had been summoned had convened. This, written above, is placed before the beginning of the synodal acts.

CAPUT V.

Protestation 68 brought forward in public against the clerics of Constantinople, and insinuated in the Church, because Nestorius was a follower of Paul of Samosata, who was anathematized one hundred and sixty years ago by the orthodox bishops. 69

I adjure whoever receives this scroll by the holy Trinity to make it manifest to the bishops, presbyters, deacons, lectors, and laics living in Constantinople, and furthermore provide a copy to them for the rebuke of the heretic Nestorius, because he thinks similar thoughts to Paul of Samosata, who was anathematized one hundred and sixty years ago by the orthodox bishops. The things which have been said by both are these:

I. Paul said: Mary did not beget the Word. II. Nestorius said consonantly: Mary, O good sir, did not beget the divinity. III. Paul said: For it did not exist before the ages. IV. Nestorius said: And they assign a temporal mother to the Maker of times. V. Paul said: Mary received the Word, and is not senior to the Word. VI. Nestorius said: How then could Mary beget One older than herself? VII. Paul said: Mary gave birth to a man equal to us. VIII. Nestorius said: The man who was born of the Virgin. IX. Paul said: But He is better in all things, since because of the Holy Spirit and the promises and from the Scriptures there is grace in Him. X. Nestorius said: For I saw, he says, the Spirit descending like a dove, and remaining upon Him who granted ascension to Him, commanding, he says, the apostles whom He chose through the Holy Spirit; He is assumed, who notably bestowed such great glory upon Christ. XI. Paul said: So that neither He who is anointed from David is alien to wisdom, nor does wisdom inhabit in another thus. For He was in the prophets, but more so in Moses and in many masters, but rather in Christ as in a temple. And elsewhere he said that Jesus Christ is one thing, and the Word is another. XII. Nestorius said: Is it possible for Him who was born before all ages to be born once again, and this by divinity?

Behold, the transgressor is proven, openly saying: "He who was born of the Father was not born of Mary," and that the Word is one thing and Jesus Christ is another, and that they are not one, as the straight faith preaches. Therefore I have designated for you, O zealot of the holy faith, even a part of the confession of the Church of Antioch, from which we first held the very name of Christians, because it does not know one son of God and another, but one; because He was born before all ages, God from God the Father, consubstantial with the Father, and the same was born of Mary under Augustus Caesar. For it has expressly: God true from God true, consubstantial with the Father, through whom the ages were created and all things made, who for us came down and was born of the holy Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate; and the rest of the Creed. The blessed Eustathius also agrees with these, who was the bishop of Antioch, one of the three hundred and eighteen bishops in the holy and great council, saying: "Thus, not only is He man, but He is also God, just as the prophet Jeremiah says: 'This is our God, no other shall be reckoned besides Him. He discovered every way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. After this He appeared on earth and conversed with men' c." When, therefore,

[LATIN COLUMN]

583 GARNERII DISS. V. DE THEOD. ET ORIENTAL. CAUSA. 584

was in the company of men, except when he was born of the Virgin with them, and when he was an infant, and grew, and ate and drank with them, and the other things? If anyone, therefore, presumes to say that the Son begotten of the Father before the ages is one, and another is the one born of the Virgin Mary, and not the same Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

CHAPTER VI

What does it profit you that you once withdrew into the desert like John, which you formerly sought with great zeal—you who now rather emulate him of Dyman, and have returned again to your own cares, and in the desert you are troubled, and living alone you are subjected to importunity? For under the pretext of resting, to be carried about by vertigos of the mind and confusions, fills the sense with madness; it obscures what was formerly wrought, prepares a victory for the passions, and turns a warrior into a deserter. But no one warring for God entangles himself in secular affairs, that he may please Him who has deigned to enlist him; but he becomes fully armed for the contest, prepared to fight in the way that pleases the Prince of the militia. ^A

Dogmatic letter of the same to the lector Timothy.

Just as sailors cover a hook with bait and catch unwary fish, so the most wicked champions of heresies, covering their malignant meanings with smooth speech, ensnare the simpler ones to death. Therefore, guard your heart with all vigilance, lest you ever accept one nature in Christ after the incarnation. For the destruction of the other is the consensus to the one, whether by divine conversion or by the diminution of our own. This is the deep Charybdis of the Manichaeans, through which he has striven to cast everyone into hell.

Of the same Isidore to the same Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria.

Adulation does not see sharply, while hatred does not see at all. If, therefore, you wish to remain pure from both pests, do not carry out violent sentences, but commit the causes to a just judgment; for God, who knows all things before they come to pass, deigned to descend and mercifully look upon the cry of the Sodomites, teaching us an example of most thorough examination. For many reproach you of those who met at Ephesus, as though you were pursuing your own enmities, not seeking those things which are of Jesus Christ in an orthodox manner. He is the nephew of Theophilus, they say, and imitates his will. For just as he belched forth manifest madness against the God-bearer and God-beloved John, so this one desires to boast, although there is a great distance between those who are to be judged.

Of the same to the Emperor Theodosius before the Ephesian Synod.

Since you yourself have received the time to be present at those things which are to be judged in Ephesus, I know well that that blamelessness will follow. But if you have handed over the decision to the hate of the multitude—who will free that synod from offenses? You will provide medicine for them, however, if you cause your own ministers to cease from dogmatizing, who are torn toward a great chaos, so that they obey the Emperor, but oppose God; lest, perchance, they also bring a commotion upon your empire, while they dash the machineries of their infidelity against the rock of the Church. For she persists firm, and the gates of hell shall not be able to prevail against her, as her founder promised.

Of the same to Cyril the bishop.

Many are indeed the testimonies of the Scriptures; but many also are the paternal speculations which sincerely declare the true rationale of the Lord’s incarnation; even if the mystery is above our mind and investigation. But that the true God, and He who is above all, became man—not changing from what He was, and not assuming what He was not—subsisting in two natures, the Son without beginning and without end, recent and eternal; nor will you yourself deny this, having as you do the assents of our holy Father Athanasius on these matters, a man who penetrated divine things beyond nature. ^B

Of the same to the same.

You ought, O admirable one, never to be unsteady, nor misled by the error of divine things, nor appear contrary to yourself. For if you compare what you have now written with those things that were prior, you will appear either subjected to adulation, or a minister of opportune time, and defeated in one glory, but least provoked by the contests of the great and holy warriors, who endured to be afflicted throughout their whole life in foreign lands, rather than even to hear of a bad belief.

Of the same to the same.

The examples of Divine Scripture terrify me, and I am compelled to write what is necessary. For whether I am a father, as you yourself said, I fear the condemnation of Heli, because he did not correct his sinning sons; or if I am your son, as I am more aware, in that you bear the habit of that great Mark, I dread the vengeance of Jonathan, who did not hinder the father seeking the ventriloquist; and the prior, by him who had sinned, he who could have forbidden it, perished in battle. That I, therefore, may not be condemned, and you yourself be least judged by God, put aside litigations, and in the retaliation for your injury which is owed to you by mortal men, do not deceive the living Church, and compose an eternal dissension for her under the guise of piety. ^C

Of the same to the deacon Theodosius.

Just as when the Virgin was still so, the Parent of the nature of the Lord was made, and the procession of the incarnation did not cause a diminution of chastity, so with the sealed tomb, the resurrection was made. For both were of the God who became man. ^D

Of the same to the same.

It is not sound to seek natural demonstrations of those things which are above nature. Although

able to uphold, but rather is shaken by every breeze, while the cedar rages in opposition. Egypt is again fighting with Pharaoh as its leader; not indeed imposing the labors of building cities on the children of Jacob who are now foreigners; but the heresy is exacting all the sacred tributes. See that no one lead you astray, but let the foundation stand firm. For God who became man was neither changed, nor confused, nor divided; but He is one without beginning, and the eternal Son, and both before the incarnation and after the incarnation, He is to be worshipped by us in this way. ^B

623 To the same, to Archibius the presbyter.

But what He says: "Be silent, be muzzled," is the voice of a ruler. And in the same way all other things are to be accepted; lest by counting each one I prolong the letter. But if the passion troubles you, which was indeed presumed against God, but touched the flesh, listen to the chief of the apostles, who writes thus: "Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh." ^D If therefore he to whom the keys of heaven were entrusted defined as having suffered in the flesh that which was susceptible of passions. For what is divine is impassible: although the Jews, as those who punished an heir, have suffered greater things than any tragedy, yet let not the passion trouble you, but let it lead you to the giving of thanks, because that King, that impassible one, He who did not receive the shading of a monument, gave His own flesh, and many things as though He were weak— For it is a matter of ^A one who spoke, so that He might provoke the malignant one to battle and overcome him, who also, fixing clear trophies, ascended into the heavens clothed in the first-fruits of our nature. But if He was, as they say, a mere man, adorned with divine grace, for what reason is it that, while the Jews destroyed many of the holy men, they suffered nothing of the sort? But because of this one, all their tragedy is surpassed when compared to His passions. But it is clear that they were indeed holy; but this one is the Only-Begotten of God who deigned to become human.

624 For this reason, that they were not led to suffer what they suffered by any merit of one; but they were indeed servants, but this one is God. Remissible vengeance is born for the Jews; for they said: "This is the heir," and the keepers of the vineyard desired to punish the heir. Yet was not the Son the fellow-servant of the Master of the house—His own, not one from among themselves raised to the dignity of sonship? For how is the Son read to have been sent after the servants, about whom it was also necessary to be afraid? But how is He called the second man from heaven? But how did God arrive, if He cooperated with man? But how did He humble Himself while existing equal to God? But in what way did God send the Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, or how do the uncontaminated mysteries not become cheap, if He is seen to be the body and blood of a man? But how did He say: "But a body You have fitted to me"? But how is it written: "It is necessary for Him to have also something which He might offer"? How also do we read that He redeemed captives with His own blood? Or how did they crucify the Lord of glory? But in what way: "The Word was made flesh"? But how: "In many ways and in many manners long ago the Father spoke in the prophets, but lately in the Son"? Or how did the Son similarly share in the same? But, lest counting the whole multitude, we impose an excessive burden upon your hearing, we will say one thing toward which all things tend, that is, that for Him, who was God, to speak humble things is both economic and at the same time useful, and it in no way prejudices the inviolable nature. But when he who is a man speaks divine and supernatural things, it is an evil of the greatest presumption. For it is permitted to a king indeed to act even humbly; but it is not permitted to a soldier, or to a master of the militia, to emit imperial voices. If, therefore, He was God, just as He was in truth become human, both humble things have a place; but if He was a man, exalted things have no place.

Of the same to Amantius.

^A He, however, omitting to declare to me by letter if anything seemed to him to deserve to be noted as blasphemous or impious, moved by the terror of convictions, and seeking for this purpose assistant disturbances, turns to the Roman Celestine; since he was simpler than one who could penetrate the force of dogmas more subtly. And finding the simplicity of that man, he childishly circumvents his ears with the illusions of letters, 626 sending our writings at one time, as if for the demonstration of convictions which could not be contradicted; as though I defined Christ as a pure man: I, who certainly brought in a law 14 during the very beginnings of my ordination against those who call Christ a pure man, and against the remaining heresies. He composed 15 writings, interweaving excerpts of sermons, so that the calumny brought might not be detected by the compaction of the context. And he added some things to our addresses, but tore away the parts of others, and interlaced those things which were said by us concerning the Lordly humanization, as though we had spoken them of a pure man. But as to the things said by us concerning the Divinity, he cut off certain praises in every way from the writings, but left others out of order, and thus contrived a plausible seduction.

And in order that we may disclose his wickedness in a few words, such as it is also regarding other matters, it was said by us elsewhere, while we were speaking against the pagans, saying that we preach not the substance of God as newly created from the Virgin: ^B <Mary did not bring forth, O best of men, the Deity, but brought forth a man, the inseparable instrument of the divinity.> But he, changing the term divinity, made it: <Mary did not bring forth, O best of men, God.> But here it differs greatly to say God, and to say the deity. For the latter signifies the divine and incorporeal substance, but certainly not the flesh. For the flesh is composite and created. Moreover, the word by which we say God is also suited to the temple of the divinity, which by union obtains the dignity of the divine substance of God, yet has not been changed into the divine substance.

Of the same to Cyril the bishop

Formerly, indeed, the sins of those reigning were corrected and chastised by the priesthood; but now it has come to pass under them; not because they have lost their own dignity, but because it is not held by those to whom it has been handed down in the same way as it was by our ancestors. For formerly, since those bearing the evangelical and apostolic life were crowned with the priesthood, the priesthood was consequently terrible to the kingdom. But now, conversely, the kingdom is terrible to the priesthood; or rather, not to the priesthood itself, but to those who indeed seem to perform the priesthood: through the things, however, which they do, they injure it. For which reason it seems to me that the kingdom also acts consequently; for it does not do this wishing to injure the priesthood, which it even venerates; but showing that those who use it incompetently are the ones who injure it, it punishes them worthily.

I have excerpted and translated all these from the epistles of the blessed Isidore, presbyter and abbot of Pelusium, by thousands [70*], which are distributed by five hundreds in four most ancient codices of the Acoemetae monastery, where the number of each is also contained in order, and the last is [...] which I also have placed last. Thanks be to God.

CHAPTER VI bis

Testimony [70****], which Irenaeus placed in his work, which he named the Tragedy, from the sayings of Nestorius in his book *On History* 71; so that those things which pertain to Ephesus might lie hidden. But Irenaeus 625 interwove these words in his first book, by which it is shown that Nestorius himself also denied the quaternions, or his other writings, which he had sent to holy Celestine at Rome. And hence also the Eastern bishops condemned him later than the others, because his authorship of these things could not be proven. Verily these letters against the Egyptian 72, which depended on the will alone, have been destined by us.

Again, it has been said by us elsewhere against those who, upon hearing the similarity of names, are scandalized as if a similar honor were being spoken of. And when we say "Partaker of Christ," they are seized with fear as if by this name the divinity of the Lord Christ were being denied; because many in the Old Scripture have been similarly called by this name. From this they imagine that we are naming Christ in reference to them. And for this reason, as I said, we have spoken against them in ecclesiastical sermons, that an equality of honor does not follow from the similarity of a name. These are my allocutions, which were made in exactly these words: "Even if we do not call the temple of the divinity and the descent of the Holy Spirit the same thing as that which happened in the prophets, nor such as was celebrated in the apostles, nor even such as exists in the angels, who are strengthened for divine mysteries; ^B for Christ the Lord is Lord of all even according to the flesh. Just as, therefore, we call God the creator of all (and indeed the Scripture calls Moses a god; for it says: 'I have made you a god to Pharaoh'), yet we do not credit that word with similar honor, so neither should we be offended by the similarity of the word when we say 'Christ' and 'Son.' For just as Israel is called a son (for it says: 'Israel is my firstborn son'), and the Son is again called Lord (for it says: 'This is my beloved Son'); yet, because the word is one, the meaning is not the same. And just as Saul is called a 'christ' (anointed), and David a 'christ,' and again Cyrus a 'christ,' and then the Babylonian, when certainly they were in no way similar to David in piety; so do we indeed call Christ or the Son also 'Lord': nevertheless, the communion of names does not create equality of dignity." Having said these things, ^C he cuts away those last parts which we everywhere subjoin, that is: "That which is, Christ. That which is: We do not say the indwelling is the same, as it happened in the prophets; nor the same, as it happened in the apostles." That which is: "But by similar words we do not at all credit similar honor." And that which is: "Nevertheless, the communion of names does not make equality of dignity." All this he cuts through with the teeth of calumny, throwing into the ears of men those things which were placed before these. That is: "We say He is the creator of all." But Scripture says "Moses a god." And that which is: "Israel is called the son of God, the Son is called also Lord." And that which is: "Saul is called a christ, and David a christ. And then the Babylonian. Thus, therefore, we call Christ also Lord ^D Christ." Thus, composing and severing these things, as we said, he wove through them a calumny, as if someone, from the words of Paul by which he testifies, writing: "For if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing," should break off what he says before, "If you be circumcised," and accuse Paul of preaching that "Christ shall profit you nothing." And what need is there, by saying these things item by item, to prolong the narrative? Simply, with many such thefts and additions, as it seemed good to him, Cyril making use of these, not only others, but even Celestine was soon led astray.

Lo, with these words Nestorius so far denied that these things which are read as having been said by him at the holy Synod of Ephesus were his own, that he says he never preached these impieties, just as the Apostle Paul after his conversion could not teach that Christ profits men nothing. What else, therefore, are we to believe the Eastern bishops said for their own purgation, as he thought, except what he also wrote down in that which he called "History," as if for his own satisfaction? Or who would not easily believe him as he denies this, when he sees that not only Catholics, but also all heretics, with all their might, not only deny their own dogmas, but even defend them?

CHAPTER VII.

Direct protest to the blessed Cyril, and to those who had gathered with him, from other bishops of various provinces, who wished John of Antioch to be awaited, and that the synod be held in his presence, because, as he had written to the blessed Cyril, the journey of three days barely remained for him. It was sent the day before the proceedings were celebrated against Nestorius, by which his deposition was done.

To our masters, brothers, and fellow-ministers, the bishops Cyril and Juvenal, Tranquillinus, and Alexander, and Helladius, and the rest of the bishops who are with him, greeting in the Lord.

A token of right faith is the belief which has long been preached to us from the divine and adorable Scriptures. Nevertheless, this same faith has been handed down to us by the holy Fathers who were gathered in the Nicene synod, whose sufferings for piety were as many as their members. But because, through some struggles, the most pious and Christ-loving emperor has by his letters summoned orthodox priests from everywhere to Ephesus, in this also imitating his own zeal concerning the faith: we are all, by divine grace, nearly gathered. But the most religious John, Bishop of Antioch, is absent from the presence of the holy synod, who himself is already at the doors.

^A in accordance with those things which he recently indicated in his letters, and those things which were announced through those whom he sent ahead, the prefectural officials and the *magistriani*. Likewise, some of the Western bishops are also about to be present at the synod. Your Reverence has commanded, as those who are deeply distressed, to wait until his arrival, 629 and you press regarding these matters that have seemed good to the most pious emperor, that a hearing should be celebrated before the aforementioned most God-beloved bishops are present. For this reason we have directed these letters to your Reverence, that you might wait for the presence of these most God-beloved fellow-ministers, and that you might neither receive in any way those who have been deposed, nor those who have been excommunicated by their own bishops, whether long ago or recently. For the things which the canons define concerning these are manifest, and they have fixed not insignificant rebukes for those who transgress, which can in no way be disregarded by the holy synod. And let your Reverence also know this, that all things which have been rashly perpetrated by the audacious shall be turned back against the audacity of those who presume [them], both by Christ the Lord and by the divine canons.

1. Tranquillinus, bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, have subscribed. 2. Alexander, bishop of Apamea in Syria, have subscribed. 3. Helladius, bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, have subscribed. 4. Berenianus, bishop of Perge on Pamphylia, have subscribed. 5. Fritilas, bishop of Heraclea on the Europe, have subscribed, through Euprepius the bishop of Bizia. 6. Himerius, bishop of Nicomedia in Bithynia. 7. Dalmatius, bishop of Cyzicus. 8. Severus, bishop of Synnada in Phrygia Salutaris. 9. Memonius, bishop of Sardis in Lydia. 10. Maximianus, bishop of Anazarbus in Cilicia Secunda. 11. Dexianus, bishop of Seleucia Isauria. 12. Dorotheus, bishop of Marcianopolis in Moesia Secunda. 13. Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis in Euphratensis. 14. Pius, bishop of Pessinus in Galatia. 15. Timotheus, bishop of Scythia. 16. Eutherius, bishop of Tyana in Cappadocia Secunda. 17. Asterius, bishop of Amida in Mesopotamia. 18. Petrus, bishop of Trajanopolis on the Rhodope. 19. Basilius, bishop of Larissa in Thessaly. 20. Diogenes, bishop of Ionopolis, holding also the place of the metropolitan of Bosserius, bishop of Gangra in Paphlagonia. 21. Julianus, bishop of Sardica in Dacia. 22. Beunantius, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia. 23. Jacobus, bishop of Dorostolum in Moesia. 24. Athanasius, bishop of Dinus in Moesia Secunda. 25. Theophanius, bishop of Philadelphia in Lydia. 26. Paulus, bishop of Daldis in Lydia. 27. Euprepius, bishop of Bizye in Europe. 28. Joannes, bishop of the whole of Lesbos. 29. Fuseus, bishop of Lydia. 30. Commodus, bishop of Tripolis. 31. Eutherius, bishop of Stratonicea in Lydia. 32. Joannes, bishop of the city of Autiliopolis in Lydia. 33. Nimenius, bishop of Helenopolis in Lydia. 630 34. Theosebius, bishop of Cius in Bithynia. 35. Petrus, bishop of Prusa in Bithynia. 36. Eugenius, bishop of Apollonias in Bithynia. 37. Anastasius, bishop of Tenedos in the Cyclades. 38. Cyrillus, bishop of Adana in Cilicia Prima. 39. Esychius, bishop of Castabala in Cilicia Secunda. 40. Severus, bishop of Sozopolis in Pisidia. 41. Aetius, bishop of Pionitis in Hellespontus. 42. Timotheus, bishop of the cities of the Hellespontus. 43. Athanasius, bishop of the city of Psimum. 44. Daniel, bishop of Faustinopolis. 45. Filtanius, bishop of Theodosianopolis. 46. Eustratius, bishop. 47. Theodorus, bishop of Italia. 48. Paulus, bishop of Eutinorum. 49. Timotheus, bishop of Ternesus and Eudocias. 50. Aedesius, bishop of Isiodorum. 51. Geruntius, bishop of Claudiopolis in Isauria. 52. Aurelianus, bishop of Trenopolis in Isauria. 53. Abrahamius, bishop of Amorium. 54. Polychronius, bishop of Heraclea in Caria. 55. Zosius, bishop of Echinthus in Arabia. 56. Hermolaus, bishop of the Alludaei. 57. Asclepiades, bishop of Trapezopolis. 58. Evadius, bishop of Valentia. 59. Libanius, bishop of Paulae. 60. Salustius, bishop of Coriticus in Cilicia. 61. Valentinus, bishop of Mallus.

62. Pausianus, bishop of Hypata in Thessaly. 63. Theoctistus, bishop of Caesarea in Thessaly. 64. Maximus, bishop of Demetrias in Thessaly. 65. Julianus, bishop of Larissa in Second Syria. 66. Diogenes, bishop of Seleucobelus in Second Syria. 67. Theodoretus, bishop of Cyrrhus in Euphratensis. 68. Meletius, bishop of Caesarea.

Chapter VIII. The letter of Nestorius and those with him to the Emperor Theodosius, concerning those things which were done at that time in Ephesus.

^B Summoned to the city of Ephesus by your Piety, and arriving without delay, we wished indeed, in obedience to your letters, to await all the God-beloved bishops arriving from everywhere, and especially the most holy prelate of the great city of Antioch, and the God-beloved metropolitan bishops who come with him, and those who come from Italy or Sicily, and thus to celebrate the common council with everyone, and by a common decree to confirm the faith of the holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea. For many synods held after that have presumed to innovate nothing against it, but have decreed that it must be adhered to. But when we saw that those from Egypt were strongly resisting this, and imagining that we were using delays to no purpose, we promised to attend the council whenever the most magnificent count of the most devout domestics, Candidianus, appointed by your Piety for this purpose, wished us to gather. These things we also made known through the God-beloved bishops. But when his magnificence recognized that the most holy John, bishop of the great city of the Antiochians, and those who are with him, had drawn near (for the officers of the prefecture and magistracy sent by him made this manifest), and that other God-beloved bishops from the West were also announced to be arriving, he decided to await the presence of all, according to what seemed good to your pious government. And for our part, we embraced tranquility, acquiescing in what your Piety had written. But the Egyptians and Asians, neither considering what is commonly expedient for the Churches, nor embracing the peaceful and legitimate intention of your Piety, but rather trampling upon both ecclesiastical and imperial sanctions, fled indeed from the confession consonant with the faith, and, clearly wishing to rend the ecclesiastical body, assembled among themselves and operated things alien both to ecclesiastical coherence and to the letters which were recently written by your Piety. For they filled the city with confusion, publicly surrounding our houses; they attacked and disturbed our common council, and also uttered certain intolerable threats. The leader of the sedition became Bishop Memnon. And he closed for us the holy churches and the holy ecclesiastical martyrdoms and the holy basilica of the Apostle, so that we might not even have a place to which we could take refuge, should the sedition drive us out; but he opened the greater church to them, and there he caused them to hold ^C their council. And he threatens death to all of us. Therefore, we humbly entreat and most greatly beseech and demand of your Piety, since we obey the letters of you who are Christ-loving sovereigns, and have come simply to Ephesus, ignorant that these barbaric attacks ^D were imminent, that you command that we be preserved unharmed from every treachery and that the council be held legitimately, with no cleric or monk, neither of our side nor of the Egyptians, entering the council, nor any bishop who is present for the disruption of the council, unless he has come having been called. Order, however, that two of the most elect from each province, together with the metropolitan, who can understand such questions, enter the council and confirm the faith of the holy Fathers with peace and concord. Otherwise, order us to return home without peril. For they threaten to deprive us of life itself.

And the subscriptions: Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, I have subscribed. Fritilas, bishop of Heraclea in Thracia, metropolitan, I have subscribed. Helladius, bishop of Tarsus, metropolitan. Berinianus, bishop of Perge, metropolitan. Maeonius, bishop of the Sardians, metropolitan. Dexianus, bishop of Seleucia Isauria, metropolitan. Alexander, bishop of Apamea, metropolitan. Dalmatius, bishop of Cyzicus, metropolitan. Eutherius, bishop of Tyana, metropolitan. Petrus, bishop of Trajanopolis, metropolitan. Julianus, bishop of Sardica, metropolitan. Basilius, bishop of Thessaly, metropolitan. Cyrus, bishop of Aphrodisias, metropolitan. Maximianus, bishop of Anazarbus, metropolitan. Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis.

Dorotheus, bishop of Marcianopolis, metropolitan of Moesia. And all the others who were present likewise subscribed.

CHAPTER IX.

To the most holy bishop of the metropolis of [the] Church, Cyril, and to the most reverend bishops who are gathered with him, Flavius Candidianus, most magnificent count of the most devoted domestics.

Since, from the time I arrived in the city of Ephesus, I have requested nothing else of your common and holy synod but that those matters pertaining to the faith and to our right glorification should be expounded with peace and concord, as our lord and most pious emperor has commanded, your religiousness knows. And the testimony which truth itself affords is sufficient for me, that we have done nothing other than these things. But since, even while I knew you were to be gathered in the most holy church against the will of other bishops, with the most holy John, bishop of the metropolis of Antioch, not yet having arrived, or those who are with him, I did not cease to ask that this should be done, as I have said above, and I protested to each one about this, lest perhaps it might be seen to be a particular synod.

^B Finally, however, when you were gathered in the most holy church, I hastened to attend, and to do those things which seemed good to our lord and most pious prince, although I see that it is superfluous, since you were already once acquainted with these same things from the letters of his divinity directed to you. Nevertheless, I made known the disposition of the same lord and most pious prince, which is this: that he wishes our faith to be strengthened by all who think the same thing without any discord, and that he does not want certain particular synods to be held, because he knows that this most of all turns our religion and orthodox faith into heresies and schisms. Moreover, when your reverence demanded the imperial letter of our lord and most pious prince, which was directed to the holy synod, I did not at first agree to do this; for I will not hesitate to say that this was because all had not arrived who had been ordered to assemble for the most holy synod. But because your religiousness said that you were ignorant of what instructions were given by our lord and most excellent prince, it seemed necessary to me to appear, so that the divine and adorable letters might be read aloud even when the other most reverend bishops were not present. ^C Nevertheless, even after I made known to you what has been decreed by divinity, in the same supplication I remained, begging your reverence, and asking that nothing new be done before all the most holy Fathers and bishops reached the synod, but that you should await for only four days the most holy bishop of the metropolis of the Antiochians, with those who are likewise with him, and also those who are with the most holy bishop Nestorius, so that your religiousness being gathered together, and all the holy synod assembled, in one place, if there were anything which might perhaps have come into doubt—from which matters we ourselves are distant—these might be judged while all of you were present; and then, with the consent of all of you, it would be shown who appeared to believe wrongly and beyond the ecclesiastical rules, or indeed that all confessed correctly together, just as the religion of the holy Fathers holds. ^D I warned these things, therefore, not once, but even frequently, and supplicantly asking, but I accomplished nothing. 634 But because nothing of those things which were spoken by me has been observed, but rather I have been injuriously and violently expelled by you, I have thought it necessary to set this forth as manifest to you by my contestatio, and by this edict to say clearly that I do not know of any of you doing anything, but [that you should] await the presence of all the holy bishops, and so, by a common council, let those matters which pertain to the catholic and holy faith be judged. If anyone, however, led by his own will, should wish to interfere with those things which have been commanded by the immortal and most excellent head, let him know that he will have to account to himself for whatever happens; but he does not impose a prejudice upon another. For it will not weary me to repeat these same things again.

Since, however, just as your holiness knows, it has pleased our lord and most pious prince that those things which come into invocation should be resolved under the presence of all the holy bishops together, who have been summoned by his divinity, for this reason I have also placed before this edict the imperial letters which were directed to your most holy synod, and those which were written to me myself by their divinity, so that by knowing in all respects what has been commanded by our lord and most excellent emperor, you may cease from such presumption. Know, therefore, that a copy of this writing has also been transmitted to our lord, the most pious emperor.

Proposed on the tenth day before the Kalends of July, in the city of Ephesus.

CHAPTER X.

Since I have learned from many most reverend bishops...

that after the first particular synod was held, they were led there by necessity, and some of them are even reported to have subscribed to what was done by those who had assembled on the first day, for this reason I write by letter to all those who did not assemble on that same day, adjuring you by God almighty, and by his Christ, and by the Holy Spirit, and the safety of the lords of the world, that you do nothing beyond those things which have been commanded by our most pious imperial lords, but that you await the universal synod, and the presence of the most holy bishops, and also the judgment of our most pious and sovereign lords. Therefore let your religiousness know that it has been reported to them concerning all these things. ^B

CAPUT XI. Item, the edict of the most magnificent count to the synod. Flavius Candidianus, most magnificent and most glorious count of the most devoted household, intending the confusion and perturbation of the whole city. ^C I am held in no small amazement. For it is too contrary to reason that the mind of anyone should not be moved on account of those things which were done yesterday. For my devotion does not consider any of the most reverend bishops to be unaware that not once, nor twice only, but even more frequently, according to those things which have been commanded by the divine and inviolable summit, I have made manifest to all that it was necessary for all the most reverend bishops, when assembled together, to discuss the question concerning the precision of the pious and orthodox faith. Whence also, in writing and without writing, I asserted before those whom it behooved, that no one should make a particular synod: nor indeed should anyone assemble with him, if anyone were to presume to do such a thing irrationally. For it is clear that those things which were done by one party beyond the form which was given by the masters of the world will be deemed neither firm nor legitimate. On account of which I also now admonish each one to await in all things the arrival of the God-beloved Antiochene bishop John, and of those who are announced to come together with him: in addition also those who, as is said, will arrive from the West. It is impossible that any of those things which are done in part and in whatever manner should be considered worthy of any account, for the reason that it was done even against the commands of the masters of the world. ^D In the Cassinese and Vatican codices these things are added, omitted by Lupus, I know not for what reason. Since the same man [Candidianus] wrote similar things in his report to the prince (the Cassinese has "therefore" Candidianus believed otherwise [the original hand of the Vatican codex so recorded: but another hand has transversally deleted it †, so that now one may read "I believed"], it must be passed over). ^A of this kind are the deeds that follow. But because both are proposed to those whom we mentioned above, principally the writings, similarly directed to St. John, just as to others, that they should assemble at the Holy Synod, it is not necessary for them to be inserted here. Therefore, after the sacred [documents], it is read thus: In the consulship of Antiochus, on the 6th day before the Kalends of July, in his own quarters, the most holy and God-beloved John, bishop of the Antioch of the Oriental diocese and the holy synod which is with him being present, the most magnificent and most glorious count Candidianus, of the most devoted household, said: My speech was indeed great, that your religiousness being present, etc. There follow the acts of the conciliabulum of John of Antioch, which are given among the Ephesine acts in Greek and Latin, but of another interpretation, and I would have provided them, had not the mutilated Vatican codex denied it; but it was not possible then to consult the Cassinese owing to my absence. After the acts of this conciliabulum, and some of its documents already related in the acts of the Ephesine council, there is given in the same Cassinese codex an epistle of the same conciliabulum to the emperor, existing among those same Ephesine acts in Greek and Latin, which begins: "According to pious letters," etc. Which epistle being finished, there is added in the same codex. Before the emperor could respond to this epistle to bishop John and the council which was with him, the sacred [letter] came to the report of count Candidianus through Palladius the master of offices, which we have provided earlier. The same patriarch and the same synod replied to the emperor himself, which we have added below. Then is added the report of John of Antioch and his synod, etc. "These things the pious emperors," etc., which exists among the Greek-Latin acts. Then follows the epistle of the same John to the clergy of Constantinople. "He understood without doubt," etc., to be read among the same Gr.-Lat. Acts, and there is attested to it another [epistle] to the senate, "Magnanimous indeed," etc., appearing there likewise; with a third to the people, etc., "The law is without writing," etc. And then at last come those things which are printed here: They begin the second comments, etc.

CAPUT XII. They begin the second comments of the synod which assembled with John the Antiochene bishop at Ephesus. The most holy John, the holy synod and the most magnificent and most glorious count Candidianus being present, said: On Saturday at midday, while it was already growing toward evening, realizing that those who do all things unjustly and illicitly desire even now, using their own rashness and pertinacity, to celebrate the collect of the masses, we begged your magnificence, giving a petition in writing, that you would cross over to them and protest that they should not trample underfoot the ecclesiastical sanctions and the pious decrees, For immediately after three days John the Antiochene bishop coming, and finding the bishops divided among themselves,

and not celebrating a gathering—men whom indeed some justifiably deposed, while others were deprived of communion on account of heretical madness and inexplicable illegal tumults and contempt for pious sanctions. We ask therefore your magnificence, that you inform this holy synod, if this same magnificence of yours truly made this known to them.

The most magnificent Count Candidianus said: After I received the petition from your religiosity, I advised nothing at all, because there was no reason. But because I directed my journey toward the most reverend bishop Cyril and Memnon and the others, and found them gathered there in great numbers, and asked them not to hold masses by themselves—because even in the preceding days, even before I arrived, they did not wish to celebrate the holy Pentecost and the other gatherings up to this Sunday, but in truth the clergy performed the office. I asked also that they await, concerning those things which they did, the responses of the most pious princes and your lords. I, however, do not wish any party to celebrate a gathering, lest perhaps some schism be generated in the holy and orthodox Church.

The holy synod said: We ask furthermore, to learn also this from your magnificence: whether the aforementioned have become aware of the deposition of Cyril and Memnon and the excommunication of the rest, which we also made known to your magnificence by petitions, which we posted publicly for this very reason through the whole city, that these things might become manifest to all the bishops who are with them.

The most magnificent Count Candidianus said: If your holy religiosity were proposing this for some trivial cause, this too could be made known: how much more the deposition of the aforementioned men, which has been so greatly publicized and posted throughout the whole city! The whole city is murmuring about this very thing. And a great multitude has transcribed it. Moreover, also at my asking them that masses not be held by them on the Lord’s day, in truth Memnon the bishop of this city said before all: “Inasmuch as I have learned that the most holy bishop John has deposed us, with the synod that is with him.” Concerning which, I will not say that he could not prevail against this synod, I believe that he could not even prevail for me alone without a synod. Therefore, since he said these things, it is superfluous for me to be asked how he could have been ignorant of his own deposition.

The holy synod said: We ask to learn from your magnificence if they obeyed your counsels or warnings, and did not gather.

^B The most magnificent Count Candidianus said: I asked on the very Sabbath toward evening, and going at early dawn on the following day, that is, on the Lord’s day, I did not cease to ask and entreat that he might concede to my request. They, however, not acquiescing, went out and held a gathering. I could not contend against them further.

The holy synod said: The things which were boldly and illegally done by them by habit are manifest, which in the competent time we will bring to the ears of pious and Christ-loving men.

CHAPTER XIII.

To the reverend and honorable presbyters and deacons and the rest of the clergy, and to the Christ-loving people in Hierapolis in Euphratensis, the holy synod ^C of the Orientals, and of those who from various regions and provinces by the grace of God are gathered in Ephesus, greeting in the Lord.

Since it seems to follow that these men, who above have done all things for the destruction of the right faith and have completed ecclesiastical matters by confusion and disturbances and iniquities, despairing of their own salvation, would direct letters to you, so that they might disturb your reverence also with their illegal and iniquitous letters: therefore know, that some of them have been deposed on account of the heretical opinion of Cyril, which they presumed to confirm with their own signatures, and on account of their other perversities, while the rest of them have been subjected to the knot of excommunication, and retain no power of priesthood to bind or to loose, or to perform anything else that pertains to priests. Let it not, therefore, disturb your reverence if any letters are directed by them. For they are weak, and weaker than spiders, the things which are done by the deposed and excommunicated. But it behooves your religiosity, knowing that we think of nothing so much as of the pious faith, which the aforementioned have attempted to remove by their novelties of terms, not only to pray for us, but also to fight strongly by the vow of your soul, that you may be made communicants for the piety of those who labor, and may receive from God, the Lord of all, the rewards of these labors of this world. For we are zealous for the right dogmas, for which the divine ^D choir of apostles poured out pious blood, for which the martyrs of every time in every way endured torments in their bodies, and sustained various species of death; which the council of the holy Fathers, who were gathered at Nicaea, confirming by written confession, has destined for us and for those who shall be after us.

^A John, bishop of Antioch, pray that you remain safe in the Lord, most reverend and most faithful brothers. John, bishop of Damascus, metropolitan, likewise. Tranquillinus, bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, metropolitan. Alexander, bishop of Amasea, metropolitan. Fritilas, bishop of Heraclea, metropolitan. Dexianus, bishop of Seleucia, metropolitan. Cyrus, bishop of Tyre, metropolitan. Himerius, bishop of Nicomedia, metropolitan. Helladius, bishop of Tarsus, metropolitan. Antiochus, bishop of Bostra, metropolitan. Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis. Julianus, bishop of Sardica, metropolitan. Maximinianus, bishop of Anazarbus, metropolitan. Petrus, bishop of Trajanopolis, metropolitan. Eutherius, bishop of Tyana, metropolitan. Basilius, bishop of Larissa in Thessaly, metropolitan. 638 Rabbulas, bishop of Edessa, metropolitan. Asterius, bishop of Amida, metropolitan. Bofforus, bishop of Gangra, metropolitan. Paulus, bishop of Emesa. Dorotheus, bishop of Marcianopolis, metropolitan. Macarius, bishop of Laodicea. Geruntius, bishop of Claudiopolis. Musaeus, bishop of Aradus. Polychronius, bishop of Epiphaneia. Hesychius, bishop of Castabala. Flaccus, bishop of Laodicea. Theophanius, bishop of Philadelphia. Theodoretus, bishop of Cyrus. Valentinus, bishop of Mallus. Jacobus, bishop of Dorostolum. Jarianus, bishop of Augusta. Olympius, bishop of Carpasia. Aurelius, bishop of Irenopolis. Heliades, bishop of Zeugma. Meletius, bishop of Neocaesarea. Marcellus, bishop of Arca. Anastasius, bishop of Tenedos. Marcianus, bishop of Abydus. Theosebius, bishop of Cius. Eustasius, bishop of Nutina. Daniel, bishop of Faustinopolis. Helladius, bishop of Ptolemais. Ausonius, bishop of Himeria. Diogenes, bishop of Ionopolis. Cyrillus, bishop of Adana. Cyrus, bishop of Marcopolis. Julianus, bishop of Larissa. Evagrius, bishop of Balentia. Zosis, bishop of Hesbon. Petronius, bishop of Neuva. Salustius, bishop of Coricius. Maximus, bishop of Demetrias.

After this letter, in the Cassinese manuscript, it is added: Other letters of the same synod to Emperor Theodosius. And immediately, without a title, it is added: "Your shining piety in doing good to the whole world, etc.," which is the letter inserted into the Greek-Latin Acts beginning from the recent version: "Your piety, which by doing good, etc." Following this is the *Ypomnisticon* of the Oriental synod, etc., and it is a report of the Orientals, which is continued with the previous report in the Greek-Latin Acts. Following this is their report to the queens: "Contrary to those things which we hoped, etc.," and it is [found] among the Greek-Latin Acts. In order comes their letter to the prefect and the master—to the "highest" as it is usually said—and it is likewise among the Greek-Latin Acts. Then follows the letter to the chamberlain and the scholasticus eunuch similarly. So reads the title of the letter which in the Greek-Latin Acts is inscribed: "The same [letter] to the chamberlain and the scholasticus similarly: 'Among the faults, etc.'" There appears after these another letter of the same synod, whose title is here in Chapter XIV. Although Lupus omitted this letter, seeing as it exists among the Greek-Latin Acts: "Lest their rash attempts, etc." I would have provided it from the same Cassinese codex, if time had allowed me to copy it. With these things premised, there finally succeed in order those things which Lupus provided, and from him Baluzius, from Chapter XV.

CHAPTER XIV

These people, therefore, setting forth the Nicene faith before them, all the bishops who had gathered with John signed.

CHAPTER XV

it is firm and not expanded towards fallacies, in the way that it has approved the fables of the unclean, who say of us that we have abjured the term by which she is named Theotokos, which, as you know, I have frequently said. We have indeed said it thus, lest anyone suspect that the Lord Jesus Christ is a mere man, or God naked of humanity. For if the children of demons were striving for a true satisfaction, they would surely have said those things which were spoken by us in Constantinople, as your greatness knows. Now, in fact, there was not even much conversation between us. For if they call those words which passed between me and other bishops, and which were made privately as if in trial exercises, our and Cyril's conversations, they are truly lying.

Know, however, that this has been said by us to them many times, and that it is believed by them and by us to be well-spoken, to name the holy Virgin both mother of God and mother of man. Mother of God, not as if God the Word received the beginning of his existence from her. For how could that be, when he is himself the Creator of the Virgin? But [it is said] lest anyone suspect that he who was born was a mere man. Mother of man, indeed, lest we abjure the dispensation, our firstfruits, equally with the Manichaeans. For these things were said by their own bishops ^A as if in a preliminary exercise. And repeatedly, both sides often said that it was well spoken, so that they departed applauding from this as well. Cyril, however, has fled from speaking with us, and still flees even now: thinking that by this means he may escape the conviction of the chapters which he wrote, because they are heretical beyond contradiction. How, therefore, has your greatness received such an accusation against us, when you certainly know that we have spoken both of these terms in Constantinople on account of the mystery of the dispensation and the ineffable union?

Do not, therefore, I pray, believe so easily the accusations made against us. For we believe that the term by which she is named Theotokos, if it be placed with the term that is "mother of man," is an entirely perfect character of piety. For when we say Christ, and Jesus, and Son, and Only-begotten, and Lord, this appellation signifies both, and signifies that this term [Theotokos] is not for those who disapprove it. As if a signifier of two natures—that is, of divinity and humanity—we brought forth the name of mother of God and mother of man, so that it might escape no one, that we might be able to incur neither the error of Mani nor that of Paul, being fortified on all sides. For he who says that which is ^B substantial, full of inseparable divinity, born of the Virgin, naively declares the whole mystery of the Lord's dispensation. But the negation of any one of these is the removal of the whole dispensation, which whoever abjures, it has been turned against their own head, and shall quickly be turned even more.

But what is entirely worse, and especially now, and provokes much indignation from the Lord Christ, and is worthy of a thousand lightnings and thunderbolts, is to say that the deity of the Only-begotten is violable, and that the Lord Word was dead, and needed solace in the sepulcher, and deserved resurrection with flesh. All which things are foreign to ecclesiastical orthodoxy, and which will never be accepted by us. For far be it from us that I should ever think that the divinity, which existed as the vivifier of our firstfruits, was deprived of life, or needed a greater vivifier. For whose flesh did not see corruption, how will anyone not be worthy of being a partaker with the demon if he says that his divinity was corrupted with the flesh? For the divinity is incorruptible, and insusceptible to every change according to the word which God said through the prophet: *I am, I am, and I shall not be changed* [Malach. III, 6].

^C Although it is allowed to your God-loving soul to take all that the Fathers wrote, and to learn from them that we preach orthodoxly, and that the hope of those sordid men is that they might overcome the word of truth through subreptions. For feigning names equivocal to the orthodox Fathers, they attempt to seduce the simpler ones. As, for instance, there is a certain Basil of Ancyra, a man who was one of the heretics; there is [a Basil] of Caesarea of Cappadocia, one of those who endured many dangers for the faith. There is also the heretic Meliton; and there is another Meliton, an orthodox one. There is Vitalis, who was a bishop of the orthodox; and there is another Vitalis, who was consecrated by the impious Apollinarius. There are similar names of many others. And that we may not be prolix by taking the similarity of names for each of these, they bring forward such things to the simple ^D and lead them to perdition through equivocation, not understanding that there is also a Basil of Ancyra.

And by many people of this kind their art is easily corrupted, because they misuse equivocations to deceive. But these things, I pray, you yourself avoid, as one who is a vessel of the most integral and sincere rectitude of faith, and deign to exercise yourself with labors to excise the heresy which leans upon many frauds. For God is witness that if these things were among the churches

which now you possess among those most unclean ones, I know not how, nothing would remain but those teachings which Arius, and Eunomius, and Apollinarius handed down. As for me, the Lord of all will require nothing more, provided I remind ^A those who can prevent these things; and from the beginning, and up to this very moment, I have not ceased doing so. And always reminding you, the servants of God, do not despise the perennial nobility of religion, so that if those things which pertain to orthodoxy could obtain the due confirmation through your zeal, then, with God as my witness, the episcopal honor 641 might most easily be renounced by me.

And do not perhaps imagine that I am feigning this; if religion is confirmed and orthodoxy restored to the churches, demand of me that I now bid you farewell by letter, and that I return effectively to the former life of the monastery. For there is nothing more divine, nor more blessed, in my estimation than such peace. I would truly wish that the reports which they have directed against us and the most religious bishops of the East should come to discussion before the most pious and Christ-loving emperor, either with me also present there, or before some sent hither, so that you might even be moved by them yourselves to the extermination of those who have disturbed everything with their falsehoods. For of all the things which they have reported, there is absolutely nothing true.

CHAPTER XVI.

Knowing that it pertains to piety to obey divine decrees, I have done everything according to the intent of the undefiled scroll, as far as I was able. What followed, you shall be able to recognize from these things. I used much labor and haste [in reaching] the city of the Ephesians. And I could have arrived even sooner, had there not been diverse impediments to the cause, which, with God’s consent, when I have come, I will detail in person to your magnificence. Therefore, I immediately greeted with reverence both those who had come from here and those who had gathered from there, the most holy bishops. For I visited these parties by name, on account of the discord that occurred between them. But, as all were disturbed, and Cyril and Memnon shut themselves in, I commanded those who had gathered by my own presence, and through others I sent word to those who were absent, that on the next day they should all run together to my residence without any delay. Lest a conflict of battle occur, I intermingled among them throngs of soldiers in the areas adjacent to both parties. For it was fitting that I should be suspected regarding this very matter, on account of the rage which has arisen between them, I know not from where. But when Nestorius arrived as soon as the dawn shone forth, and not long after the most religious Bishop John with the most holy bishops who are with him, Cyril also arrived with all the God-beloved bishops, except for Memnon alone. Therefore, much perturbation and confusion immediately arose, ^B those who had gathered with Cyril saying that they could in no way tolerate even the sight of Nestorius, who had been condemned by them. However, as they were gathered, I wished to perform the reading of the divine (Scriptures). But those who consent to Cyril said that the reading of the terrible divine works could not be done without him, nor with Nestorius present, 642 nor indeed with the most holy bishops of the East who were gathered with them. And much sedition being made on account of this, and a great struggle and battle, those most holy bishops who persist with the God-beloved John also began to say these very things, confirming that they also believed Cyril should not be present while the reading of the divine decrees was taking place; indeed, because he himself had been condemned by them along with Memnon. And a great contention having been made about this, and a great part of the day consumed, I saw fit that the imperial decrees should be published to the rest without Cyril and Nestorius; because they were not even written in the orders of the masters of the world. But although the God-beloved bishops who had gathered with Cyril clamored against this, and they were unwilling to listen patiently with those who had arrived with the God-beloved John, because they said that they had irregularly performed the condemnation of Cyril and Memnon, I scarcely prevailed by persuasion and violence, if one ought to speak more truthfully, having separated Nestorius and Cyril, to prepare the whole synod to suffer the hearing of the imperial decrees. Therefore, all having been assembled, I celebrated the reading of the venerable documents, through which Nestorius and Cyril and Memnon were condemned. While they received the reading patiently, and those who had gathered with the most reverend John were favorable, those who had been gathered with the most reverend Flavian took the hearing of this reading ^C gravely, because the condemnation of Cyril and Memnon had not been done canonically. Thus, therefore, the reading was celebrated as the day declined toward evening. But lest a greater perturbation still occur, I entrusted Nestorius to be guarded to the most magnificent count of the most devoted domestics, Candidianus, who was present at everything that was deliberated or done by me. But Cyril I handed over to be guarded to the most illustrious count and provost of the fourth schola, Jacobus. Since, however, Memnon, as was said before, was absent, I summoned the steward and the advocate, and also the first deacon of the most holy Ephesian city or Church, and I manifested these very things to them, that the same Memnon had been condemned with the aforementioned. I also admonished them to guard their ecclesiastical funds under every (caution) and danger. These things being thus disposed, because it was necessary for me also to attend to prayers, I went down to the most holy church. But learning that Memnon was staying in the bishop’s house, I directed the primicerius of the most devoted palatines, from among those who served me, to the aforementioned, so that at least we might speak together, and I might learn whether he would by all means refuse to come to me. But he came without delay to

me. And when he was blamed by me as to why he did not come in the morning, he said that he had been detained by illness, and for that reason had not come, so that he could not even bear to be given advice according to my admonition, but anticipated my words and arrived at my house, yielding to the divine 643 and imperial precepts. He was therefore also handed over to the most glorious Count Jacob, and is guarded as much by the most devoted guards as by the most honorable palace officials. These are the things which were done by me on the first day. But since it was fitting for me to also address the God-beloved bishops regarding peace, for the sake of ensuring that heresies and schisms do not arise against the orthodox religion, I applied myself to these discussions, and I am endeavoring to do whatever is possible, with the Lord helping, and with the piety and right intention of the master of the world. Although I see the God-beloved bishops abhorrent and implacable toward one another, I know not from whence they have arrived at such great sadness and bitterness. Whatever more can be done, either by me or through letters, I will, with God being propitious, manifest with great speed to your majesty.

CHAPTER XVII.

Consequently, one might greatly deem the men who are now living more blessed than those who existed before our generation, in that they are governed by your empire. For while your piety uses ten thousand cares for the world, it has preferred the provision for pious religion above all other things. Your most praiseworthy kingdom also honors the things of God beyond all earthly things, since faith cooperates with your piety in your best thoughts and acts for the sake of all good things. We have always known that this is so from the very results, but it has been made especially manifest at this present time. For while the priests were seized by unexpected disturbances, and were contending in stirring up wars against one another, and our concord was shaken—the Egyptian being accustomed to disturb the world—the decree of your piety, which was promulgated through the most magnificent and most glorious Count of all Largesses, John, is sufficient to repress the vain boiling over of all, if only we were willing to act soberly. But that which is more universal is that, thanks to the letters of your piety having been received, as we perceived that the intention of your empire agreed with the right faith of the Fathers, we hastened to condemn those things which were recently set forth by Cyril: the chapters contrary to evangelical and apostolic doctrine, in which he presumed to anathematize all, both those who are now, and those who at any time whatsoever 644 in the past existed. These things he attempted to confirm with synodical authority in the present time, finding an excuse long sought after for episcopal disturbance, and taking as a helper the ignorance of many, and in some, a disease which had once been hidden but now has become manifest, and using fraudulent stubbornness. These things, however, as your empire has learned, and as our most God-beloved and most holy Father and bishop, Acacius, taught the holy synod by letter, conform to the impiety of Apollinaris. 645 Indeed, a man who has completed one hundred and ten years of life knows these things clearly; he has spent his whole life laboring in evangelical struggles, and has participated in many synods, and has always considered those who hold the dogmas of Apollinaris to be nearest to him in second place 31. Hence he was also able to comprehend most easily that the aforementioned chapters belong to that madness.

We asked him with the most glorious Count John, so that they might cast these aside—both those bishops who were once seduced and were permitted to subscribe to them—and that they might confess them as alien to the right faith, and subscribe with us to the right faith of the Fathers who gathered at Nicaea, but we were unable to persuade them. Because it happened that they had already been badly anticipated. And we were compelled among ourselves to confess the sincerity of the faith itself, and to subscribe to it ourselves, and to cast out from our written confession that superfluous exposition of chapters, full of evil meanings. For the confession of the right faith in a few words is sufficient to convince every heretical error, and to imbue those who are willing with the truth. For the aforementioned faith of the holy Fathers did not permit those things which pertain to the divinity of the Only-begotten to be carried here and there, but substantial—

substantially fortified the mind, destroying the Arian heresy. And it provided the most perfect bounds for the dispensation, teaching us the inconvertibility and immutability of the divinity of the Only-begotten, and commanding that our Lord Jesus Christ, not being a mere man, be believed to be in very truth the Son of God, consonant with the divine and holy Scriptures, which it announces. Hence we too, following those things, neither add anything to the exposition of the faith and confession, nor do we subtract anything, since the paternal exposition is sufficient for all things. But since, most pious emperors, you have commanded that after this assent to the inviolable faith, we should make known to your insuperable piety [our confession]—for this the magnificent and most glorious Count John has announced to us, and we ask this as an aid from God, since it is above man to dispute about such things—we make known to your piety what we have been taught from the divine Scriptures, not as if striving against things incomprehensible, but by the confession of our own infirmity, blocking the way to those who attempt to rise up against us, we state those things which are beyond man.

We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and body; begotten of the Father before the ages according to the divinity, but in the end of days the same for us and for our salvation [was born] of the Virgin Mary according to the humanity: the same consubstantial with the Father according to the divinity, and consubstantial with us according to the humanity. For there has been a union of the two natures: on account of which we confess one Christ, one Lord, one Son. According to this understanding of the inconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Theotokos, because God the Word was incarnate and was made man ^A, and from that very conception united to Himself the temple which He received from her. Taught these things by the God-speaking men, the evangelists, the apostles, and the prophets, and by those who in every age have been teachers of the pious faith, we too have set them forth in a brief chapter, asking and beseeching your empire to protect and decree, in accordance with custom, concerning the pious religion which is in danger of being corrupted by that disease which has been brought in from the Egyptian chapters ^B, that all the priests who preside over the holy churches should condemn those chapters introduced against the orthodox faith by the aforementioned Cyril, and only subscribe to the confession which was made by the holy Fathers gathered in Nicaea. For it is not possible to obtain peace in the Church of God in any other way, unless that impious exposition has been set aside.

CHAPTER XVIII

To the most honorable and God-beloved presbyters, and deacons, and the rest of the clergy, and to the Christ-loving laity that is in Antioch of the East, the holy synod of the Orientals ^C, and of other regions and provinces, which by the grace of God has been gathered in Ephesus.

"God is with us," as the prophet cries. For we struggle for the divine dogmas, and we strive to keep the inheritance of the paternal faith intact, and we hasten to preserve for our descendants the apostolic doctrine just as we received it, unblemished. On account of this, we have boldly undertaken a long journey, and have endured the labors of travel, and have confidently looked down upon the multitude which has declined into heretical madness, and we have made the author of the impiety, Cyril of Alexandria, alien to the episcopate; and Memnon of Ephesus, who cooperated with him in all things, we have condemned by the same decree; and we have made their subjects, who even presumed to confirm their impiety with their signatures ^D, excommunicated. And we have made these things known to the most pious and God-beloved emperors. And they, receiving what has been done by us, have written back, signifying that they accept the condemnation of the aforementioned Fathers. And they have commanded that we all subscribe to the faith set forth in Nicaea by the holy and blessed Fathers, and that the scandals which have arisen be cut off, and that they be cast away from the rectitude of the faith. The magnificent and most glorious Count of the Sacred Largesses, John, has also been sent to bring these things to effect: who holds under most secure custody both Cyril and Memnon, thrusting each apart, and surrounding the aforementioned houses with a multitude of soldiers.

But not even with these things are they quieted, those who turn all things upside down and have filled the world with confusion and sedition; but, perpetrating their usual deeds, they disturb things, and move a rule against themselves. For while they are excommunicated, they have boldly resumed for themselves the ministry of the priesthood, and have communicated with the condemned, which is not permitted to be done: because the canons clearly prohibit it. That is, that those who are condemned or excommunicated should not in the least grant absolution to themselves, but should await the synodical judgment. For if they have absolved themselves, let such men be admitted to put forward no plea for themselves any further; but also, whoever has communicated with them, let him be alien to the ecclesiastical ministry. Confixed by this rule, and having no hope of restitution—as is the pleasure of the canons—they confuse and disturb, and fill the churches established everywhere with seditions. Therefore, knowing these things, may your religiosity be of secure mind regarding us, and praise in songs the God of all for the providence He has had concerning us.

^A And may He pray for those, that at long last they may be liberated from the most grievous ailment that possesses them, and that he may continually invite the doctors of the Church to speak against this impious dogma, and to lead the people of God in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, so that all may know what manner of impiety it is against which we contend. If, however, any should be sent by those who are held in the languor of this heresy to our great city, which is the mother of piety, may your religiosity deign to hold this person cautiously and to hand him over to the judges, so that they who try to cause sedition may learn how great a good discipline is, and how great a burden of evils a stubborn and tyrannical will brings.

John, Bishop of Antioch, [wishes] that you be preserved safe in the Lord, most honorable and most religious lords. John, Bishop of Damascus, likewise. Dexianus, Bishop of Seleucia, likewise. Antiochus, Metropolitan Bishop of Bostra, likewise. Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, likewise. Asterius, Metropolitan Bishop of Amida, likewise. Helladius, Bishop of Ptolemais, likewise. Musæus, Bishop of Aradus and Antaradus, likewise. Apringius, Bishop of Chalcis, likewise. Meletius, Bishop of Cæsarea Augusta, likewise. Macarius, Bishop of Laodicea, likewise. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, likewise. Diogenes, Bishop of Seleucobelus, likewise.

Because the pressing occasion of the courier was too great, not all the bishops who are with us could sign. ^B The same most religious Archbishop John delivered the aforementioned [words].

CHAPTER XIX

To my lord most holy in all things, Father and Bishop Acacius, [from] John, John, Alexander, Alexander, Dexianus, Paul, Macarius, Apringius, Theodoret, Musæus, Meletius, Diogenes.

We have long since informed your holiness with how great zeal we acted, so that starting from the roots we might amputate the madness of Apollinarius, ^C through the doctrines of Cyril of Alexandria; and because we deposed him, and Memnon, who approached him as a cooperator in all wickedness, we made this known to our most pious and Christ-loving emperors. And their piety wrote back, signifying that they had approved the deposition which was performed by us. And they commanded that we all subscribe to the faith set forth by the holy Fathers at Nicæa, abjuring the scandals that have arisen, just as your holiness’s letters also contain. Now, however, we make this known also to your holiness: that even while these letters were being delivered, those very men—whom the preoccupation of error has already seized—fighting on behalf of that heretical dementia itself (that is, those who presumed to subscribe to the aforementioned chapters), do not wish to cast them away from the orthodox faith, ^D as the decrees of our Christ-loving emperors commanded. Nor do they acquiesce to answering our objections when challenged to a discussion. For we have the prepared refutations of the aforementioned heretical chapters, both from the divinely inspired Scriptures and from the writings of the holy Fathers, which they composed with much labor. They confuse and disturb all things, and fill the cities and provinces with seditions, directing against us unjust and illicit epistles which have no virtue at all. For what strength can they have, they who are removed from every office of the priesthood? Yet they are able to disturb the simple; but may your religiosity know that, being long since excommunicated by us because they cooperated with the madness of the heretic Cyril and with those things which were done illicitly and iniquitously, they presumed to exercise their office and to communicate with the condemned. Your religiosity knows what rules have been established concerning such men, and that they grant no place for pardon. And they commit these things even while seeing that the most injurious Cyril and Memnon are kept in duress by a multitude of soldiers. For they guard each one separately, night and day. May your holiness therefore be entreated to hymn God, the God of all, for us, and to obtain His impregnable providence for our parts: to pray also for them, that...

they may at length, having stripped off their harmful sentiments, return to the ancestral faith. For otherwise, it is not possible for peace to be restored to the Churches unless that impious exposition is renounced. We heartily greet all the brotherhood that is with you. May you remain unharmed and praying for us, most holy and most sacred Lord Father. ^A Likewise all the aforementioned bishops subscribed.

CAPUT XX.

Epistle of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, to Andrew, bishop of the Samosatenes.

Writing from Ephesus, I greet your holiness, and I beatify the infirmity which the love of God has granted you, so that you might learn rather by hearsay than by experience the evils which have been committed here: evils surpassing all truth of speech, exceeding all narration of writings, and worthy of perpetual tears and continuous lamentations. For the ecclesiastical body is in danger of being severed. Or rather, it has received incisions, unless the wise physician binds up the divided and putrid limbs with peace and strengthens them with health. Egypt 42 is raging against God again, and is fighting against Moses and Aaron 43, His servants. And the greatest part of Israel assents to the enemies. Very few are safe, and they suffer contests for piety. The reverence of piety has been trampled underfoot. The condemned are ministering, and the condemners sit groaning in their houses. Those who are deprived of communion with the condemned deem them themselves condemned, and are freed from that same condemnation.

They made such a synod a jest—the Egyptians, the Palestinians, and with the Pontics, the Asians, and with them also the Occidentals. For the greatest part of the world has already received this languor. Who have so mocked 44 piety in a time of impiety? What writer of comedy ever devised such a fable? What poet of tragedy worthy at last 45 of the name could concoct such stories? So great and such evils have grown within the Church of God. Indeed, I have briefly narrated a portion of those things which were committed. For other things 46 cannot be told without danger. Therefore let your holiness pray, and entreat Christ the Lord to arise, and to repress this tempest of the sea, and to produce the desired tranquility; so that, obtaining this free gift, we may cry out with the holy David: *According to the multitude of my sorrows in my heart, thy comforts have gladdened my soul* 47.

CAPUT XXI.

Epistle of Count Irenaeus, which he wrote back to all the bishops by whom he had been sent, before the arrival of John, count of largesses.

Hardly now has an opportunity been given to me to send an epistle to your holiness, and ^B to find out what kind of messenger might be had, so that those things which, through the grace of Christ, were known to your affectation according to the Lord, might be made known. For we came to the royal city while the Egyptians had anticipated me by three days. But as to what dangers I soon sustained at the very entrance, it is not easy even to relate in speech, much less to delineate in an epistle. For those who entered before, being most excellent and having used everyone openly and impartially (for it suffices to say only this), had almost anticipated the hearing of all, some indeed drawing them in whatever way by false speeches, others gaining them to themselves against us through calumnies, and all indeed persuading them in common and separately, so that great judges and those set in dignities and various military offices assented, since by both a congruous investigation and consequently a judgment, and by all the God-loving bishops likewise bringing out one and the same sentence against him who had been abruptly condemned by them, that wonderful deposition was made, and they persuaded the most magnificent and Christ-loving scholastic chamberlain to say most evidently that in Ephesus he had not tolerated even hearing the word "Theotokos" at all. Nevertheless, because of the invincible strength of the truth and your prayers, I prevailed through divine mercies, after I had escaped the first dangers, as I said, to speak with the most magnificent judges, and to narrate to them the whole truth of the matter, as far as it was possible. Who, recognizing those things which we said, were compelled to bring to the ears of the princes whatever they—those who assent to the Egyptian—had tyrannically committed either against the present cause or against us ourselves. And after all things, so that we might not produce the epistle at all, while many things were done or said among these things, as much by those who think our way as by those who feel in these matters with Cyril, it was agreed, as it seems, that the most pious emperor should hear me and the Egyptians struggling as much concerning our persons as about the cause, with the most magnificent judges also present; while I indeed often protested that I had not come for this, nor had I received any such commands from the God-loving bishops, but that I had come only as a bearer of letters to serve. But for these words I was almost deceived. However, that which was decided 651 was fulfilled without any delay. With the divine will therefore even then favoring us and directing the heart of the prince to the truth itself, and by the facts themselves demonstrating that the heart of the king is in the hand of God, the adversaries were indeed judged (for it is necessary to arrive briefly at the end itself), so that they could in no way prove true things, whether the acts of the deposition or those things which

[GARNERII DISSERTATION V ON THEODORET AND THE ORIENTAL CAUSE]

They have spoken here with their own falsity; furthermore, it has been demonstrated by every means that the Egyptian did not convene the council legitimately, nor could he judge, since he was one of those who ought to have been judged, nor was he to initiate the business at all ^A without the will or counsel of Count Candidianus. Now, all the denunciations of the most magnificent Count Candidianus and the sacred writings to the synod by him, and other things of this kind, have been read in the judgment, just as in reality by order of the emperor, and there is nothing—by your prayers—that has been omitted from all those things which show that what was done was presumptuously and wickedly done there, so that the adjudication might immediately be rendered consonant by all ^B to the enemies of the truth, and the judgment of your religiosity approved and confirmed, and the condemnation of the two directed toward the Egyptian, as if the Egyptian partisans had done everything tyrannically and illicitly in the holy Church of God, and how they deserve to be subjected to punishments for those things which they committed in the presence of the most pious prince. In these matters, therefore, those things which pertain to this cause reached an end, and here the limit of the hearing was given. When, however, John, the physician of Cyril and syncellus, had come, and had come as you know out of custom, we see many of the judges changed into others, in a way, and from us, who are judged among them and by them; nor are they content even to listen to anything at all. For there are some of them who already say now that those things which were done by both sides must be confirmed, and that the condemnations—not only of the two, if they are maintained, but of three persons—ought to be confirmed. But others, indeed, say: "Arguments ought to be dissolved equally for all." But it is fitting that the rest of the God-beloved bishops be called, so that the arguments of their faith may be sought with truth, and those things which were done wickedly in Ephesus. There are, however, some who do all that they can, and bring every sort of effort to bear, so ^C that they may be commanded by the most pious prince to arrive with certain specific formulae, and—so they say—to dispose of the whole cause in whatever way they might perceive, or could; and those of them who love you pray that these things may not reach their effect, knowing entirely that the evil of those who are so hastening has a fixed purpose, and by whom they are armed for this ^D counsel. But these things, as it pleases the Lord, may they turn out accordingly. As for me, however, I ask that your holiness deign to pray most intensely for me, who have endured many perils, and who even now am not without peril on account of the multitude of the enemy, which is increased day by day. For God is my witness that, when I was called to the emperor's judgment, I believed nothing else than that I would be cast into the current of the sea. The Lord, however, as it is written, has stood by me, and I have been snatched from the mouth of the lion, or rather, from the mouth of the many thousands of lion cubs.

CHAPTER XXII. DECRETUM ORIENTALIUM.

The holy synod of the Oriental regions, and of those who have gathered together likewise from different provinces and parts, that is, from Bithynia, Pisidia Secunda, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, Europa, Rhodope, Thessalia, and Dacia, has spoken concerning those things which are annexed below.

On account of these ecclesiastical questions which have recently emerged, we were summoned to the city of Ephesus by those to whom the empire has been entrusted by the Lord after just deliberation, and to whom the tabernacles of the whole world have been credited, and who rule their subjects wisely and piously; and we have arrived at the aforementioned city without delay. In a short time, however, because of the disturbances which were made by Cyril the Egyptian, letters came from our most pious emperors a second and a third time, admonishing that we be united with the bond of peace of the whole Church of God, and that we be content with the faith which was set forth in Nicaea by our most holy Fathers, having rejected, of course, those scandals which have recently arisen. Whence, we also attempted to persuade those bishops who do not renounce those things which are of the Egyptian, and who have subscribed to the heretical chapters set forth under him, that they should remove those things which are openly contrary to the orthodox faith, and that they should be content with the exposure which was made at Nicaea, in accordance with the sanction of the most pious princes.

Being in no way able to persuade them, because it happened that they were once so badly preoccupied, we—who remain in the sound faith, and permit nothing foreign to be introduced to it—were compelled to set this forth in writing, and to strengthen the confession with our own hands by our subscriptions. For the exposition of these words, which are few, is sufficient both to teach the integrity of piety, and to show the path of truth, and to refute the error of heretical madness. We believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who was born of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God. Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made which are in heaven and which are on earth; who for us men and for our salvation descended and was incarnate and made human, suffered, and rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. As for those who say, "There was a time..." [alt-version omitted]

when he was not," and "Before he was born he was not," and "Because he was made from nothingness," or from another subsistence or substance, asserting the Son of God to be convertible or mutable, these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. This is the faith which the Fathers set forth, primarily indeed against Arius, who blasphemed and said that the Son of God was a creature, and against every heresy, to wit, that of Sabellius and Photinus and Paul of Samosata, and of Mani also, and Valentinus, and Marcion, and against every heresy whatsoever that has risen up against the catholic and apostolic Church; those whom the three hundred and eighteen gathered in the city of Nicaea condemned. In this exposition of faith, we all confess that we abide, both we who are gathered in Ephesus and also the rest of the bishops most dear to the Lord who are in our regions. We profess also that we shall remain steadfast in all those things which are to be transacted by you. For we obey the Wise Man, who said: "Do not remove the boundaries which your fathers have set." ^A Indeed, the heretical chapters that were recently set forth by Cyril, to which he also added superfluous and vain anathemas, and which he even attempted to bolster by a various decree and the subscription of bishops, them the holy synod which is gathered in Ephesus alienates from the orthodox faith.

The authors of this confession called it a holy decree.

CHAPTER XXIII

The holy synod which by the grace of God is gathered in Ephesus, to the bishops most dear to the Lord and most holy: John, archbishop of the great city of the Antiochians, and John, bishop of the metropolis of the Damascenes, and Himerius, bishop of the metropolis of the Nicomedians, and Paul, bishop of the city of the Emesenes, acting also on behalf of the most holy and most sacred Acacius of Berrhoea, and Macarius, bishop of the city of the Laodiceans, acting on behalf of Cyrus, bishop of the metropolis of the Tyrians, and Apringius, bishop of the city of the Chalcidians, acting on behalf of Alexander, bishop of the metropolis of the Apameans, and Theodoret, bishop of the city of the Cyrrhestians, ^C acting on behalf of Alexander, bishop of the metropolis of the Hierapolitans, being present, we entrust to those present those things which are annexed below.

Since, on account of the ecclesiastical cause for which we are all gathered in Ephesus, your religiousness has now been summoned, according to the decree of our most pious sovereigns, to the great-named Constantinople, to contend for the truth and for the faith of the holy Fathers and for right dogmas; and since we have not all been commanded to be with you, it is fitting that the will of us all be made manifest to you, that we remain in those things, and we consider firm what is done by you that pertains both to the fear of the Lord and to ecclesiastical peace and the tranquility of order. For this reason, we have made this present mandate for you, by which we command and grant the most complete power which we also ourselves possess ^D to you; so that when, God helping, you shall have arrived at the aforementioned great city, then, if it should be necessary to engage in discussion, whether before the most pious prince or in the consistory or before the sacred senate, or before the synod present, concerning those things which have come into question, you may undertake this with the confidence, wisdom, and diligence granted to you for the common utility of the Churches, and that you take up the struggle on behalf of us all, in such a way, clearly, that we also remain, and persevere, and embrace all the words that are transacted or have been transacted regarding this cause. If, however, it should also be necessary, should the pact or ecclesiastical peace or any other matter require it, for you to subscribe on behalf of us all, we ask this same thing of your holiness, that you do so without doubt for this which profits all in common and for the glory of the Lord Christ. If, however, it shall also seem good to us that a synodical letter be sent hither, to which the subscription of all is necessary, everyone collectively and individually professes to subscribe to this with all devotion, and to transmit it to the impious court; with this condition, however, kept: that in every way those heretical chapters, which were subintroduced into the faith of the Nicene Fathers by Cyril of Alexandria, be expelled along with their anathemas, as things alien to the catholic and apostolic Church.

And we, all the Eastern bishops, have subscribed to this mandate.

CHAPTER XXIV

The matters which seemed to the synod to be transacted, the judgment...

^A of your holiness, have been returned to us, showing that you are annoyed by your stay in Ephesus, and that it is henceforth desirable for your religious life to begin your journey. We have directed those who must serve you throughout the journey, whether you prefer to travel by ship or by donkey, that is, to proceed by way of the Pontic road, so that they may assist you as far as the monastery. We have also sent you transport and provisions, asking of the Lord his mercy that your holiness may travel in safety and live just as you yourself desire. For we do not believe you are in need of consolation, looking to your soul, which is wise and excels others by the many thousands of good qualities you possess.

CHAPTER XXV [113].

We have received the letters of your greatness, in which we have understood the command from the most pious and in every way praise-worthy emperor, that we should live in the monastery; and we have embraced the gift of the decree. For nothing is more honorable to us than this retreat for the sake of piety. I ask, however, of your mental greatness, that for the sake of religion you often bring to the memory of the most pious prince that the verbosity of Cyril, which his piety has judged, should be noted everywhere by public imperial letters, so that it may be read throughout all the orthodox churches, lest perhaps on account of this, without the letters of the pious emperor, the writings of Cyril be said by him to be confirmed. To the simpler sort, from this arises ^B the occasion for scandals, as if they were not truly condemned. And it is truly spoken to you, that it is possible to apply whatever is possible for the defense of the truth. For it suffices to say only this to you, who through all things, whatever are entrusted to you, are shown to be a good man.

CHAPTER XXVI [114].

Coming to Chalcedon (for neither we nor our adversaries were permitted to enter Constantinople on account of the seditions of the good monks), we learned from report that eight days before our arrival it pleased the most pious emperor that the lord Nestorius be released from Ephesus to go wherever he wished. And our soul has been altogether grieved. Because, if this is true, those things which were done without judgment and illicitly seem, for the time being, to be confirmed. But let your holiness know that we strive for the faith with our whole mind, and we choose this labor even unto death. We are waiting on this present day, that is, the eleventh of the month of Gorpiæus, for the most pious emperor to cross over and to grant a hearing of the case at the Ruffinianae. Therefore, let your holiness pray that the Lord Christ may cooperate with us, so that we may be able to confirm the faith of the holy Fathers, and to root out entirely the chapters that have risen up against the Church. We beseech your holiness to think and to act in this very way, and to remain for the orthodox faith to our good zeal. When this present letter was written, Himerius had not yet arrived.

for he is currently detained by an imbalance of illness. But this does not at all disturb our piety. For we hope that even these sad things will be extinguished, and the truth will shine forth, while your piety struggles alongside us.

Chapter XXVII.

Another letter of certain bishops to those whom we mentioned above.

By the prayers of your holiness, our emperor has held discourse with us. And having now obtained a divine nod of consent, we have in the meantime confounded those who think otherwise, so that our cause has in every way been accepted by the Christ-loving emperor, while the things said by them appear unacceptable and inconsistent. For while they kept mentioning Cyril’s name and asking that he himself should use [the arguments] and make satisfaction for himself, they have not in the least been able to prevail thus far; rather, they have heard that the discourse ought to be moved from pious religion, and that the faith of the holy Fathers must be strengthened. ^B We have also confounded Acacius, who in the proceedings confessed that the Godhead is passible; and our most pious emperor was so moved against them that he shook off the [blautea]—that is, the chlamys—which he was wearing, and withdrew himself backward from the greatness of the blasphemy. We also saw the whole senate, who were in the consistory, greatly approving us, as if we were truly sweating in labor for the true faith. It pleased our most pious emperor, therefore, that each one should set forth his own faith and offer it to his piety. We responded, however, that it is impossible that we should make another confession, except that which was made at Nicaea by the most blessed Fathers. And this also pleased his imperial majesty. It remains, therefore, to offer to his piety that [confession] to which your holiness has subscribed. All the people of the city of Constantinople come to us without ceasing, asking that we struggle bravely for the faith; and we labor greatly to restrain them bravely, lest we appear to give an occasion to our adversaries. We have sent a copy of the exposition to your piety, so that you may deign to transcribe two authentic copies and subscribe to both.

Chapter XXVIII.

Copies from the Orientals to the brothers who are in Constantinople.

To our most beloved of God, and most holy and most sacred fellow-ministers—John, John, Himerius, Paul, Macarius, Apringius, Theodoretus, bishops—the synod which has gathered at Ephesus, greeting. ^C Recognizing the struggles which, by the grace of God, you have engaged in for the sake of the piety of the faith before our Christ-loving and most pious emperor, we have learned by experience that the Lord Jesus Christ does not abandon His own Churches, in such a way that He has provided worthy grace for us orthodox, and poured out much confusion upon our enemies, and prepared our most pious prince to dedicate himself to the most holy Church of the right faith. And we trust that it will come to pass that, while you struggle with the confidence of Christ-serving priests, and as the Lord saves the most pious life of our emperor, the present business will find a peaceful end. And these things shall indeed cast off the heresies, and the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers shall shine again throughout all the Churches of the whole world. But the enemies do not even now cease to use their accustomed tyranny, because they have felt no punishment. For everywhere throughout our Churches, sending illicit condemnations, they disturb both clergy and people. We have subscribed, however, to two uniform letters which were sent by your holiness, for which we beseech you to stand opposed even unto blood, fighting for the truth against the impiety which has recently arisen, knowing that, while remaining in the concord of your holiness, we are prepared to surrender our soul sooner than accept any of the heretical chapters of Cyril of Alexandria. As for the things done against the person who suffered injustice, we are struck with the silence of total astonishment upon learning of them. For they who deposed him, as you know, ^D joined heretical chapters to the faith of the Fathers in the very heretical proceedings themselves, and by this act denoting themselves as heretics and alien to the orthodox faith. How then, I ask, is it possible that both these things, while they are contrary, should agree into one—that is, that the deposition be approved, and the chapters be disapproved? For if they are worthy regarding the condemnation of the faith, they are not to be held unworthy in these things which the same men have set forth in heretical chapters. But if the chapters convince them of being heretics, the deposition was also accomplished by heretics. These things we have also set forth to our most pious prince, and have sent them to your holiness, that you may carry out what shall seem good to you. For we are in an agony, because we speak of sad things for the sake of the truth; lest, if the deposition that was made by the heretics be confirmed, the heretical chapters should obtain any firmness whatsoever, along with the other things which were done by them against many priests. And we trust that when your holiness has recognized all these things, you will act [through] those means by which all that has been [done] against everyone by...

heretics may be annulled—that is to say, any sentence or excommunication—by means of synodical letters and imperial decrees. For your piety is not unaware that we have with us some bishops who have remained alone in their own residences. We have indeed directed to your holiness also the interpretation of the heretical chapters by Cyril of Alexandria, which has recently been made, showing his impiety even more subtly through it itself. But as we have asked your holiness, deign to take care that they may be sent away as quickly as possible, especially since the season of winter is drawing near. 1. Helladius, bishop of Tarsi, [the metropolis of Pisidia], I pray you may be safe and pray for me to God, my lords and brothers. And the rest wrote in like manner. 2. Helladius, bishop of Tarsi. 3. Alexander, bishop of Apamea. 4. Julianus, bishop of Sardica. 5. Botforus, bishop of Gangra. 6. Petrus, bishop of Trajanopolis. 7. Cyrus, bishop of Tyri. 8. Rabbulas, bishop of Lessenus. 9. Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis. 10. Maximinus, bishop of Anazarbus. 11. Dorotheus, bishop of Marcianopolis. 12. Asterius, bishop of Aranda. 13. Subanus, bishop of Hypata. 14. Dexianus, bishop of Seleucia. 15. Basilius, bishop of Larisa of Thessaly. 16. Eutherius, bishop of Tyana. 17. Gerontius, bishop of Claudiopolis. 18. Musæus, bishop of Aradus. 19. Placeus, bishop of Laodicea. 20. Martianus, bishop of Abrytus. 21. Cyrillus, bishop of Adana. 22. Fritilas, bishop of Heraclea. 23. Cyriacus, bishop of Diocletianopolis. 24. Antiochus, bishop of Bostra. 25. Daniel, bishop of Faustinianopolis. 26. Marcellinus, bishop of Arca. 27. Salustius, bishop of Coria. 28. Jacobus, bishop of Dorostolum. 29. Theophanius, bishop of Philadelphia. 30. Meletius, bishop of Neocaesarea. 31. Diogenes, bishop of Ninopolis. 32. Polychronius, bishop of Epiphania. 33. Hesychius, bishop of Castabala. 34. Trajanus, bishop of Augusta. 35. Cyrus, bishop of Marcopolis. 36. Polychronius, bishop of Heraclea. 37. Hellades, bishop of Zeugma. 38. Anastasius, bishop of Tenedos. 39. Valentinianus, bishop of Malli. 40. Julianus, bishop of Larissa. 41. Diogenes, bishop of Seleucobelus. 42. Theoctistus, bishop of Caesarea.

Report of the Orientals in Ephesus to the King

avoids the tumult, and prefers for himself to act privately, yet it is to be feared that some injury to the faith might occur, because that illicit deposition was carried out by those who brought in heretical chapters.

CHAPTER XXIX 117. SACRA THEODOSII.

The Emperors Caesars and Valentinian, victors, conquerors, always revered, to the holy synod which has gathered in the city of Ephesus.

Our intention, even if we were not writing now, you would have known from many other sources. And how much zeal we have for the right faith, and for the union of the Churches, is something we were taught by our fathers and forefathers, and we have placed nothing up to this time before the sound faith, for the sake of which we even made haste a short while ago to summon your holiness to Ephesus. And while you were gathered together, we wrote all things of this sort, through which it would follow that the true faith would be without contention: and that which it once held, it might remain unshakably, with you united in friendship. But since, because of an intention of impiety, and often because contentions arose among you, and certain acts [took place] which no doubt result in dissensions, desiring that discord be terminated for you in all things, we sent the most magnificent and most reverend Master of the Divine Offices, John, so that the contentions which had arisen among you might be resolved. While it seemed necessary also for this, that some of you should come here, so that our piety, even when present among those present, might hear, ^B so that the union which we desire might result in pious assent, we have also done this, desiring to arrange all things gently.

But because the committed dissension still remains, considering your religiosity to be enduring the labor out of the very necessity of the council, we have granted that all should return from Ephesus to their own [places], and should again obtain their own churches. Which let each one do with the bishops who came from his province. Cyril alone, however, who was once bishop of Alexandria, and Memnon, who was bishop of Ephesus, we do not number with you, and we know them to be alien from the episcopate, just as was once written to your holiness by us. Returning to your own churches, provide for the quiet of the cities, having behaved in a manner worthy of ^D the conduct of the priesthood in all things. For if, as you have done in whatever way here, there is some satisfaction, it is fitting through those things which are to follow. It will be, however, if you preserve ecclesiastical decorum with public order.

Chapter 30 118. Letter of Bishop Theodoret to Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, which Irenaeus includes.

We have left no appearance of either flattery or harshness, nor of entreaty, nor of contradiction, which we did not use before the most pious prince and the consistory, clearly protesting in the sight of God, who sees all things from above, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is to judge the world with ^B justice, and of the Holy Spirit, and of his elect angels, that it should not be despised that the faith is being corrupted by those who have accepted those heretical chapters, and have presumed to subscribe to them; but that the Nicene faith should be ordered to be set forth alone, and that the heresy which was superinduced for the extermination and corruption of piety should be expelled; and until today we have been able to bring nothing to effect, because the listeners are carried about here and there. But yet none of these things dissuaded us from ceasing from the proposed engagement: but we persist in it even now. This, therefore, which, God favoring, has been said, we have accomplished, so that we have said with an oath to the most pious emperor that it was impossible that we should restore Cyril and Memnon to the office of bishops, and that it could not be that we should communicate with the rest, unless the heretical chapters were first removed. We therefore hold this intention. But haste is for those who seek the things that are their own, not those that are of Jesus Christ, and to restore them beyond our will. And none of these things pertains to us. For God requires our purpose and persevering virtue, and of those things which are against the will, He does not require vengeance. But concerning that friend, let your holiness know this, that as often as we made mention of him, whether before the most pious prince, or before the prince's consistory, we have been adjudged to have committed an injury. So great is the adversity of those who are inside against him, and what is worst of all, the most pious emperor himself abhors his name ^D more than the rest, saying to us clearly:

'Let no one speak to me openly of this matter.' For they have already once received what pertains to him. Nevertheless, we are here, and we shall not cease with all our might to care for this part also, knowing the iniquity which has been committed against him by those who are without God. We hasten, indeed, that we may be freed from here, and your devoutness thereby be rescued; for nothing sweeter than this can be hoped for, since everyone has been satisfied with gold, and the judges themselves contend that there is one nature of the divinity and of the humanity. But the people, with the Lord favoring, are entirely safe, and they come out to us incessantly. We began to address them, and we have celebrated most great assemblies, and through the prayers of your devoutness, I have already for the fourth time held discourses to them on the faith; and they listened with such pleasure that they would not have withdrawn until the seventh hour, had they been able to endure the heat of the sun. For in the atrium, which is very large and has four porticoes, the multitude gathered; and we held the discourse from the upper parts of the dwellings. The entire clergy, however, together with those good monks, greatly opposes us, so much so that a fight was once joined when we were returning from the first conference with the most pious prince at the Ruffinian palace. And many were wounded, as well of the laity who were with us as of the false monks. But the most pious emperor recognized that the multitude was gathering to us, and speaking only to us, he said: 'I have known that you are holding extraordinary assemblies.' Indeed, I said to him: 'Since you have granted us trust along with indulgence, listen. Is it just that they, although being heretics and excommunicated, should perform ecclesiastical ministries, while we, who are struggling for the faith and for this reason have deprived them of communion, should not enter the church?' He said: 'And what am I to do?' I replied therefore to him: 'What he who is now master did when he was your count of the largesses, when he had come to Ephesus. For finding that they were celebrating masses, he did not restrain us, but said to them: "Unless peace has been made between you, I will not allow one party [alone] to hold an assembly." And it was fitting for your piety to instruct the bishop of the present place that he should not concede to us, nor to them, the holding of masses, until we should come to peace, so that your just decree might be known to all.' To these things, he replied saying: 'I cannot command the bishops.' I therefore replied: 'Then neither should he command anything to us.' And we take the church, and we celebrate the assembly. And your piety will know that there are many more with us than with them. Furthermore, we said to him: 'Our assembly had neither the reading of the Holy Scriptures, nor the oblation; but we held only litanies for the faith, for your empire, and discourses for the pious religion.' He approved, therefore, and up to now he has not prevented it from being done. Our assemblies, therefore, are increasing little by little, while a multitude of the people sails to us, and listens to the doctrines with all willingness. May your devoutness therefore pray that the affair may have an end pleasing to the Lord. For we are in danger every day, suspected of the seditious impulse of the monks and clergy against us, and seeing the facility of those in power.

CHAPTER XXXI

Epistle of the Oriental legates from Constantinople to their own in Ephesus

To the most honorable and God-beloved bishops who dwell in Ephesus, John, John, Himerius, Paul, Macarius, Apringius, [and] Theodoret, bishops, greeting in the Lord.

Five times now we have entered before the prince, and we have contended much concerning the heretical chapters. And we have sworn often to the most pious emperor that it is not possible for us to communicate with those who think the opposite, unless these chapters have been renounced; and that not even if Cyril abjures his chapters will he be received by us, because the prince has been made a partisan of this new heresy. And up to now, we have been able to obtain nothing, because the adversaries insist strongly, and those who hear do not rebuke them, as they resist impudently, nor do they compel them to come to a disputation and conference. For they flee the discussion of the chapters in every way, and are not content to speak of them at all. But we, through your prayers, are prepared to persist even unto death, and neither to receive Cyril, nor the chapters which have been set forth by him, nor to communicate with these men unless those things which have been evilly subintroduced are expelled. We ask, therefore, your holiness also, that you may feel the same as we do and show the same perseverance. For we are struggling for piety; in which alone is our hope, and for the sake of which we hope through the kindness of our Savior to enjoy the future life. As for the most God-beloved and most holy bishop Nestorius, may your devoutness know that it has been our concern to mingle conversation about him; and in the meantime we have not prevailed, because all the adversaries are set with hostility even against the very name. While these things are so, we shall hasten, if we should be able to find time and appeasable hearers, to do this without a doubt; yet, if the Lord will be our cooperator in our intention. But in order that your holiness may not be ignorant of this, know that seeing that the Cyrillians have, ^A by tyranny, seduction, flattery, and gifts, perverted almost everyone, so to speak, we have frequently asked the most pious prince and the most magnificent judge to permit both us to go to the Orient and your devoutness to your own [sees], thinking this, because in vain

we were delaying, profiting nothing in the present cause, because Cyril flees in every way from having a conflict with us, knowing the manifest conviction of the blasphemies which he set forth in his twelve chapters. But it pleased the most pious prince, after our many prayers, that each of us return to his own [see], so that the Egyptian and Memnon of Ephesus might remain in their own places. For so the same Egyptian will be able to blind everyone through his own gifts, so that he himself, after he has perpetrated many thousands of evils, may return to his own see, while an innocent man may be sent to his monastery. ^A

CHAPTER XXXII [120].

It would have been desirable that the word of piety be produced by no one else for the sake of future and incongruous hopes, much less by those who have been allotted the priestly office and the defense of the churches: whom we know not how the lust for presiding, and the love of principate, and certain frigid promises have brought down to such a point that they despised all the commandments of Christians, but served solely the intention of that man who had hoped from the outset that all things would turn out for himself as well as for those who cooperated with him in this. We refer to Cyril of Alexandria, who, for the sake of the controversy alone, superinducing heretical dogmas upon the holy Churches of God, and foreseeing that these would be convicted, hoped to evade the vengeance for those things which he had committed by sinning, through the sole service of Memnon and the connivance of the aforementioned bishops. Whence, being exceedingly desirous of quiet, and judging that patience was to be maintained in remaining matters, yet regarding the destruction of the faith in such quiet and patience, we turn our supplication to you alone, who with supernal virtue are the salvation of the world, thinking that those struggles which are waged for pious religion pertain especially to you, as you who even until now have preserved it, and are yourselves greatly preserved by it. ^B Now, however, we offer this supplication, as it will surely be a satisfaction in the sight of the most holy God, which will plead for us, if we omit nothing of those things which we can do for religion, if we also make public the words of your piety regarding it. For there is nothing that priests can do more in Christian times than to testify to so faithful a prince, and at the same time to promise as often as we have done, that we lay down both our life and our bodies in the struggles which we have for the faith. On account of which, before God who sees all things, and the Lord Jesus Christ who is to judge everyone with justice, and the Holy Spirit by whose grace you govern the empire, and the elect angels who keep you, whom you shall also see standing at that terrible throne, and those terrible actions which they incessantly offer to God, which some now attempt to obliterate, we beseech you to avenge the piety which is now being attacked, and to order that those heretical chapters, which have been superinduced upon the faith, be expelled, ^C because they are in every way alien to right dogmas and consonant with heretical madness; or at any rate, if any of those who have consented and subscribed to them, and after the pardon which has been promised by us, wishes to contend further, order him to come into the midst, and manifest him under ecclesiastical rebuke and vindicate him by the judgment of your piety. For there would be nothing, O emperor, more worthy of your empire than this matter, for which you have hastened to contend in war both against the Persians in the past and against other barbarians, Christ bestowing upon you glorious victories, because you have shown yourself prompt for him. Indeed, we ask that inquiries be made before your piety in writing. For thus, without a doubt, they will be more easily identified, and for all future time be convicted, whoever have done wrong. But if any, for those things which they have committed by sinning, hesitating to bring forward arguments or to render reasons, should wish to subjugate the right faith as if by an imperial donation, it will be for your just judgment to provide, if they have not even lost the very name of masters, who are hesitating to contend for these dogmas which they introduce, and not wishing to prove what they have directed, lest they be convicted of having acted impiously, and do not deign to expel them, lest perhaps an unfruitful conspiracy of them among themselves be made. For already they are meditating that for the reward of this impiety they may be restored to the principalities of their sees, and other formulas for the corruption of the canons, which also have been exposed by those things which were formerly attempted by them, and will shine forth even more demonstrably, unless your empire restrains such things. ^D For your piety will see them not much later, even wishing to distribute the rewards of this treason like spoils taken from the faith of Christ. We, however, formerly indeed, while certain things were presumed by the most reverend Juvenal, formerly of Jerusalem, were quiet, while we surely saw that we ought to battle for the rules. Then certain of his hastinesses and fantasies of this kind against both Phoenicies and

^A Arabia, we are by no means ignorant. Yet, we do not even intend to struggle over these matters, for we surely could, even regarding the cities themselves whose care has been entrusted to us, and we would more easily depart from life itself, if it were necessary, than abandon our devotion to battle for the faith. But against the hopes regarding these [matters], we oppose both the judgment of God and your piety. Now, however, we ask that there be care for the primary and sole piety of the faith, and that the one which, under Constantine of holy memory, at last became the splendor of the orthodox faith, and was furthermore confirmed by the blessed grandfather of your piety, and by your father, and was strengthened by your own empire even unto other barbarian nations and throughout the region of Persia, should not be put in peril within the very imperial courts themselves and be submerged alongside your tranquility. For you are not going to send twofold doctrines into Persia, O emperor; nor will our faith be thought to be of great account among them while, as we fight, there is no judge, nor does anyone with a sound mind commune in the presence of double preachings or mysteries, nor indeed is it pious for anyone to depart from such great and holy fathers, who are reproached in nothing. But neither shall the agreeable [matters] that pertain to the empire be ascribed to the ranks of those who feel things contrary to one another, nor will it be a small absurdity that we shall bestow upon our enemies; and who could count the other many thousand injuries of their wicked contention? But if there is anyone who thinks the concern for celestial things is small, let any other man whatsoever be more easily [that person] than he to whom God has entrusted all the power of the world. But surely it is entirely for us to accept judgment from your power. For God guides your mind to a complete understanding of those things about which there is a question. But if there is anything that currently prevents this (for all those things which are established for your piety regarding these matters, or [the matters] themselves, are not utterable to us), we surely ask that it be easy and secure for us to withdraw to our own [places] from your **^B** tranquility. For we see that the cities entrusted to us are not a little harmed by this delay, while certainly here these things themselves accomplish nothing on account of those who, as it is clear, choose to contend against your piety.

CHAPTER XXXIII [121]. SACRA OF THEODOSIUS.

After the protest of John and the other bishops who were detained at Chalcedon when the emperor entered Constantinople with the opposing party, this sacred decree was sent to Ephesus to the bishops who had gathered with the bishop of Alexandria, of which, after the preface, the text is as follows:

We, preferring the peace of the Church before all other occupations, and not only wishing to gather you together through our own judges but also through ourselves, believing it to be impious and unworthy of our empire if, while we are weary, and not doing everything that is possible, the Churches were divided. But since it has not been possible for you to be united, nor has your venerability wished to come to render an accounting of these things regarding which there is doubt, we have decreed that the eastern bishops should return to their own countries and Churches, and that the Ephesian synod be dissolved: in such a way, clearly, that Cyril may enter Alexandria, with Memnon remaining in Ephesus. For we signify to your religiousness only this, that as long as we live, we cannot judge the Orientals. For in our presence, they have not in any part been convicted. If, therefore, any intention of peace remains, choosing this rather, write back to us without contention. Otherwise, regarding your departure, think soon upon these things which we have written. For we are not the cause of any evil. If there be any, God knows.

The last sacred document of all was sent when the blessed Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, had already returned to his own city.

CHAPTER XXXIV [122]. SECOND PROTESTATION.

The second protest, which John, bishop of Antioch, and the remaining six from the whole synod by whom they were sent, directed to the emperor Theodosius at Constantinople, in person.

Often already have we taught your piety, both through reports, that the dogma of the right glory is in danger of being corrupted, and that those who confound all things, and who have trampled underfoot both all ecclesiastical sanctions and all imperial laws, and have confused everything alike, are attempting to tear apart the body of the Church, so that the heresy which has been promulgated by Cyril of Alexandria may be confirmed. For while we had been summoned by your piety to Ephesus so that we might discuss those questions which have arisen, and might confirm the evangelical and apostolic faith which was set forth by the blessed Fathers, while not all the bishops who had been summoned had arrived, they held a particular council; they who confirmed that heretical doctrine of Arius and Eunomius and the madness of Apollinarius, agreeing among the, actions which are included in the writing, and receiving into communion those who were being charged with heresy, without a preceding judgment, indeed seducing some, while returning to others the solution of excommunication as a reward, and arming some with the hope of an unmerited position, they gathered a multitude to themselves; as if—

they were ignorant that it is not a multitude that shows the piety of the faith, but the truth. Indeed, the letters of your piety, which you sent by the most magnificent count Candidianus, were read; ^A they contained that the questions which had sprouted should be discussed with fraternal charity and peacefully, with all the God-beloved bishops who had been convoked present, and yet that reading accomplished nothing. There came the most devoted magisterian Palladius, bearing other letters of your empire, signifying that all things which had been done in particular ought to be eradicated, and that the council should be reconvened from the beginning, and the true dogma be firmly established. And this pious decree of yours was also, in their customary manner, held in contempt by those who rashly presume everything. Then the most magnificent master Joannes came—who was until then the count of all the largesses—bringing others, signifying that the deposition of the three ^B had been approved by your empire, and that the scandals which were sprouting should be plucked out, and that the faith alone, which was set forth at Nicaea by the blessed and holy Fathers, should be reinforced by all. Even this law they transgressed in their customary manner, because they make a mockery of everything. For they did not cease, even after such a reading, but communicated with the deposed, and named their names as if they were bishops. Nor indeed did they allow those chapters to be repudiated which were promulgated for the disease and corruption of the pious faith. And this, while they were being summoned by us again and again to a debate. For we had the refutations of the heretical chapters ready. And the aforementioned most magnificent master is witness to these things, who convoked both us and them a third and a fourth time, and listened while we proposed this. We asked first that, because of their obstinacy, we should be summoned hither. And we came, without delaying in the least. Nor since we arrived have we ceased at any time, before your piety and before the excellent consistory, to ask that they should undertake the struggle concerning the chapters, and either come to a conflict, or at least drive them away as foreign to the orthodox faith, and remain in the sole exposition of faith of the blessed Fathers who convened at Nicaea. And behold, they indeed, who wished to do none of these things, but persist in this heretical controversy which pertains to ecclesiastical and sacerdotal offices, are permitted to fulfill them; ^C as for us, remaining for such a long time without a gathering, both in Ephesus and here and there, and having endured thousands of perils here, and having been stoned by servants, covered in a monastic habit, and just a little while ago almost killed—we, indeed, have kept quiet, enduring everything for the sake of the piety of the faith. After this, it pleased your piety to convoke us and them equally, and to force those who are obstinate to come to a dispute regarding the dogmas. And while your piety was waiting for this to happen, it set out for the city. And it ordered those who are accused of heresy—and some of whom have been condemned by us for this, while others are subjected to excommunication, and are even now still subject to another rule—to come to the city, and to exercise the ministry of the priesthood, and to ordain a bishop. But we, who have undertaken the struggle for the pious faith, ^D and have chosen to endure every danger for the right dogmas, were ordered neither to enter the city, nor to fight for the faith while it is being assaulted by others, nor to insist upon the right dogmas, nor were we even permitted to return to our own. And we are anxious at Chalcedon, and, constrained, we groan because of the schism which they are planning against the Church. On account of this matter, since we have been able to obtain no answer, we judged it necessary to instruct your piety through these letters in the sight of God and His Christ and the Holy Spirit, that if anyone should be ordained before the restoration of the right dogmas by those who think heretically about the faith, it is necessary for the whole Church to be separated, with the peoples and the clergy tearing themselves apart and colliding against one another. For no one of those who think piously will endure to communicate with those who worship heretically and dedicate their own salvation to destruction. When, however, this happens, your piety will be compelled to act against your own intention. For the schism will surely be confirmed against your will, and they will be saddened who contend for the truth of the faith, because they are unwilling to betray their own souls treacherously, nor to consent to those who strive to vindicate the impious chapters of Cyril. But there are many who contend for the piety of the faith, as much as we of the whole Oriental diocese, and all the provinces that are with us from Pontus and Asia and the region of Thrace and Illyricum and Italy. Nor indeed do any bishops acquiesce to these dogmas of Cyril.

They suffer [these matters to be handled by those] who also sent to your piety a manuscript of the most blessed Ambrose, teaching things contrary to this doctrine which is now sprouting. Therefore, that no such thing may happen, and that your piety may no longer be agitated, we beseech, we entreat, we ask that you decree that no ordination take place unless they have received the form which pertains to the faith of the orthodox, for the sake of which your summit, the lover of Christ, has gathered us. ^A

CHAPTER XXXV [123]. The third protestation, which the same seven bishops sent to the Emperor Theodosius.

We did not hope that the calling together of your piety would arrive at this. For we were called honorably, as it is fitting for bishops to be called by an emperor. And we came, called for the faith and the confirmation of the faith of the holy Fathers, obedient to a pious emperor. And when we had arrived, we neither departed from ecclesiastical consistency, nor did we despise your decrees. Thus have we conducted ourselves from the day we arrived in Ephesus until today, as followers of your commands. Yet nothing concerning the present life has, as it appears, helped us in the keeping of good order; rather, as we see, it has even harmed us most forcefully. For we indeed, who have used these things, have remained detained here in Chalcedon until the present, and only now have we finally been dismissed to return to our own [sees]; but they who have confounded everything, and have filled the world with ^B turmoil, and strive to separate the Churches, and overtly resist piety, occupy what belongs to the priests and use the churches, and they obtain firm promises, as they think, of the illicitly hoped-for ordination, and they spend on their own seditious followers [the funds] that are offered for the poverty of the poor; when certainly you are emperor not only to them, but also to us. For the East constitutes no small part of your empire, in which the straight faith has always shone forth. Furthermore, let not your empire despise the remaining regions and provinces from which we are gathered. For the faith in which you also were baptized, and your parents, and in which the foundations of the Churches are fixed, and for which blessed martyrs most willingly endured many thousands of pains of death, and with which you defeated the Barbarians and dissolved tyrants, and of which you are in need in the war that now comprehends Africa, is being corrupted. For God will be a fighter for you against all, if you defend His pious dogmas and prohibit the body of the Church from being cut asunder. For it will be cut asunder if the sense superimposed upon the faith by Cyril and confirmed by other heretics gains hold. We have indeed already protested this often in the sight of God, both in Ephesus and here, and we have informed your piety, acquiring satisfaction for ourselves before the Lord of all. For He demands this ^C also of us, as the divine Scriptures teach in the apostolic and prophetic utterances. For the blessed Paul also exclaimed and said: "I charge you in the sight of God, who gives life to all things, and of Jesus Christ, who bore witness before Pontius Pilate, the good confession." And God commands Ezekiel to distinguish between those who are in the people. And He sets forth a threat, saying: "If you do not distinguish, I will seek the blood of those who perish from your hand." Fearing this judgment, we believe it to be necessary from this point to inform your empire that those who are unmixed with them, teaching the things of Apollinarius and Arius and Eunomius in the Churches, bear the priesthood illicitly and irregularly, and do not save the souls of those who enter, if indeed they are content to listen to them. By the divine grace, however, which governs all men by sparing them, and rules mercifully, and desires all to be saved, the greatest part of the people is sound and fights for the right dogmas. It is for them especially that we grieve and are pricked in spirit, fearing lest the creeping weakness gradually gain more and the evil become common. These things we inform your tranquility of once again,

[index: entries preserved]

and we never cease to teach. We pray that you may consent out of your imperial authority to our petitions, and permit nothing to be surreptitiously introduced into the faith of the holy Fathers, who gathered at Nicaea. But if, even after this entreaty and warning of ours before God, your piety does not agree, we, shaking off the dust from our feet together with the blessed Paul, will cry out: We are pure from the blood of all. For we have not rested day or night, since we came to this blessed synod, from testifying to the emperor, the judges, the soldiers, the priests, and the laity, that they should not become traitors to the faith delivered by the Fathers.

CHAPTER XXXVI 124. Part of one sermon 17, in which they say Theodoret, bishop of the Church of Cyrrhus, was used in Chalcedon.

Christ preside over our discourse, through whom both the discourses themselves and we, as ministers of His divine words, exist. Christ, who is set [m] for the fall and rising of many, and for a sign that is spoken against, formerly indeed by the carnal Israel, but now even by the spiritual; Christ, who to the unbelieving is indeed a stone of offense and a rock of scandal [n], but does not put to shame those who believe in Him; that Christ, the stone which the builders rejected, and which has become the head of the corner; Christ, the foundation of the Church; Christ, that stone which was cut out without hands, and became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth according to the prophecy of Daniel [o]; Christ, for whom and with whom and because of whom we are fought against, and because of whom we are banned from the imperial city; but we are not deprived of the kingdom of heaven. For we have a city, Jerusalem, whose artificer and builder is God, according to the voice of the apostle Paul [p]. Christ, on whose account you presume to sail the Propontis waves, that you might hear our voice, thinking it to be the image of the voice of your pastor. For you desire to hear the delightful melody of your pastor, that pastor whom his fellow-pastors have destroyed by reeds 18, as they think, with subscriptions, to whom God cries out through the prophet: Many pastors have corrupted my vineyard, have polluted my portion; they have set my desirable portion as a pathless desert [q]. Let Him speak of them through another prophet as well: According to their multitude they have sinned against me. Go to the island of Cethim, and see [r].

^A and [will turn] their glory into shame. Let Him speak again through another prophet: Woe, you rebellious children; you have taken counsel, but not of me; and formed conspiracies, but not by my Spirit; that you may add sin to sin. Be converted, you who have entered into deep and iniquitous counsel [s]. Let Isaiah say to them: For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with sins. Your tongue has spoken iniquity, and your mouth premeditates wickedness. No one speaks what is just, because they conceive grief and bring forth iniquity. They have broken the eggs of asps, and weave the spider's web [t]. See the accusation of malice, and the conviction of the weakness of iniquity—the eggs of asps and the spider's web. This is indeed the birth of malice, but that is the conviction of weakness. He adds therefore, saying: And he who is about to eat of their eggs, finding them crushed, finds a monster [u]. You have seen languid 19 malice; you have seen him who is assailed, crowned. For he who is about to eat of their eggs, he says, finding them crushed, finds a monster 20. But what is this monster 21, if not because it cannot beget? As if he were saying: Malice cannot attain to perfection. Preach therefore to us also the hope of malice. For He speaks what is a wonder, saying thus: And in it a basilisk. This is a wonder, because there is both a basilisk in it, and a monster. But the basilisk signifies malice. For because this beast is the most bitter of all reptiles, He compared it to the birth of malice. But He called it a monster, again, on account of the weakness of malice. There follows at last this sentence: Their web shall not be from the works of their hands [v]. Why this? Because their works are of iniquity. Declare also the species of iniquity: Their feet run to evil [x]. To do what? And they are swift to shed blood. What then to these things? Destruction and unhappiness in their ways. For their paths, through which they walk, are perverse, and they know not the way of peace. Truly these things are worthy of lamentations, that priests should speak such things against priests. But these things we say, not so much accusing them as caring for you. And after some things: In truth heaven has shuddered at this, and the earth has been disturbed with greater fear, says the Lord. For my people have done two evils. Me they have forsaken, the fountain of living water, and have dug for themselves broken cisterns, which cannot contain water [y]. The Lord speaks to them through the prophet Jeremiah: Go to the island of Cethim, and see [z]. Do you not wish to?

^A And search thoroughly, to see if such things have been done. What things? Whether nations will change their gods. Which ones? Those which are certainly not gods. And why do you say these things? For my people have changed their glory, and it will profit them nothing. These things are also suitable to be said of these [heretics]. For the children of the Gentiles, honoring wood and stones, call these immortal. But you, who forbid them to adore these things, and admonish them to worship the only true God, who has weighed the mountains in a balance and the hills in a scale [a], who holds the water in his hand and the heavens in his palm, and governs all the earth, who has established the heavens as a canopy, and who holds the circle of the world and all those who dwell therein like locusts [b], who by his word made all these things, and in one moment of time presented those things which previously did not exist as if they were to be, and who gave to those things that were not, that they might be, according to his own will—do you now, as if 675 you have forgotten all these things, subject him to passions, and promulgate as a law that the Lord be adored as one subject to passion? Indeed, as it has been said, the children of the pagans, languishing in their excess of desire, call the heavens impassible, and call the sun impassible, and bring forward laws as if the stars were immortal, and deify the earth which they trample underfoot. But do we, who believe the Invisible, Uncreated, Incomprehensible, and ^C Unsearchable One to be subject to passion? Far be it! Our Savior and benefactor, may we never so abandon your adoration, may we never so be ignorant of your nature, may we never be so ungrateful for your gifts, nor suspect that our Liberator—who led us from passions to the Impassible, and who bestowed impassibility upon those subject to passion—is himself subject to passion. This prayer we offer to God, both for us and for you; to whom be glory forever. Amen. But Irenæus placed this under the name of the blessed Theodoret, who, while he was a Nestorian—so that he might be sent into exile for him—knowing that the doctrine of Theodoret shone brightly in the Church of God, wished, on account of the things which were done afterwards, to designate it as diverse.

CHAPTER XXXVII [125]

CHAPTER XXXVIII [126]

^A Theodotus, and those with them, in the iniquities which were done in Ephesus, and those which were done in Chalcedon, and in the seditions which were in Constantinople, and the subversion of pious dogmas. Now again they attempt to disturb all places with illicit acts. For now, too, taking as a co-operator that man whom they brought forward in Constantinople, they have directed letters against us to Ancyra, weaker than spiderwebs and emptier than shadows, yet declaring much of their wickedness. For while they were previously excommunicated by us because they subscribed to the chapters of Cyril, and presumed to bolster their impiety, and while they have trampled upon the boundary of excommunication and minister to the condemned—and according to the canons of the holy Fathers they themselves have been deposed by this—they have sent suspensions ^B and segregations against us; doing something similar, as if someone bound, and still tied by those very bonds, were to try to bind the one who bound him. But your magnificence is aware that even when we were staying at Chalcedon, we repeatedly said to the most pious prince and to your magnitude that whoever has been ordained by those condemned and excommunicated, such an ordination is illicit and unjust. For how will the grace of the Spirit come to those praying, to whom priestly prayer is forbidden? We have taught your magnificence this before, and we make it known in the present, that we recognize neither these as bishops, nor that one who was made by them. For they, by the transgression of the rule, have been made a penalty under the rule; but he received nothing from them, because they had nothing which they could impart to him, having previously deprived themselves. If your power approves of these things, we request that they be read also to our most pious and Christ-loving emperor, and to the most magnificent and most glorious prefect, and to the whole Christ-loving consistory, or senate: that all may know that we have up to the present made ourselves subject to no crime, and have done all things orderly and consistently, according to what is pleasing to the canons.

CHAPTER XXXIX [127]

Letter of John, patriarch of Antioch, and of all the bishops who assembled together in the same city, to the emperor Theodosius, after the contests which these bishops had had in Ephesus and Chalcedon.

Knowing that your empire is adorned by piety, and that you favor the evangelical and apostolic dogmas, we proclaim to your serenity—knowing that you will be gladdened by this above all—that through divine grace, which does not allow the orthodox faith ^D to evaporate in any way, nor permits it to flow away, but always leaves a spark, and through this rekindles what has been extinguished, all the bishops, clergy, and peoples of the Oriental diocese may be saved by the correct dogmas, and may persevere in the faith which was set forth by the blessed Fathers gathered at Nicaea. And they choose rather to be deprived of all the members of their body than to betray even one syllable of that correct confession. Because of this, we all execrate the chapters of Cyril, as being very contrary to the doctrine of the holy apostles, and to the preaching of the holy Gospels, and to the exposition of the faith which was made at Nicaea. And we beseech your God-beloved highness to permit that impious dogma to be preached in none of the churches that are under heaven; but to command that it be banished from the whole world as a crime and a blasphemy. For it behooves you, because you have received the empire from the Lord Christ himself, to preserve for Him the tradition of dogmas pure, freed from every addition of heresy. For thus your piety will enjoy the present empire and the future, which is free from cares and does not receive an end, but holds that which cannot grow old, an immortal joy. Joined: John, bishop of Antioch. I pray that your piety may remain safe and survive for cycles of many years for the Churches of Christ, and for the Roman principate, O most God-beloved, and best worshippers of God, and most pious emperors. Likewise, all the bishops assembled together subscribed.

CHAPTER XL [128]

Letter of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, which he wrote to the people of Constantinople, through which it is shown that not only before and after, but also when he returned from Ephesus to Chalcedon, and from Chalcedon to his own Church, he always preached the Catholic faith, although he refused to condemn Nestorius, not believing those to be his dogmas which even Nestorius himself denied, and which he believed had been proven in Ephesus from the notebooks under his name, by no witness.

Some such thing do the mothers of birds suffer and do, as often as they see their nests being plundered (for they are anxious, and they screech and chatter, and they urge the still tender chicks to take flight, that they may flee the hands of those who catch them): such a thing I suffer and do at the same time, hearing your lamentations from your letters, and as if beholding you screeching and trembling with the eyes of the mind. For having inspected the letters themselves, I straightway poured out all the humors of tears, and as the Prophet says: "My eyes have sent forth the outgoings of water" (Ps. CXVIII, 136). And silent at once and groaning—

I remained for a time, pondering this unforeseen evil, and the division of the body of the Church, and a battle more wretched than any civil war.

We are not merely from one tribe, but from one womb: glorying in having the same Father of all, God, and the same mother, the most holy font. We are indeed not only of one womb, but also of one marriage bed; of one table, and of one sustenance. And although we are many and diverse members, we nevertheless form one body, according to the apostolic teaching which says: "You are the body of Christ, and members of a member" (I Cor. XII, 27). If neither the kinship of nature, nor the communion of parts, nor the fact that we enjoy the mystical table, nor that we are hands, feet, and eyes to one another, and because we fill up one universal body, is sufficient to preserve the bond of concord—then, with all the laws of peace despised, we tear apart our own members as if they were not our own, and we have become an 679 extremely easy prey for our adversaries, and an occasion for insult and mockery, because we abuse one another as if we were enemies; and falling into a wedge, we turn our own parts against one another.

Hence, the children of the Gentiles laugh: the Jews also laugh. The crowds of heretics exult, and all the adversaries of the truth rejoice, and insult our evils, looking upon us as divided, and they count our battle as their own peace. But as for those who have become the cause of these things, this does not even make them wake up and return to themselves, so that they might root out the weeds that have been evilly sown, having despised the saving seeds of the apostles, which the grace of the Holy Spirit has provided through all things. These things, therefore, as soon as I read the letter, perceiving them with my mind, I sighed, I lamented, and in tears, I then weighed the reasons which grief brought forth. For when such things enter into the soul: not only the error of those who deceive, but also the injury of those who are deceived.

But when I recognized the state of the Church from the beginning until now, and how it is always attacked, yet in attacking ^B it prevails and prospers; while strength is perfected and proved in weakness by the Lord, according to the voice of the Lord himself, I was somewhat refreshed, and the excess of my grief was dissolved. For, recalling also the doctrines of the holy Gospels, I found that the Savior and our Lord had promised his holy disciples nothing sweet, nor anything worthy of festivity in this earthly life; but he predicted that he would bring forth labors and sweat by his law, and injurious quarrels, and stripes, and scourges. "Behold," he says, "I send you as sheep into the midst of wolves; and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake; and in their synagogues they will scourge you; and you shall be hated by all for my name's sake" (Matt. X, 16, 18, 22). And after these things, teaching the insurrections against one another, he says: "But brother will deliver brother unto death, and the father his children; and children will rise up against parents, and put them to death" (ibid., 21, 22). But the final extremity ^A which that sentence contains also holds a fruit: "He that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved" (ibid., 22).

We learn, therefore, from these things to seek nothing relaxed, and full of joy, in the present life; but to endure manfully the preservation of the goods that are hoped for; and to bear courageously whatever sad things may happen on account of the truth. For perseverance of this kind will provide us with future goods. For the blessed Paul says: "Because tribulation worketh patience; and patience trial; and trial hope; and hope confoundeth not" (Rom. V, 3-5). The release from confession is now the beginning of a festival: but to those who endure those things, sadness cannot be mixed; and now experiences rely upon realities. The expectations of fruits lighten the weight of labor. Whence also the fellowship of the holy apostles: I mean, Peter and John, when they had performed miracles and were scourged 680, "they went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus" (Act. V, 41). And Paul, the champion of piety, exclaims: "I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ" (II Cor. XII, 10). Explaining the reason, he says: "For when I am weak, then am I powerful" (ibid., 10); and he does not say: I endure infirmities and injuries, and the rest; but, "I please myself," he says. That is, I take them up rejoicing; I am scourged with a willing mind; I rejoice in tortures; festivity is mixed with sorrows.

And that, indeed, nature imposes upon the senses, but this the will brings about. And soon he adds, saying thus: "If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things that concern my infirmity" (ibid., 11). And elsewhere: "And not only so, but we glory also in tribulations" (Rom. V, 3). He does not, however, say, We persevere, or We tolerate, or We bear tribulations patiently; but he says, We glory in tribulations: declaring his will amid tribulations, and making known the confidence of his soul concerning the hope of things to come. For because at the beginning of the contests there is a height of pains, and seeing the multitude of evils surrounding him, and praying that he might be rescued from three contests, he heard the Judge saying: "My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity" (II Cor. XII, 9). He rejoiced afterwards when scourged, he exulted when he was tortured, stretched out as if he were in a choir, he rejoiced. When he was torn with stripes, he sang hymns, he gave thanks in chains, and he made churches out of prisons; he turned nights into days with psalmodies. He was angry against those whom he heard weeping because of the future temptations for him, and he said: "What do you mean, weeping and afflicting my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but to die for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Act. XXI, 13).

This entire chorus of the apostles remained doing this: these are they who were athletes of truth after them. These are also many, who for the sake of pious religion condemn and accomplish: for his grace has not entirely deserted us, who sees all things from above. But the Lord has left us a seed, that we might not be made like unto Sodom and Gomorrah...

And ^A it is also possible, through the mercy of the Savior, to see golden grains in a cluster, which are named the blessing of the Lord according to the prophetic image; and it is possible to see ears—not two or three, but many thousands—rooted in the solid valley. Olives, too, not merely four or five, but many more in number are to be seen, planted upon the summit of the high mountain, which cannot be taken away by thieving enemies. For He has tropically decreed this concerning those whom piety nourishes, who have not in the least lost the divine deposit, but have kept it untainted and undefiled.

The Lord knows who are His, and He is present as the one who pre-confirms; and by His excitation ^B He smoothens and cries out: "I will not leave you, neither will I forsake you," and while you are yet speaking, I will say: "Behold, I am here." "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." And: "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." And: "My grace is sufficient for you: for my power is made perfect in weakness." Because of this, since they received many thousands of arrows from every side in the struggle and neither fled nor fell, but stood bravely and possessed an immovable virtue, He says this concerning the aforementioned power of His kingdom: for, weighing the arrows, they fought against us, and stones and spears. They do not cast down our soldiers. Having heard this word, therefore, it is not fitting to hesitate against the rising troubles, but to stand bravely, to guard the paternal inheritance from thieves, and to guard the supernal nudge. For He who is to come will come and will not tarry, and He will crown His own athletes. We believe, indeed, that He will also quickly unite your flock which is divided, and He will feed us continually. Yet He allows it to happen as in the beginning, when it was not ours. And those who have erred, He will convert, and the languishing He will save, and He keeps them safe in all things.

^C But to those who persist in saying that the divine nature is changeable and mutable, [we say this:] for that which is turned and changed is no longer un-turnable, nor immutable. How then does the Lord cry out through the prophet: "I am, I am, and I do not change"? If, therefore, God calls Himself immutable, and the blessed Fathers, obeying this voice, anathematize those who presume to call Him turnable and mutable, who would so despise his own salvation as to argue adversities against God, and to rebel openly against those who have been subtly instructed in divine things?

It is necessary, therefore, to believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Father, indeed, who is not from any other, nor has a cause of existence from any; the Son, however, begotten from the Father and co-eternal, yet not he who begot him, nor existing prior to him. And let this word not seem to anyone to lack all persuasiveness. For just as the Son is indeed begotten of the Father, even as the Word is the splendor of the glory co-eternal to the Father. And even as the Son is of the Father, as the Word is in the Father, and as the splendor is with the Father; as though truly existing together with the Father. We believe the same thing concerning the Holy Spirit, whom the Lord taught us to proceed from the Father. And the Apostle declares, saying: "But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God." We believe, therefore, that the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, one dominion, one kingdom and power, and one counsel to be acknowledged in three properties or subsistences. But let us leave the "less" and the "greater" to those who presume to weigh infinite things as if with a tongue. We, however, offer one adoration to the Trinity. For we are commanded to honor the Son as we adore the Father. And in all things we have been taught to communicate the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. Let this much be said for now concerning the discourse on the divine nature. For I have made these remarks as one teaching, not as one disputing; and we offer this doctrine to brothers, not to enemies.

Be of good cheer, therefore, you who are the peculiar nurture of the pious religion. And work out your own salvation, provoking one another unto the virtues of the soul, and bringing back to memory the divine laws, and entreating the Lord that He may dissolve this murky and thick cloud, and show to all the light of truth, and teach everyone that the nature of the Trinity is impassible and immutable, according to the doctrine of the holy Fathers who met at Nicaea, saying: "For the holy catholic Church anathematizes those who say: 'There was a time when he was not,' and 'Before he was begotten he was not'; or that he was created from things which were not, or from any other substance, saying that the Son of God is turnable or mutable." Therefore, those who attribute to the divine nature passions, call it turnable and mutable: for that changes and is turned which is disposed now in one way and now in another. But those who say it is turnable and mutable are under the curse of the holy Fathers. For if that which is impassible ^D sustained [this]: but that which is turned and changed is no longer impassible, nor immutable.

Concerning the dispensation, however, it is fitting to believe that the only-begotten Son of God, God the Word, who is before the ages, was incarnate for our salvation, and became man, and dwelt among us, and became flesh not by a change of divinity, but by the assumption of humanity. For existing in the form of God, He received the form of a servant. And He was seen on earth through the human nature, and He conversed with men. Because of which He also called the assumed nature a temple: showing the difference between Him who assumed and that which was assumed. And because this is indeed God, but that is the temple; yet both are one Christ, one Lord, one only-begotten Son, and the same first-born. For the blessed Paul taught us this as well: "One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." And in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same, and forever." And elsewhere:

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism." And those who are gathered in Nicaea, they say: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Following them, we confess ^A one Christ and Lord, the Son of God; yet in this one, we acknowledge two natures. And we know one and the same to be recent and eternal—recent from Abraham according to humanity, eternal according to divinity—passible regarding that which is visible, impassible regarding the invisible nature; from God, because He is God; from Abraham, because He is man. Thus confessing the Son, we acknowledge what is proper to each nature.

We have written these things to you, as it were, in summary, concerning the dogmas of piety. We have directed to you also those things which were written by us to the most holy monks, containing a work more broadly on divine dogmas and a clear knowledge of the councils. Moreover, I have directed to you, to the love-loving, God-loving congregation, my love, and also those things which were said by us to the God-loving bishops who desired to learn what might be the cause of those things which are being moved. For they asked of us that I set this forth for them, manifest and clear. But if I am able to have leisure, I will also direct to you the things which were written by me long ago concerning the holy Trinity and the divine dispensation: not in order to cause you satiety regarding divine things, but to kindle your desire and to perfect it more ardently. For God is able to fill you with all wisdom through the Spirit; and to supply what is lacking from the interpretations of teachers, so that even He Himself may say of you: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them," and you may answer Him: "The Lord rules me, and I shall want for nothing." ^B

CHAPTER XLI

To my most holy lord and God-loving brother and fellow minister, Alexander, Acacius. As I long ago announced to your devoutness, there arrived here my lord, the most holy John, bishop, with the most God-loving bishops: Alexander of Apamea, Archelaus, Theodoret, Thalassius, Eustathius, Maris, and Maras. And they reported what was said and done before they were summoned by our most religious and God-loving emperor. These things are such that speech is unable to encompass them. For they surpass every tongue to speak of the things which were said through the devil's contrivance. However, a discussion having been held before our most pious and God-loving emperor between both parties, while the most pious emperor thought and spoke everything with the Orientals, much money, which Cyril gave, overwhelmed the truth for our sins. For after Scholasticus the eunuch died, the most pious emperor, searching his affairs and the infinite gold which he had left behind, found a *Hypomnesticum* containing that he had received many pounds of gold from Cyril. And indeed, the gold was being handed over by a certain Paul, the son of the brother of Cyril of Alexandria, who was there as a count of the consistorianus: besides other gifts which were offered in various forms to diverse persons. The deposition of Cyril and Memnon had indeed been confirmed. And it had been agreed that it should also be proclaimed. And thus finding time, while he was being guarded in Ephesus, he used flight. But Maximianus, who was ordained bishop in Constantinople, did not permit the Orientals to enter Constantinople. However, his religiousness recognized, just as it was necessary to recognize. For seeing a great crowd of monks, the most pious emperor took leave of the bishops, satisfying them. Therefore, those who pertain to the Church are in excessive distress, and toward salvation they are in need of God's omnipotence and remedy. But how those who came to us from you were consoled with the multitude that came likewise, and how the aforementioned most religious bishops consoled us, the most reverend deacon Panicius will teach. I have saluted the entire brotherhood which is with you in Christ.

CHAPTER XLII

having, I thank Him for one thing above all, because He made your soul manifest to us, which is full of virtues. For just as the touchstone shows the struggles of athletes, the race of horses, the chariots of drivers, and gold, determining whether it is proven or adulterated, so too that city, and that violent storm, and the thick and frequent waves, and the diverse and contrary blasts, have shown your stability, strength, and firmness on behalf of the parts of justice, and have made us fervent lovers of your magnitude. On account of this, I am compelled to give thanks to Ephesus, in which we endured that worst shipwreck: in which the members of the Church were armed in sedition against one another, and one body was sliced, and those evils were perpetrated which are worthy of silence: which your magnitude knows better than we. Whence, writing also concerning the most holy and God-beloved bishop and our fellow-minister Theophanius, I do not need long words. For your magnificence knows him clearly, and knows the injustice which has been presumed against him. Because, therefore, you both oppose and hate those who have committed such things, stretch out your tongue instead of your hand; and persuade those who have the power of this opinion to finally extinguish the flame which has been evilly kindled, and to restore the churches that have been evilly driven out, and to stop the laughter which is against us from the adversaries of piety. ^A

CHAPTER XLIII [131].

Those who labor for the right faith have written to me from Edessa that Rabbulas has most openly turned away from the dogmas of truth, and is persecuting the defenders of the right faith: ^B so that he has presumed to anathematize in the church the blessed teacher of right glorification, Theodore, and has spread many evils against him; but he has also anathematized those who read the things which are his; and furthermore, those who have carried to combustion the codex of Theodore: and those who think anything beyond those things which are of Cyril. It is said, moreover, that he preaches that there is only one nature of Christ; and that he forcefully expels those who say anything else. It is superfluous, therefore, as it appears, that we should feign masters, who by our silence are made traitors to the truth. And the festival, indeed, which stands at the doors, prevents us from meeting now. I truly ask that your probity indicate to me what ought to be said or done concerning these things, and before it happens that we meet. But friends who are enduring persecution ask us whether it is necessary for a schism to be made now, and for confidence to be shown: ^C because they have not yet made a decision concerning that matter. To me, however, it seems reasonable that we should clearly fight against him who acts impiously with confidence and has abjured all the Orientals. But if there were some who were strong, that other thing ought to have been done. And to me, indeed, it seems that if he, receiving letters in Constantinople, which he has endured until now, had broken out; and had most clearly brought forth the impiety which he had long ago conceived. But it is not safe for us, as I think, to be silent any further concerning such matters.

CHAPTER XLIV [132].

We have learned subtly and integrally from many men worthy of faith, that the most honorable Rabbulas is both perturbing Edessa and all those who inhabit the neighboring provinces, perpetrating things greatly contrary to the apostolic faith; ^D and he turns to flight those who have chosen to think correctly, and is contriving many things against the orthodox faith. Whence we are compelled, learning these things from many, to send a letter to your religiosity, that, if these things which are being defamed here by many are true, you should keep yourselves immune from his communion, until we summon him to us, and, integrally discussing those things which pertain to him, we either pardon him if he offers satisfaction, or, if he is convicted, we subject him to satisfactions.

[index: entries preserved]

^A Your ship of pious priests is now tossed by such a storm that some of your catechumens have departed this life; others, however, desiring the final judgment of communion in this life, could not obtain it, even at the very end of their life, because they resisted communing with the impious; but thus they migrated to the Lord. Nevertheless, remembering the nobility of our faith, which we learned from former times, we have turned to thanksgiving, having cast aside every tribulation. For that just Judge, since He is also merciful and knows our purpose in all things, is content with the will alone, and often measures the riches of His mercy and the fountain of His own generosity by our intention. ^B However, we did not receive your charity's letter by ourselves alone; but we also read it to the peoples who are friends of Christ, together with the letters of the Eastern bishops, friends of God, in the presence of the Church. We all joined in common prayer for your stability and confidence, which is in accordance with God, with contrition of heart and tears, before the Lord Christ, praying as we did for the highest governance of the Church in this most great tempest.

But when these things had been thus done by us, the wicked demon, stung by these things which were being done by all with equal and sincere affection, prepared ^C for a certain Saturninus to arrive at our city with the most magnificent and most religious Master of Soldiers, Plintha, a man who defamed himself as having been ordained bishop of our metropolis by apostates and prevaricators, who also strove to take hold of it by violence through the patronage of the aforementioned man. But the people of our city, armed with the power of the Spirit, became imitators of your fortitude in Christ. For, putting everything else aside for the present, and arming themselves within the enclosures of the holy church with psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles, they showed that all the machinations of the adversaries, and the arts of Saturninus, and the conspiracies of those who even patronized them, were but a spider’s web. They prepared themselves to depart from the present life before receiving a wicked and impious pseudo-bishop: especially knowing that he prodigiously proclaims one nature of our Lord and Savior, ^D while denying the other.

For if, as he thinks, there is one nature, it is necessary for it to be either mortal or immortal. And if it is mortal, this pertains to their impious faction, therefore

the Word of God is passible and mortal. But if they say that this is impassible, then clearly by them the glory of Christians is convicted, and the gift of saving baptism is overturned. For to what end will that now pertain, which the Apostle says? Whoever of us have been baptized into Christ, we have been baptized into his death. For we were buried together with him by baptism into death ª. But where then is also that which is written? For as we have been made planted together in the likeness of his death, so also we shall be of his resurrection b. ^B For these reasons, therefore, moved by a similar zeal of your reverence, the people of our Church have hastened not to abandon your footsteps. From which also the grace of the merciful God, shining upon us, has prepared this, that he might dissolve every attempt of our enemies like smoke. Saturninus, however, departed just as he had come. These things being thus done, and while the aforementioned venerable presbyter Martin was traveling to the royal city for this purpose, we judged it just to make these very things known to you through our humble letters, as to those beloved by us, and to ask your Christ-loving devotion that, rekindling through pious zeal toward God a pious desire for your Father, our 53 fellow-bishop, you might keep a memory of him without oblivion—you who, through the things which he has taught and teaches even until now, while they are read, are always helped. ^C Remain, however, in the sound confession of the Fathers who were gathered at Nicaea, without any simulation shouting: We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages: consubstantial to us indeed, as from the seed of Abraham and David according to the nature of humanity. For we never cease to say two natures in the Son, even if it does not look so to the heirs of the impious culture of Apollinaris 36, who is worthy to be burned. Yet we confess him to be the Creator and maker of all things according to the principle of divinity; [born] of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, according to the fruit of humanity; impassible and immortal according to divinity 58. Meditate on these things incessantly, in these remain, so that your progress may be manifest 690 in all things. But we ask you, O flock of Christ, friend of God, that through your works and prayers you may supplicate the Lord Christ, that he may as soon as possible rebuke this storm of the whole world, and grant us profound peace for the churches.

CHAPTER XLVII [135].

Another commendatory letter of Theodoret to the people of Constantinople.

How much the error of those who have abandoned the straight way makes us anxious, just so much does the fervent zeal of your God-belovedness for the evangelical faith gladden us. For we find even the blessed Paul, though grieving excessively at the insanity of his enemies, yet reanimated by the unity of the faithful. Whence also, writing to Timothy, he revealed the sadness which he had concerning them, and the refreshment which he had concerning these, saying: You know that all who are in Asia, of whom is Philetus and Hermogenes, have turned away from me [c]. And showing the consolation divinely granted to him through that anguish, he shortly added also these words: May the Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chain. And when he came to Rome, he sought me out more diligently, and found me. May the Lord grant him to find mercy from God [d]. ^D Therefore we also have the greatest consolation in the devotion of your God-belovedness. And the firmness of your faith dissolves our sadness, which the winter that has gripped the churches generates. Whence also, writing frequently, we hasten to receive your holy reading. And we signify that we night and day undertake labor for piety, and hope that we shall not lose until death the doctrine handed down to us by the holy apostles. These letters are also attested to by my most holy and God-beloved fellow-bishops, John, and Peter, and Eliseus, and Alphius, and Jephthahe, who (rather) chose to be expelled from the churches committed to them, and to endure many thousands of kinds of mourning, than to lose the apostolic inheritance. Confident, therefore, that we shall not endure to see even one syllable of the doctrine which we have received be corrupted, stand in the faith, act manfully, and be strengthened. Let all your things be done in charity [e]: and the God of peace shall be with you.

CHAPTER XLVIII [136].

Letter of John, bishop of Antioch, to Helladius 60 bishop of Tarsus, when, the synodical letter of Maximianus having been brought to him, he refused to receive his name in the diptychs 61.

691 I rejoice with your religiosity, which has fought so clearly: for when the impious were walking in a circle, your Church shone forth. For they were not carrying the branch of peace of the olive, who had come, but they were insatiably seeking blood and death. Whence, defending

in every quarter of the earth, and you shall be proclaimed, and a splendor you shall have to God, and to the holy priest, and for the city, which all the ages will not take away from you. For such are the strong souls of the pious, that they more easily lay aside all things, than the possession of the pious faith. Around which, whoever shall have been damaged, it profits them nothing, even if they gain the whole world, according to the voice of the Lord. But those who have gained this are indeed heirs of eternal life, obtaining a possession, to which nothing of those things which are present is worthy, except only the future, and what is prepared for the pious, for those who have confidence in pious religion for a short time; but into that which is without old age and end, they will be changed. ^A

CHAPTER XLIX [137]

A certain rumor of a novel deed against your Church, having been signified, has also been announced to us. Whether it is a rumor, or a fact which has come to your knowledge, which had well and greatly begun to fight bravely for the contests of Christ, and to consider the spark itself of a deed, which has been announced against you, a novelty: for the right hand of God knows how to dissolve such things. But it also knows how to show that an excellent spirit is worthy of mockery. Whence I ask your blessedness in Christ, that neither in body nor in soul, beyond those things which were formerly known to us, you should either think or take counsel. For God wills that from no affair, which among men is either sad or pleasant, we should make an occasion for the loss of faith. For if the causes of dissension which are ventilated were about sees or presidents, and not about pious and impious dogmas, perhaps a slackening of the spirit might have some pardon. But if it is a time of confession, I ask that we prefer faith, which alone we prefer to all things, in which we have the hope of salvation, for which those who were before us both despised life and death, neither hesitating to endure anything, nor to act. Let not anyone appear among you who betrays the common [faith] to the damnation of his own soul. Rather, let there not appear in your Church anyone who is not a defender of piety, and who thinks that sluggishness is a good thing: for it befits a friend of God, so that everyone who persists among you, each in his rank and age, may show fortitude for the piety of religion ^B to God, and to the holy priest, and for the city, which all the ages will not take away from you. For such are the strong souls of the pious, that they more easily lay aside all things than the possession of the pious faith. For whatsoever things are said to be, even if I know them to be vain fame, I have brought forward also the great Paul: him, whom no 692 danger separated from the love of Christ.

CHAPTER L [138]

The most admirable tribune Aristolaus is already at the doors, who called me to Constantinople. ^B But if it should be in our power to go or not, there is need of a fitting response, and one which descends from common deliberation. But if we have sustained anything violent, or if it happens that we say farewell to one another, although our body is so fragile, that if Cyril were to abuse me with a thousand necessities, it is not possible to take the roads. For it has been written to me by some friends and my own kin, that an ambush for my killing has been set even on the road, if I should allow myself to undertake the journey. And recognizing these things, I ask that after the assembly, which is accustomed to be held at this time at Cyrus, together with my lord, the most God-beloved bishop Theodoret, and those whomsoever you shall find, you may deign to arrive without delay. For those things which pertain to the faith, if they start to be treated with loathing, will arrive at extremes, while I do not know ^C what I shall answer. But the propositions which are now brought forward are openly impious. For the chapters of Cyril indeed have an obscured incongruity; but now those who have obtained power, the enemies of God, propose that those who say there are two natures be anathematized: which not even he who stands first among them, Cyril, dared to state clearly. But I wish that, while you come, you would come as if under the occasion of the honor of my most magnificent and most glorious master of soldiers. For he himself also has a command that he should press us violently about these very unbearable propositions. These things, however, we have written through 693 the most reverend presbyter Elias. We send many greetings to all the brotherhood that is with you.

CHAPTER LI [139]

orthodoxy might remain, and moreover might be increased. For even before this, by your labor and zeal, the divine members of the Catholic and true faith have been well joined. And now, since the wickedness of a certain devil, and his teaching which is neither simple nor regular, has scattered the seeds of division among those who are united, and has spread one and the same thing among those who are wise, I exhort you to receive that virtue which is known to all, so that you may hasten to gather together, by prayers to God at the same time and by counsels concerning the priests, what has been divided, and to join what is now in the struggle neither justly nor holily. Indeed, it will be easy, as we judge, for your holiness, if you shall have exhorted the most reverend John, Bishop of Antioch, not to contend, nor to persist in human will or error; but rather have insisted that he depart from his inventions and the novelty of ^B doctrine. All people are struggling [against these]: for it is fitting that in this old age and in this struggle your religiousness should follow through. Once you have brought this to completion, you shall be proclaimed also the victor over those things which you once stoutly performed. 67

CHAPTER LII [140]

Since we know that your entire life is turned toward God and that you live in such a way that you can have confidence and reconcile His favor toward us, it was necessary that we should come now to these letters of invitation, so that you might hasten to act in a matter which truly pertains to divine providence, especially at this time. We say indeed that peace, which had been well rooted, is to be established, and that you should prepare to remove the contention introduced by the machinations of a certain diabolical malignity. We know well, however, that this will happen, trusting in the prayers of your holiness and in your urgency and exhortations to those who will be able to found this and restore what is rent asunder. For if the most reverend John, Bishop of Antioch, wishes to subscribe to the deposition of 694 him who introduced the seeds of contention, and gives evidence that he does not consent to the doctrine itself, which is presumed with novelty and foolishness, the division of the members will again be followed by unity, with everyone concurring together. For if he does this, and consents to the most reverend Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria—to whom both those who are in the West, and those who are here, and those who are everywhere, agree—those things which once were held together by divine clemency will now also be joined. For that doctrine has generated this vexation and disturbance, which is superfluous and useless, but even more so, harmful; and we trust that, once cast off from our souls and put to flight far away, it will be able to let us rest through your prayers, as we trust in the help of God, and to restore us. For dissolution so perturbs us that we think it is the primary cause of those things which happen harshly; and we trust that all things contribute to our empire according to the judgment of divine clemency, if the members of the Church and those of the right faith shall have been joined and united. For this effect and for this best struggle, that you may overcome the temptations of the demons. For this also will be counted for you as the greatest war and the strongest victory. Once it is obtained, you will be the follower of your own vows, doing those things which you have professed. Be confident also concerning these things, having prayed that you may incessantly commend us and our empire, and all who are under our rule, to God by your accustomed intercessions; since to us especially, who show appropriate care for His peace, great good things are granted by the virtue of His own cult.

CHAPTER LIII [141]

We remain in the faith of the holy Fathers, who gathered in Nicaea, which contains the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, and stands in need of no addition. Moreover, the most holy and blessed Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and confessor, in his epistle to the most blessed and, to God, most dear Epictetus the bishop, made its understanding manifest.

And it begins: “Relying on those things which have been set forth by the holy Fathers who gathered at Nicaea, and which contain an entire interpretation of the aforesaid faith, those dogmas which have been recently super-introduced—whether by epistles or by chapters—as being what is common, we test, finding them troublesome, content with the ancient legislation of the Fathers, and following Him who said: ‘Do not move the eternal boundaries which your fathers have set.’ ” ^A

CHAPTER LIV [142].

Knowing what care and solicitude your holiness has, we have deemed it necessary to signify that we have entered Antioch, having been summoned, and we have found, by divine grace, that the things which were rumored were not true, and that the superfluous verbosity of the enemies of the truth is like spiderwebs. Having, therefore, a council concerning these things which must be done, and perceiving that, while piety remains safe, it is necessary also to think of peace, we have directed certain propositions and have composed the ways of [resolving] matters, so that, if they should accept one of them, we may receive them into communion—not consenting to those things which have been done by them against the most holy Bishop Nestorius, but truly holding him as we have held him. But others, who have accepted our propositions, we shall receive into communion for the sake of the peace of the Church. We have sent the propositions themselves so that your religiosity may recognize that we have not neglected our dogmas, but have made competent provision. In order that we may also make this manifest to your religiosity, know, lord most dear to God, that we shall persist even unto death for the cause of piety, defending those who have been entrusted to us. Before the epistle was written, [it was our] pleasure that one of the six propositions—which is the most vigorous and which holds the collection of dogmas—should be proposed to them, along with the epistle of the most blessed and holy Athanasius, bishop of the city of the Alexandrians, which was written to the most holy Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, which we believe your religiosity also possesses; which the aforesaid most holy bishop wrote resisting the heresy of Apollinarius, [setting forth] the apostolic doctrine integrally and subtly. ^{B C}

CHAPTER LV [143].

Aristolaus has returned from Alexandria, not the tribune and notary most admirable in all things and most faithful, but the most noble magistrianus Maximus, who is with him. For he directed him to us, carrying both his own letters and those of the most holy Bishop Cyril. And the bishop who is in Rome wrote one epistle to me; but from Alexandria [there were] three or four, from which I have sent a rescript of one to your religiosity. If therefore it is possible, do not undergo the fatigue as far as our presence; but if, as you have written, you act with sore feet, inspect the letters of the bishop most dear to God, Cyril, and, recognizing with what acerbity he has acted in writing to us concerning the cause of the faith, acquiesce to those things which we shall write back along with the council of the bishops most dear to God and most holy, John and Paul, and the rest who have been found at Antioch. I have sent the rescript of the epistle itself with their letters, and to my lord, the bishop most dear to God, Theodoret, asking him to come to us. But if he is detained because the most magnificent master of the soldiers has arrived there, let him write to us that he consents to the things which we define and which we shall write back to Alexandria. But I ask that you spare our most profound old age; and give your hand to the one especially working on this, so that this reproach may be taken away from us, and the injury of an intolerable difference. For you know that in all things I am at one with you, and that in Ephesus indeed the bishop most dear to God, Paul, subscribed for me. But I, as you allege, have referred by letter to our pious emperor, [mentioning] the bishop most dear to God, Cyril, as a heretic, who also rebukes us in those things which he wrote to us at present, murmuring somewhat that I made mention of him as a heretic in those things which I reported by letter to the most serene emperor. I and those who are with me greet the entire brotherhood which is with you. ^D

CHAPTER LVI [144]

^A To my most beloved brother and fellow-minister Acacius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.

Your holiness has once again undertaken a care befitting yourself; for your intention, according to the good will of God, the Savior of us all, is that the Churches may be joined together, that a certain pusillanimity may be removed from the midst, that those who ought to be persuaded may be brought to agree, that everything that causes grief may be taken away, and that those things which have been rent asunder may be bound together by the bonds of charity. ^B But as it seems, some of those who are there, while appearing to be thought to join clearly in the intention of your perfection, either actually hide or strive to appear as if they were hiding. For they seek to do things which cannot be done. What else is this but to protest against the facts themselves, that they have no will to make peace? And I say this while re-reading the letter transmitted by your perfection, through which I learned that they demand that every composition and every epistle that was written before the synod should be rejected or abjured by us; and that we should consent to the symbol of the right faith, which was defined in time by the holy Fathers in the great Nicene synod.

I, indeed, since that holy symbol suffices for every good knowledge, and there is nothing at all to be said or agreed upon beyond it, will certainly consent to it, even if to some others I might seem to have ^C little understanding or voice to say such a thing. But I have wondered at this: for since Nestorius was belching out those retorted and most abominable words against Christ, the Savior of us all, and that before the Church, we have written what we wrote, contradicting him, of course, and setting forth the true faith against the polluted novelties of his expressions. And by the grace of God, all who attended to them, the greater number indeed wondered, and with right understanding honored what was said by us against him. But I know not why those who now ought to anathematize his polluted dogmas, and to make themselves strangers to his impiety, turning to all possible contrary zeal, seek to exterminate what was written against him. What reason, I ask, is there for this? For your holiness understands how great is the incongruity if we, because the things written for the right faith are ours, should abnegate them, or rather, accuse the pious faith itself. ^D Therefore if those things which were written against Nestorius do not rightly hold, or what were written against his perverse dogmas, then he was deposed without cause.

Why then do they not rather come to the metropolis of Ephesus, and with the synod bring forward one decree against him who preached such and such things so impiously? For if they had even slightly delayed, what hindered them from looking at the commentaries of the acts and satisfying themselves as to the things which had been lawfully done, and consenting, as I said, to the correct and irreprehensible decree of all? But on the contrary, neither thinking of the Lord, nor the cause for which they were gathered (for it was not a matter of some common cause, but of the faith, through which the Father and God saved the world), they showed all cruelty and all brotherly hatred against us: injuring such a holy and universal synod with excommunication, and that without judgment, as though dipping the sword of cruelty in their right hand against me, and against the most reverend bishop Memnon.

Let us suppose, indeed, that through human nature something escaped us that pertains to the correctness of dogmas, or that we were subject to some faults or sins regarding other matters; would it not have been better to be deemed worthy of the discourse of a conversation first? But when we surely all sustained Nestorius, while he was consuming the three-year period in blaspheming, and while your holiness and the entire council were with us, we took care to lead him away from them, or rather to transform him to those dogmas which look toward the correctness of truth. But when he persisted, and spoke much worse words against the glory of Christ, and in the very metropolis of the Ephesians, the holy synod finally removed him from the priesthood as one held by an incurable disease. But I wish, your holiness, to commemorate something useful which pertains to the present time. For when your holy synod was gathered in great Constantinople, at the time when John was accused, and then after there were many written commentaries upon things done concerning him, when it was about to...

be brought before him, and I being one of those standing by, I know that I heard your holiness saying to the holy synod ^A thus: "As if I knew that now, if we were to grant pardon to John, he would become better than himself, and would depart from the hardness and bitterness that is in him, I would have begged you all for him." Your holiness was therefore admirable again in this matter, in that you spoke the truth. What, therefore, ought the holy synod to have done, which found him impenitent and so persistent, resisting the true faith?

* Since it is truly said that one must consent to the Creed alone, or certainly to the exposition of faith of the three hundred and eighteen, and I say to these things that the intention of the holy and universal synod, which was gathered in the metropolis of Ephesus, was to confirm the Symbol, ^B so as that all might thus confess, and believe, and teach; with nothing added, and nothing detracted. For it is not permitted to add to it, nor to take away from it. For this reason indeed it decreed against Nestorius: as one who not only did not persuade it, but rather removed and obliterated it, and in no way followed it; but instead uttered into the ears of the people other things and dogmas alien to the Church.

The matter was acted upon, therefore, in Ephesus concerning this private commentary of the proceedings, the synod confirming the faith exposed by the three hundred and eighteen Fathers who were gathered in their time at Nicaea. And I directed this, so that your holiness might know it well. For the reading itself clearly shows that it stands correctly and irreprehensibly. We added, moreover, the testimonies of the holy and blessed Fathers, so that those approaching might know how they understood the symbol of faith, who also initiated us ourselves into the mysteries. Therefore, since this was done long ago by all, why do they not agree to it as well? For if what was pleasing to all is confirmed by all, peace will entirely prevail; so long as it is not contradicted by anyone at all. Therefore, even if ^C too many things, and very bad things, have been done against us by them, and every kind of adversity against humanity has been attempted, yet considering that it is pleasing to God and to the most pious and Christ-loving emperor, and that it is truly useful for the Churches, and regarding the admonitions of your holiness as worthy of all reverence, we consequently dismiss as brothers what they have committed against us.

For I do not say that the body of Christ is inanimate. I truly confess that it is animated by a rational soul. And I do not confirm that a confusion, or fermentation, or refusion has occurred, as some say; but I know that the Word of God subsists, according to nature, unchangeable and immutable, and insusceptible to all passion according to His own nature. For that which is divine is impassible, and does not at all suffer the obscuration of conversion. Rather, it rests in its own goods. It has this inconvertible nature, in which its existence consists. But I speak of one and the same Christ and Lord, the only-begotten Son of God, as having suffered for us in the flesh, according to the Scriptures, or according to the voice of blessed Peter.

The force of the Chapters, moreover, is written only against the dogmas of Nestorius. For they eject those things which he ^D spoke and wrote incorrectly. But those who anathematize and deny his insanity will cease to blame these things which have been written by us. They will see that the meaning of the chapters is contrary only to his blasphemies. Once communion is restored and peace is made between the Churches, when it is allowed to write back without suspicion, either to those who are there from us, or to us again from them, then we shall satisfy them most easily. Whatever of those things written by us is not correctly understood by some, these also will be clarified. For we shall satisfy them, God favoring, no longer as if they were opponents, but as brothers, that all things stand correctly. And of those things which we wrote, attacking the dogmas of Nestorius, there is absolutely nothing that dissonates either with the holy Scriptures, or certainly with the definition of faith which was exposed by the holy Fathers—I mean those who in their time were gathered at Nicaea.

Our intention, therefore, is toward peace, not to attack what has been defined. Thus, evidently, if they wish to consent to the deposition of Nestorius, and to anathematize his polluted dogmas, and to communicate, and to come to concord, with Christ helping toward the same, who is our peace according to the Scriptures. But to those who say that it is necessary to reject those things which we wrote against the polluted dogmas of Nestorius, no one will agree. For they very openly wish us to be speechless regarding his blasphemies, trafficking in the silence of everyone. Or perhaps they might think that we should be persuaded, so that we might also think those things which are his, if our—

^A own are denied, and act rightly and immaculately, standing against the novelties of his words.

If, however, certain of those who are there, according to what seems good to them, detract from others, turning the meaning of their words to things not befitting, let them know that, apart from all who are in the whole world, only these men suppose they are the wise ones. For all others have agreed with what has been done by us, and they consent both to those things which are rightly established and to those things which are stated, as they are certainly subtle investigators of divine dogmas. And furthermore, let your religiousness consider this: that it is necessary to arrange the peace of the bishops so dear to God in such a way that it does not displease any of those who are throughout the whole Roman empire. And let it be universal, lest a small division cause many greater ones; for they will by no means consent if something is done such that it does not appear to follow suit. And it is strictly necessary to consider this.

For as all ^B were pressing the issue at Ephesus, not acquiescing in communicating with those who are from the East, and proposing that it would not happen otherwise unless they accepted the deposition of Nestorius and anathematized his dogmas together with us, how, unless this happens, will things pertaining to communion stand? And who would not cry out against us, when we have destroyed our own souls, and have denied the right faith, and have cast away those things which, having been rightly spoken, pleased everyone, as if they were not rightly spoken? Is it not necessary that, once peace has been established, we send letters to those who, being above others everywhere, excel as most religious bishops, so that they too, having become of one mind, might render them communion? Furthermore, who is there to persuade them, if anything has been done contrary to what is pleasing to all, and in which all have insisted—that it was necessary for Nestorius to be held as deposed and for his most insane doctrine to be anathematized, or rather his verbosity against our common Savior Jesus Christ?

But as the most admirable lord tribune Aristolaus mitigated those who were excessively saddened and grieving intolerably because of those things 702 which were done against me by the Orientals, as much by the clergy of Alexandria as by all the most religious bishops of the Egyptian diocese, so that he rendered for me even the easiest path for making peace, and all came to such a will. And I confess that I am for the most part indebted to his admirability, because he is now cooperating with me in all things, and with competent arguments has abolished those things which were causing sadness. Greet the brotherhood that is with you. The brotherhood that is with us greets you in the Lord.

CHAPTER LVII.

Letter of Alexander of Hierapolis to Acacius, Bishop of Beroea.

I think that the Lord Christ, in commanding his disciples—so that they might be wise as serpents and simple as doves—principally instructs them to preserve as the head of all good things which are in us the right and most sincere faith. For just as there is no salvation for creeping things if they be crushed in the head, so neither is there for a Christian who has corrupted the sound faith. Because of this, Peter was crucified, ^C Paul was beheaded, and the evangelists and apostles completed their pious course by diverse deaths. The martyrs obeyed. But they were ridiculed and mocked in times of suffering by those who were cruelly inflicting multiform deaths upon them.

Your holiness knows that, according to the Syrian life, I am indeed a sinner. Whence I now spend my fortieth year, in which I bewail my sins. But the right faith, from the first day, as your holiness bears witness, I have loved until death. Whence I have never ceased to wage war against those who are near as to this abominable heresy, which Cyril indeed revives by his very power, yet anathematizes Apollinarius, doing something similar, just as if someone, while saying that the Son of God is out of non-existence, were also to anathematize Arius. And to speak of all heresies under one head, he preaches those things which belong to them. For where there is a path of God, I revere no one. Cyril is a heretic, preaching one nature of Christ and attaching to it all the passions, and death itself. And it is clear to anyone reading his chapters and his interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and his letters, whether festive or otherwise, and all his writings, with a love of truth, that he says there is one nature of God and man, and that they are one, and that about this sense the flesh was made, and that he died, and that he was through the flesh a man, ^D and that God the Word was made firstborn from the dead through the flesh. He scattered the name of flesh, however, on account of the confession of one nature.

But if it is not so, there is no need at all for many words: let him confess that Christ, who was born of the holy Virgin (for God is man, one Son, one Christ, 703 one Lord), suffered according to humanity, was crucified according to humanity, and was raised from the dead through the divinity of the Word, which said: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." If, however, he remains in his heretical chapters and writings, there is no part for us with him. For we struggle around the tribunal of Christ, and the Apostle of the nations, commanding us to keep the good deposit, through the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us.

It is permissible, however, for one wishing to consider his words, to notice the seduction. For with a word indeed he seduces, calling God the Word impassible, inconvertible, immutable, and inconcussible, having—to use his own expression—those things which he has by substance; yet, by concluding two into one nature, he [destroys] all the aforesaid.

^A And he teaches not of divinity, but of humanity. He has been slandered, and the most holy bishop Cyril, as though he said God is passible. But we possess the entire volume at hand for the satisfaction of the wholesome faith of this urgent matter. We, therefore, have no communion with those who teach such things. If, however, anyone can show that the most holy bishop Nestorius either thought or taught things contrary to the prophets, and the apostles, and the evangelists, we anathematize both his doctrine and him, until he preaches the orthodoxy which we both possess and read in his many codices. There is no necessity that Christ’s power should be violated by his own grace; but we are prepared to sustain all things, so that we may be neither impious nor unjust.

CHAPTER LVIII [146].

Believe me, your devoutness, that reading over those things which were written by my lord the most holy bishop Acacius, and those which were written to him by the Egyptian through a letter—which I believe you also have read entirely—I was astonished at the quickness of his ^B whim toward mutability. And I prayed that the earth might swallow me up. And if the fear of God had not restrained me, perhaps I would have immediately sought the desert, and desired the farthest space. For your holiness remembers what sort of letters we once sent to the most holy bishops, persuaded by the Antiochene, when the most admirable Aristolaus arrived, and invited by his letters we assembled, and going to Antioch we held a council, and handling many thousands of matters, we deliberated that, on account of the disturbance of the Churches, we should propose to the Egyptian a certain soft proposition, having even a modicum of the trace of piety. ^C And your holiness knows, just as he once wrote to me by a letter, that even in Rome, in the presence of the most holy bishop Damasus of holy memory, and in the presence of your holiness, a motion was made concerning the heresy of Apollinarius: and when we confessed two natures, so that we would not attribute passion to divinity, those who were Apollinarians said that we were saying there were two sons. Which thing these people also broadcast up and down against us. Therefore let him say: "Christ 704 has died, the Son has suffered, the Only-Begotten has suffered." Why does he add that the Word has suffered in the flesh? When a man dies, does the soul suffer death in the flesh? But if it is blasphemous that the soul be said to have suffered this in the flesh, it is beyond all impiety to say that the Son of God, or the Word of God, or the Only-Begotten, suffered in the flesh according to the understanding of the heretics. For in the divine Scriptures we find: "Christ has died, the Son has died, the Only-Begotten has died, the Holy One has died, the Just One has died." For these appellations show both natures universally. But the voice of the Word of God designates one nature. According to which sense he now also said in the letter that the Son suffered in the flesh, so that he might signify the passion of the Only-Begotten in his divinity.

But we also inquired, we examined, and we found one that was barely what we wanted, being weak, and again softer than the soft itself, and then more languid than that. But we briefly gave the propositions to the most illustrious tribune. It pleased him, however, as if it were the one that was softer, and wanted us to be content with the Nicene faith, having expelled those things which, because they are common, have disturbed, whether by letters or by chapters. To which even he himself contradicted, just as the Egyptian wrote. For he contends, as you see, for his own chapters, and the rest of the heretical and proud writings, confirming everywhere that it is impossible that these ever be expelled; ^D I know, however, that while writing from Ephesus, I directed to your holiness the allegation of Acacius of Melitene, where, following Cyril’s chapters and his intellect, he deposited in the writing: "Nestorius," he says, "has lied against the divine Scripture, as if the birth were m...

^A ore than what he has said according to the divine Scriptures, and against the heresy, as he calls it, of Nestorius. But we attempt, as I see, so manifest is his confidence in this, and such a raw insistence on behalf of heresy, to defame orthodoxy, even if we cannot repel the torrent of impiety and turn it into our own [channels].

I, however, believe in the Lord Christ, for if my right eye and my right hand were offered, with Cyril neither casting out heretical dogmas, nor openly confessing Christ to be both God and man, and that He suffered according to humanity, and was raised through the power of the Word of God according to the judgment of the Lord who says: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," I would sooner cut off my own limbs by the power of the Lord than act impiously with these men. When, therefore, they wish, let them come, let them ordain. I am prepared, I say before God, to learn with all joy. For just as I believe in truth that God is, so I am satisfied that He will manifest an orthodox dogma to the Church, when He Himself knows best. And He will not permit the truth to be absorbed. Nevertheless, I have sent copies of all that has been written to your religious self.

CHAPTER LIX [147]

Epistle of Bishop Andrew, by which he responded to this epistle of Alexander.

Re-reading what Cyril wrote by way of epistle, and what was written in reply to these matters by your holiness to the most holy Bishop Acacius, I say without falsity, I have deemed what you have written back in your epistle not without the Holy Spirit. ^B For both what is true and what the subtlety of the dogma contains, I have found in them, and the obscured and hidden guile of the enemy well and manifestly laid bare, and much confidence which becomes a servant of Christ, who contends for the sound faith. Therefore, I also am a sharer with your holiness, and of one mind. And I shall never think anything other than these things, God strengthening me. For how is it not shameful that he, who introduces spurious and reprobate dogmas, yet contends for them; but we, for the sake of peace, should lose the faith? Truly, I have marveled also at the proposition which your holiness placed within the very letters. For if it is already of the true dogma, and guards the right faith, and does not fraudulently conceal its own intellect, if it also confesses two natures, and the impassible divinity of Christ, what prevents it from also confessing the same man to be Christ, and saying that He suffered according to humanity? And concerning these things, it is superfluous to use many words to your holiness. But from the letters of the most holy Bishop Acacius, those who are in Antioch seem in some way to have yielded, and to have consented to the things which have been written. And your holiness does well in commanding us that we should in no way ^C be disturbed. But I truly tremble, lest by them the dream be confirmed in these very matters, which I saw not long ago, but which greatly constricts my soul. For I saw that I was with your religious self, with certain other not few bishops present; and you were saying to me: "Apollinaris the heretic lives." And as I, with wonder, was repeatedly asking if he truly lived, you were confirming that the same man still survived. But then, as if by chance, we arrived at a certain house, where the old man Apollinaris lay quite ill in bed. It was necessary for us to come to a colloquy with the man himself. And as this was about to happen, you said to me by the ear that that impious man would never be persuaded to agree to those things that were being said by us. I, however, seeing another man sitting beside him, was saying that he was the cause of Apollinaris not being swayed by our words. But while we came to converse, I and your holiness, and I was carrying seats for myself and for your holiness, right by his bed I suddenly see Apollinaris indeed standing, and distributing eulogiae, but the most holy John lying in the bed, and receiving from him; ^D then also your religious self placing your hands upon him, on account of a condescension that was unjustly forced. But I, standing, was saying to myself: "What kind of condescension is this? It sins against the Holy Spirit. It is impious against the very inhumanation of the Lord. And what kind of condescension is this?" And saying these things, I awoke. And I pray that this dream may be a phantasy, and signifying nothing.

Chapter LX [148]

Epistle of Bishop Theodoret, written to Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, concerning the letters which came from Egypt to the same Acacius.

I, indeed, not only when called, but even when not called, would always wish to come to your holiness. But I am so far from this intention that I cannot even obey the letters of your holiness. For again, a languor has strongly come upon me, and after my return from the mountainous regions I have fallen into a very bad tertian fever. Above these things, the most magnificent and most glorious Master of Soldiers is here, on account of which I also ask forgiveness. And I make known to your holiness that in the letters which have been directed from Alexandria, I have found those things which were spoken dogmatically by him to be contrary to those things which were formerly set forth by him; but agreeable rather to the doctrine of the Fathers. And I have been greatly affected, and I have praised the Lord Christ over the change which has been made through the admonitions of your holiness. However, I saw some parts of the epistle filled with many evasions and false circumlocutions. For while it behooved that the six propositions placed by us, since they were brief, should be approved by him, I do not know...

^A for what reason he used many words to evade the short path of peace; for we tempered our proposition in such a way that it should be rejected by none. For we proposed, as your holiness knows, that we remain in the faith which was set forth at Nicaea by the holy and blessed Fathers, and in the letter of the most holy and blessed Athanasius, as one which has interpreted this subtly; but that the dogmas which have recently arisen, whether through letters or through chapters, be cast out as something that is a common source of disturbance, and that these things which have chiefly caused dissension be left behind. He demands from us the subscription of the deposition of that man, of whom we have not been made judges. But your holiness knows that our conscience would strike us more harshly than any executioner if we were to do those things which we judge ought not to be committed. Hence even the blessed Paul says. Therefore, let it be for your wisdom to settle the cause in such a way that the peace to be made may be pleasing to all, and that above all things, Christ, the God of all, be obeyed in this matter.

CHAPTER LXI [149]

Epistola of Theodoret himself to bishop Andrew regarding this very matter.

The most admirable Aristolaus has sent from Egypt a Magistrianus ^B with the letters of Cyril, in which he has anathematized both Arius and Eunomius and Apollinarius, and those who say that the divinity of Christ is passible, and those who speak of a confusion and commixture of the two natures. And in these points we are indeed agreed; although he evaded our proposition. He demands, however, the subscription of the deposition which was made by them, and an anathema of the dogma of the most holy and God-beloved bishop Nestorius. But your holiness knows that to anathematize without distinction the doctrine of the aforementioned God-beloved and holy bishop is the same thing as to anathematize piety. But if it is agreed that we should anathematize something, let us anathematize ^C those who say that Christ is a pure man, or who fall into [the trap of saying] two Sons, rather than one Lord Jesus Christ, and who deny his divinity: for this every pious person anathematizes with full satisfaction. But if they wish that we should also, without distinction, anathematize the man—of whom we have not been made judges—and his dogma, which we know to be right, we act impiously, as I judge, if we obey him. But I believe these things to also be pleasing to your holiness, who exist as an outstanding champion of piety, and a true and fitting master of orthodoxy.

Chapter LXII [150]

Epistola of bishop Andrew, which he wrote in reply to bishop Theodoret.

I have read the letters of the Alexandrian, and he has not retreated in any way from his own rot ^D, as your wisdom also found upon reading the same letters. But because there is need of condescension so that the schism of the world may be resolved, and we no longer behold a torn Church—for perhaps greater evils follow if no composition results—it has pleased your holiness that while we should reject his proposition as impious, we should use those things which you have written, and anathematize those who say Christ is a pure man and those who divide one God into two Sons. I believe, however, that he also demands the subscription of the deposition by all means; perhaps some will even do this. And I believe that Cyril, even if we do not all subscribe, will be content with their subscription. Your holiness knows that these things came into discussion even before, when we met together at Antioch. Pray, therefore, I ask, that no obstacle be made to the peace and the ordering of the holy Churches.

CHAPTER LXIII [151]

Epistola of the same bishop Andrew to Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis.

I have directed to your holiness the copies of those things which my most holy lord, bishop Theodoret, wrote to me. And indeed, that it is manifest to those who wish to see more subtly that Cyril's error must be anathematized a thousand times over, is clear. But because time does not permit us to reason with precision on account of the general schism that has occurred, and because greater evils are sustained by our persistence, I think it is well that we should use some condescension for the sake of ecclesiastical peace, and that we should reject his proposition, which is impious, just as he also did not accept ours. But let us anathematize those who say there are two Sons, which is what they most insanely cast as an objection at us; or those who say our Lord Jesus Christ is a pure man. And upon these terms let us accept a composition of peace. But those who think impiously will render an account to the judge of all. And for us, even if we accept peace as a dispensation, there is no part with those who think impiously. I foresee, however, that nothing further will be gained by our persistence, except that the orthodox will be driven from the churches and the dogma will be absorbed entirely. I therefore ask your holiness, that however much

^A it is possible, we might use condescension. Your spiritual wisdom knows that just as zeal in its season achieves many thousands of things, so too does condescension in an opportune time work great good. These things please me. But if your perfection, which is according to God, perceives something better, make it known to us. May your holiness deign to direct those letters to the most holy bishop Theodoret. I and those who are with me salute all who are around your religiousness.

CHAPTER LXIV

CHAPTER LXV

CHAPTER LXVI

have not appeared to me as correct, but as thoroughly ^A contrary both to his chapters and to his other writings. Hence, in writing a letter to my lord, the most holy and God-beloved bishop Acacius, I signified this very thing. And indeed, if I were able, I would surely have come and conferred with your holiness. For I would wish to know what exactly was hidden within them in truth that is foreign to the evangelical doctrine. And I say this not as if those things were sufficient for communicating with him. For those things ought clearly to be set forth alongside the Nicene faith, and to be subscribed to by him, and by all whose communion we shall receive. For let your holiness know that I am so far from considering that anything sweet will come of this that I have ordered the archimandrite of my monastery to build me a cell. For I managed to find him in these days. ^B

CHAPTER LXVII [155].

I have received the letter of my lord, the most God-beloved and most holy bishop John, as if the Egyptian had anathematized Apollinarius, and Eunomius, and Arius, and those who say that a mixture took place, but had confessed the Lord Jesus Christ in two natures. And simply, not to say more, he praises him for the things which he recently dogmatized. But another person, one of those who love us, sent us a copy of a letter which was written by the Egyptian to my lord, the most God-beloved bishop Acacius, which indeed confirms the former chapters and strongly insists upon them; but it says that he will not communicate with us unless we have anathematized my lord, the most God-beloved and most holy bishop Nestorius, and his faith. As for me, upon reading these things and those, I have fallen into extreme lethargy, and I am uncertain whether the aforementioned most holy bishop of the city of Antioch praised those things or others. May your holiness, therefore, I beseech you, my lord and most beloved, deign to resolve this distress of ours, and to instruct us by letter as to which of these is more true. But when your holiness enters Antioch, deign immediately to send me your writings, and we shall all proceed together at once. I pray you also to pray incessantly for us, and for the pious peace of the holy Churches. ^C

CHAPTER LXVIII [156].

Throughout all your letters, I mean both your former ones and the present ones, recognizing to the full, most holy friend of God, the intention of your soul for piety, and blessing your holiness with apostolic purpose, we pray that we may follow in the footsteps of your holiness, that we may be able both to stand courageously against hostile enemies with an apostolic spirit, and similarly to judge those who desist from their initial steadfastness. For these men seem to differ in no languor from any of the heretics, because, while no necessity has arisen, they have lost the right confession, pretending now that the Egyptian has embraced the faith of the Fathers and has renounced his former error. Regarding the present confusion, let him make use of those by whom we might be liberated in any way whatsoever, and let us live in silence. And we have a similar will, O most holy one, and we wished, as our conscience testifies, to assume a life in the monastery, had not the discretion similar to your holiness restrained us; and we did not believe it to be without ^D danger to abandon our flock without violence and necessity. We truly pray that we might rather obtain the resolution of life. For we do not endure any other solution to our present calamities, unless, being liberated from the present life, we should receive the hope which is hoped for.

CHAPTER LXIX [157].

In the present confusion of the true faith, and in the dissension of the Churches of God, the cause of which the impious Cyril has principally provided, we have no such mitigation and consolation, if it is true, as the memory of your holiness, learning both through discourse and through letters of your zeal for piety, and the concord of the two Cilicias, and your agreement for the preacher of orthodoxy, that is, for the most holy bishop Nestorius. And blessed are you, as the truth holds, who are of this purpose and steadfastness. But may the Lord grant that you may also become the strength of the entire East, and of those who in various provinces contend for the orthodox faith.

For those things which pertain to you have reached the entire earth. But because your holiness has known from those things which you have made known to us, that some have justified the heretical letter of Cyril to the most holy and most sacred Acacius, in which he contends for all heretics in his writings, as if it were orthodox: I beseech your holiness that whatever has been enjoined upon you by word or writing concerning this, you do not receive it without inquiry and discussion, but examine it with all investigation. And first indeed, that you may know the things they say about him from the very letters sent by him. Secondly, do not excuse yourselves, but let two or three of you go to Egypt, and if the things which are said by him are orthodox, let them report back, so that we may know most certainly from them about the things which have been announced. And if indeed he has consented to his...

^A own destruction. Whence, breaking my silence, I will not restrain my lips: as I will cry out with the Prophet. But those things which seem right and just to me, I make known to those who are with your holiness, and by your holiness, I will be persuaded with all willingness regarding whatever is expedient. Therefore, I make manifest to your holiness that, having read the letter sent from Egypt, we found it in agreement with ecclesiastical doctrine, and contrary to the twelve chapters from the region: those [chapters] against which we have hitherto stood firm as opponents of the heretics. And we have deliberated, for the sake of the Church's peace, to receive into communion those who have corrected themselves regarding the things in which they sinned; but to acquiesce not with hand, nor tongue, nor mind to the unjust and inequitable condemnation of the most holy and God-beloved bishop Nestorius. For it is truly unjust and worthy of the ultimate punishment, to grant pardon to the man who confounded the world, and filled the land and the sea with disturbances, and who even now barely accepts our exposition; ^B yet to deliver that other, who from very childhood taught these things to be the doctrine, to this unjust, homicidal slaughter. For this is also similar to if we were to lose all those God-beloved bishops who struggled with us in Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and Constantinople for the truth, and who even to the present struggle with fervor. And [if] we were to despise the laws, which are fought for by all, and are forced to live outside the Churches. We have therefore deliberated 715 not to communicate any sooner with either the Egyptians or the Constantinopolitans, until the defenders of piety have recovered their own Churches. Therefore, may your holiness write to the God-beloved and most holy bishop Himerius, and persuade his religiousness that we have neither betrayed piety, nor lacked care for fraternal love, and that we have the zeal and the desire, either to rule the peoples entrusted to us along ^C with them, or to be driven out with them, and to receive that rest which is without danger. And deign also to make your intention known to me, most God-beloved. For I am greatly distressed, in that we have been informed of nothing by your amiability concerning these things which are being done.

Chapter LXX [158]. Letter of Bishop Theodoret to Bishop Helladius concerning Bishop Himerius of Nicomedia. We have decided to translate this also, just as Irenaeus included it.

And to whom is it fitting that he should surpass in all good things, if not to him who has gathered the possession of all goods, and carries this about within himself? You have won, most God-beloved lord, as in all other things, so also in the haste of sending these address-letters. And while we were sluggish and sleepy, and regarding urgent matters disdainful and negligent, you aroused us with your address, and with an affection equal to his, and truly spiritual, ^D toward

remembrance you have recalled. But, lest I conceal all the reasons for the delay of my letters and submit myself to the blame of sloth, I shall provide a modest and truthful satisfaction on our own behalf. We live in a city situated far from that road where horses run, and therefore we neither see those who come to our province, nor does it happen that we are with those who depart from here. And for this reason, we lack the consolation of sending letters to your holiness.

Furthermore, although we were previously accustomed to go frequently to Antioch and spend time there, from where it was easy to both send and receive letters, for a long time now we have chosen to remain in our home and rest there. For at present, we have embraced this, as it is what is more expedient. These are the things which up to the present have prevented us from embracing your holy head through letters. But your holiness has become superior even to this necessity, having sent to us my most honorable and God-beloved fellow minister, Strategius, whom we saw with all festivity as a deacon of our Savior Christ, one fervent in the love of your holiness, and ^A choosing to do and suffer all things for you, who are an athlete of piety and a sturdy contender for it. For we beatify, as you well know, God-beloved sir, your clear and great struggles, 716 and the fixed and firm sense of your strong soul, and for the apostolic faith, the toils, labors, and dangers through which there are perfected for you, by divine gift, crowns which are eternal and superior to corruption, and, to speak comprehensively, which will adorn the dear head of the Lord. For we have been rendered useful for nothing for the Church of God: for we are surrounded by all the pious and faithful, and by those who are full of the fervor of zeal and breathe the pious confession of the holy Fathers, and we are despised rather than despising; and we are ruled rather than ruling.

[A(continued)] ...remained fighting. And we deliberated that, if your holiness receives the churches divinely committed to you, we might indeed communicate with the Egyptians and the Constantinopolitans, and others who had warred with them against us, because they confess our dogma—or rather, truly, the dogma of the apostles; but that we should by no means assent to the so-called condemnation of the most holy and God-beloved bishop Nestorius. For it is seen to be unjust according to the truth, and clearly impious, even if he were subject to the same crimes as the other, to grant pardon to him, while closing the door of repentance to this one. Much more iniquitous, and more impious, is it to hand over to slaughter equally him who is innocent. Let your holiness know, therefore, that we shall not communicate with them before you have received their churches. And this not I alone, but all the most holy bishops of this region, meeting together in a convened council, have deliberated.

^C Your holiness, indeed, existing in the very flame and exercising choral dances for those three youths in the midst of the furnace, had one great consolation: the breeze of the Holy Spirit, which both scattered the attack of the flame and changed its furnace into dew. And indeed, concerning the struggles of your holiness, let this much be said by us. For the good reputation of your struggles surpasses not only the measures of a letter, but even the greatest composition. Regarding the rumor that is made about peace, we have signified to your holiness that, while we are certainly very near, we know nothing completely, but we know as much as is reported to us by those who return from here to their own places. We make our intention manifest to your holiness. Reading the letters which have now been sent from Egypt, and discussing them frequently among ourselves, we have found them to be in agreement with ecclesiastical doctrine and contrary to the twelve chapters which, up to the present ^D...

^B Jam supra ostendimus... (Already above we have shown that Nestorius denied his own dogmas, and the Eastern bishops desired for a judgment to be made in his presence and that of Nestorius, and if he were truly convicted of holding such views, they promised that they would anathematize him along with such a dogma of his. For Alexander said this in his letter to Acacius. Theodoret, however, writes: "Since we have not been made judges of a man whom we 717 have not heard, we cannot condemn him." Therefore, no Catholic and God-fearing person can reproach Theodoret regarding the faith, especially when he hears him praising the dogma of the letter which was sent from Egypt before the union, against which many of the Eastern bishops clearly said that it was contrary to apostolic faith. And what is to be noted for all, it is read to have been done before the peace of the Church. These things, however, we have said, with that question remaining intact, if they are his.)

CHAPTER LXXII [160]

Epistle of Theodoret in reply to Alexander of Hierapolis.

As it appears, I have become suspect to your holiness, as if I had betrayed piety. For you, my religious lord, had not admonished me—by writing and wishing to learn how I understood the dogmas of Cyril's letter, and if there is anything else hidden in them which might be conferred upon his heretical chapters—to write nothing about this. But I call God to witness to my soul, that neither desire for a see, nor yearning for a city, nor fear of persecutions has compelled me up to the present, but, reading those letters with an uncorrupted decree and an indeclinable mind, I have deemed their understanding to be consistent with ours. For what else was I praying to hear, so that heretics might revere this, unless it be that the Word of God is unchangeable, and impassible, and immutable? And neither fermentation, nor confusion, nor...

^A re-tempering took place in the union of the Word of God with the flesh. And yet, discovering these things in the letters, I did not think it safe that communion should take place on these grounds alone, but that it should be done more evidently, and that the meaning of these things should be explained more clearly: just as I had directed in the letters I wrote before these, avoiding entirely 27 a subscription to a condemnation. And yet I undertook these things through condescension, thinking that I was not contradicting your holiness. These things we have discussed frequently both in Antioch and in Beroea and in Hierapolis. These things I also wrote to my most holy and God-beloved lord, bishop Andrew, through the most honorable and most reverend deacon of the *fortissimi* of the third 28 *stablisiani* 718 while he was arriving there. And because the struggle before us is not about just anything, but about our very hope, I would certainly have come, if this wretched body ^B permitted it, to your holiness, so that through greater discussion and common colloquy the intent of the letters might be grasped.

It is to be noted everywhere how much the intention of Theodoret differs from those who remained with Nestorius until the end, and also from Alexander and Eutherius, or others like them, and how much he acknowledges those who assert ecclesiastical peace, and also John and Acacius and Andrew and their likes.

CHAPTER LXXIII [161].

Our Lord Christ has given you to us as great Fathers and doctors to defend, to teach, and ^C for the guidance of every soul. It is therefore necessary for us to be insistent, and to learn what is fitting; and for your holiness not to take it heavily to hold prayers, and to provide paternal admonitions. But what has moved me now is this: I have read the letter of the Alexandrian, which contains much that is incongruous; such as opposition to dogma, a wicked stubbornness, and other impious propositions. Regarding these, I judged it just to indicate what has pleased my humility: that whatever is sound might be confirmed by the nod of your holiness; or that whatever might perhaps have seemed contrary through ignorance might be corrected.

And indeed, first of all concerning the chapters, I suspect this, that we should not be united to their author, unless he has entirely rejected, by his own voice and signature, the things that ^D bear particular blasphemy. Or will they 19 persist in these, as he commanded? But as for us, who grant him this, and on top of that [treat him] with so many praises and proclamations 30, as you have done, we make ourselves strangers to every excuse. For if, indeed, we judged those things to be evil at that time, so that we unanimously deposed their author and excommunicated those who had accepted them; but now [we judge them] so tolerable that we are united to their author who does not correct these [chapters], which then seemed to us worthy of condemnation: who will deliver us from just rebuke, we who then 719 deposed him as one established worthily under guilt, but now receive him again as innocent? For these judgments contradict each other, and they cause us to be subjected to that guilt which the Apostle declares, saying: *For if the things which I destroyed, these I build up again, I constitute myself a transgressor* [i].

But also, for whom will the incongruity of the chapters appear well-susceptible? Who would accept that the holy Virgin is carnal-Deiparous? Who would accept a natural union, and by this a compulsory one, because it is above every nature and power? Who would accept one nature, the form of God and man? Who would presume to anathematize those who piously ascribe high things, indeed, to the divinity, but humble things to the humanity—with the union not fractured in any way—which the apostles and evangelists, by doing so, have been anathematized by this legislation? Who would consent to the terrible sentence against the holy and glorious bishop Basil, who called the flesh of the Lord *deiferam* [God-bearing]; who has also been anathematized along with those who presume to call [the Virgin] *deiferam*? But who would communicate with him who anathematized Paul, the vessel of election, through those things [he said], such as saying: “If anyone says that Jesus was the Word of God working as a man, let him be anathema?” While holy Paul clearly says: *According to the operation of the power of his virtue, whereby he worked in Christ, raising him from the dead* [k]. Who indeed separates the flesh from the Word, and thus offers the due adoration, as this man ordered who says: “If anyone presumes to say that the assumed man ought to be co-adored with God the Word, and co-glorified, let him be anathema?”

Who indeed, hearing from the Lord himself that he casts out demons *in the Spirit of God*, and learning from Paul that which is: *Who was manifested in the flesh, justified*

^A in the Spirit, would refuse to confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is glorified by the Spirit? Indeed, who would presume to anathematize those who confess this? Who would dare to pronounce, concerning this ineffable novelty of terms, that God the Word was made an apostle and high priest, so that by this he also declares him to be a creature, when the thrice-blessed Paul cries out: *Consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus Christ, who is faithful to him who made him*? Or who is it who chooses to say or hear that the Lord’s flesh was not assumed from our nature, but was proper to the Word himself, as if it had subsisted from elsewhere? Who indeed would subject all the saints together to anathema? For who could say that God the Word suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh, and is the firstborn from the dead—he who always lives and is immortal? It is easy enough to refute these things at greater length, as has been done in the *Contradictions*, which many, and we ourselves, have authored; but now, since this is an epistle, it is necessary to sign off briefly. While, surely, even without any manifest impiety they would be wrong, it was nevertheless necessary that they be refuted as innovations, and not accepted to the injury of the traditions which are perfect and stand in no need of such additions.

If you say: "It is good because I have it now," then the exposition of dogma was made to succor the pestilence of the world. You will not stop the malady in the least, unless you have cleared away the matter that causes the malady. It is in vain that you treat the outside, you who have planted and rooted the perversion within. For if, once the worse things have been cast out, better things are introduced, the better things will hold their place; but if the blasphemies that are superinduced remain, they will bring injury to the excellent, and things that are to be rejected will come into being. For what communion has light with darkness, and what share has a believer with an infidel? For the station of the second is the destruction of the first. Hence the Apostle says: *He takes away the first, that he may establish the second*. But he who says that he anathematizes Apollinaris and his madness, while those dogmas consonant with him are not overturned, is performing an induction and a farce: just as if someone, while accusing her who has given birth to many poisons, were to offer the poisons themselves, and—having killed many by the draft—were to think that he therefore proves that he has not harmed those who were cruelly destroyed, because he accuses the ground.

Beyond this, he boasts of demanding subscriptions as a victor for the impudent condemnation of one who has neither been judged, nor convicted, nor foreign to any part of the faith which has long been handed down to us who are aware of it. Whom or whence we should blame, I do not know at all. Perhaps because he did not assent to those new dogmas which we have adjudged, before the innovations of terms which Scripture does not hand down, he himself ^B set these above the testimonies of holy Scripture? Why did he preach those things which are the apostles’, and prophets’, and evangelists’, and of Christ himself, who is Lord of all, without corruption? But we shall render judgment against those, if we judge him who preaches what is theirs. Whatever, moreover, in the records of their wonders or treatises is found to be discordant with the truth, ascribed under the name of this man, unless it be shown to have been fabricated by the audacity of forgers, and by these means the guilty party is detected, we shall by all means accept the sentence of condemnation. And no one so hates his own soul as not to anathematize immediately those things which have been clearly proven wrong, together with him who dared to say them, whether he be a man, or an angel from heaven, who has presumed to say things incongruous.

But who could forget those suitable words of yours, which are worthy of memory, which instructed us in Ephesus? Since, while two deadly precipices are proposed: on the one hand, that the dogma ^C is said to have been corrupted; on the other, that one might act wickedly against it: it makes no difference here whether one falls from the precipice that seems lesser, because one will be equally in danger; nothing prevents one, falling likewise from the one that seems lesser, from being in danger. And indeed I have briefly indicated what pleased me, knowing that it is better, whatever that may be, to suffer. Therefore, it is better to feel the temporal punishment of sin than the eternal torment. It is, however, the duty of your holiness both to manifest what is certain, and to confirm it both by letters and by speeches, and to announce what has been meditated upon, so that you may prevent the wickedness of the adversaries, and to choose the well-pleasing peace more, if nothing else is to be done except peace and concord. For we have learned that there is also a peace of false name, from him who clearly said: *For I was jealous of the sinners, seeing the peace of sinners*.

CHAPTER LXXIV

The Epistle of the same Eutherius, Archbishop of Tyana, which he wrote to Helladius, Archbishop of Tarsus, upon reading the letters from Alexandria, and of John, ^D Archbishop, to Alexander the bishop, and of Alexander to John.

As much as the letters of others wounded us, some of whom impudently assault the right faith, while others have betrayed the dogma for the most part; so much did your holiness’s letter gladden me; and had I not held this as a total medicine, capable of operating against the whole passion, suddenly such great sadness would have destroyed me, as though rushing upon me transitorily. But the letters of other orthodox men also gladdened me, showing a worthy zeal regarding the contradiction and resistance for piety. But I say these things showing the intention I had, with God cooperating, hastening to follow in these things which have been proposed.

^A in such a way as to serve the behests of your holiness, and to hold as ratified and to preserve all things which are piously deliberated and judged by it, and to bring them to effect with all the strength I have, and through them to acquire eternal gain for myself. We greet with the utmost affection all the brotherhood that is with your brotherhood.

CHAPTER LXXV [163]

After this letter, Irenaeus placed his own words, saying thus:

This indeed, the man who was governing the Church at Tyana wrote regarding the letters from Egypt, as much to the prelate of the Antiochians as to other priests. John, however, was persisting, doing everything he could, and writing so as to lead all over to his own opinion. On account of which, he also wrote similar things shortly after concerning these same matters to the servant of God at Alexandria. And these things he did while he was hesitant about the previous letters.

Here it must first be noted concerning the letter of Eutherius, that the bishops of the East did not believe that those letters or opinions of Nestorius, which the Council of Ephesus was condemning, were his. For if they were proven to be his, they were prepared both they themselves and [to speak] anathema against such writings of his, just as the letters of Theodoret also attest. Finally, those who persisted with Nestorius strove to brand John and Theodoret among the betrayers of the faith and before the peace of the Church, because Theodoret greatly praised the faith of Cyril's letter to Acacius, which all these people and Irenaeus clearly declare to be heretical. It is certain, therefore, what the faith of Theodoret is, because while consistent in its best parts, it dissents greatly from the poorer ones.

CHAPTER LXXVI [164]

The letter of John, Archbishop of Antioch, to Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, which he wrote back concerning the letters from Egypt, ^B for which he was blamed by Andrew, Bishop of Samosata.

I have received the letters of your religiosity, and for the very fact that I have received them, I have been gladdened. For the letters of pious men, whatever they may be, are accustomed to afford joy to those who receive them. I have read, indeed, those also which you directed to my lord and through all things most holy common Father, Acacius the bishop. And I saw the subtlety, or rather the most minute minutiae of dialectic, ^C which were contained in the letter. However, I do not see this subtlety as useful for the present time. For while it behooves you to be delighted, because "out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the bitter sweetness," and from him who has no knowledge we have knowledge, suffer that which is said in the book of Proverbs: "He who overcomes has denied that he is a conqueror." Man of God, remind yourself that the entire heresy of Apollinaris has all consistency in the mixing and confusion of the natures. But he himself ^D refuted this more broadly, anathematizing the mixture—which lies ready for him in many of his writings, as you yourself know—and the confusion of the natures. And saying that the divinity is one thing, the body another. For thus, undersigning, he added: "Because the divinity is impassible, because there are two natures." Which none of those who now dwell in Pontus has either said or thought hitherto.

And these things are most manifestly a conviction against them. And would that it might happen that he who is from your neighbors should concur in this confession, and others who are beyond the Taurus: and all things are resolved for them as well. For you see that, to those things which they say, and to those things which he himself set forth in his chapters, these matters are contrary. But, that I may not prolong the discourse, I come to another of the matters which have seemed right to us. I was in Berrhoea, and when there had been much exercise here for us, and the common Father, my lord, the most holy bishop Acacius, was setting in motion every good [effort] so that the state of the Churches might return to itself, it seemed good that my lord, the most religious and our common brother, my lord Bishop Paul, having been asked by us, should undertake a journey to Egypt for the sake of the universal peace, so that there, with a conflict having been held, through the living voice, those things which are being said might arrive at a greater manifestation and more clarity. So that that may happen which is said by those who are wise among those outside: "Those things which are said concerning God, and are heard more frequently, are finally and with difficulty purged like gold."

Do not therefore be faint-hearted, I pray. For God is sufficient both to restore the kindness already begun and to make it clearer and more firm, while this journey to the good has been made, as I believe, for the Church of God. And it is truly a great thing that my lord Paul should take courage, despising both the infirmity of the body and old age, and many thousands of fluctuations, which it is not easy to enumerate, and should commit himself both to a foreign province and to a man who has been not a little embittered by us, even if not from us. But if you say that you are crucified to the world, and the world is crucified to you, regarding you, it is well, but regarding the world, it is nothing. For this is not a time for philosophy, nor for martyrdom, but for the correction of the whole world and of ecclesiastical perturbation.

I signify to your God-lovedness, that the fisherman

is made humble, or rather, has been exalted, and has kept quiet. This truly brings no small consolation. For even Egypt itself execrates him, as we have learned from the *magistrianus*, who has arrived, attributing to him even more disturbance. We write these things through a letter with earnestness, so that we may have a means whereby to mitigate our griefs. These matters stand thus. But the God-beloved bishop Archelaus, although he has suffered nothing on behalf of the doctrine, has nevertheless been fined eight thousand *solidi* by the Augustal of Seleucia for your prayers. And it was decided that all should be listed. Provide, therefore, as much as your devotion shall suggest. And if you do not have it, at least look after his legal payments, for you have been peremptorily assigned to this.

CHAPTER LXXVII [165].

I thought I had undertaken something useful. But since your religiousness has rebuked as wicked those things which were necessary in my letter, and has cast away the rest as if they were insane, it is better that I acquiesce to your views than that you should harshly receive those things which are mine. Yet, I ask that you be pleased with this one thing: that the journey of my most religious lord and our common brother, Bishop Paul, may not be superfluous, but useful and necessary. For it is probable that he, in going there, will obtain something which does not differ from our own opinion. For he departed carrying those ten propositions of mine, which we composed in common. And it is likely that that man will succeed in accomplishing a certain greater satisfaction regarding them. For conversation is accustomed to remove many difficulties. If, therefore, he returns having obtained anything desirable through the grace of God, it is well: otherwise, we must deliberate in common as to what should be done.

CHAPTER LXXVIII [166].

Blessed be God, who even in the times of the apostles spread abroad, as if it were a certain perfume, the new and blessed name—that is, from your metropolis—into the whole world, so that they are called Christians. And now, indeed, when the adversary is hastening to overturn the confession of orthodoxy, He has soon armed you with divine zeal and set you against all the machinations of the most wicked one, so that our [affairs], which were sent to our ears by the Fathers, exercising great zeal, are not fatigued, sustaining all things for the Lord’s sake, so that with a weak body you undertook the journey to the God-beloved Acacius, and through him directed our God-beloved fellow-minister, Paul, bishop of the city of Emesa, and transmitted him to the Egyptian, like a physician to a patient; or rather, as I think, to one who is rotting, so that in him you might perform a providence for the tranquility of the church of the whole world. For we have ^A known that all these things were foreseen through the letters of your holiness; and those things which have been provided by you have pleased us greatly.

But especially concerning this part, in which you hasten with pious caution and our upright confession to heal the serpent, so that the two natures of the Lord Christ may be spoken of as unconfused by confession, you are taking reasonable occasions from those very ones who have retreated from piety. May your Christ-loving holiness be deemed worthy, just as it ^B began, before all things, to ensure that that part of our pious confession is fortified, and that neither should any deny the two unconfused natures of Christ, nor should those who preach them in an orthodox manner be abjured by them; nor should a hand be otherwise extended to those who have stumbled, unless they have destroyed the scandals in writing, anathematizing the chapters which were impiously set forth by them; and all things whatsoever, which they attempted to subintroduce without proof to our orthodox pious religion, and which they received having been introduced by others, confirming them with subscriptions that are alien to the orthodox faith. We write these things not as though giving orders, God-beloved one, but as sons suggesting counsel to fathers.

CHAPTER LXXIX [167].

The third part of this codex, he says, contains those things which were done in Alexandria, when they attained a consensus among themselves—both the evil crafts of Cyril regarding these things and the impious compacts of Paul with him; and, to speak in summary, those things which were done before Paul and Aristolaus ^D returned to Antioch: after which part of the codex, those things which the bishop of the Antiochians first wrote everywhere through letters, making nothing of those things which were composed with them with the Egyptian, manifest to the priests of the East.

SYNODICON AGAINST THE TRAGEDY OF IRENAEUS. CHAPTER LXXX [168].

^AFirst epistle after the schism of the Church, which John, Bishop of Antioch, sent through Paul, Bishop of Emesa, to Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, for the sake of making peace.

726 Our own Savior and Lord Jesus Christ delivered many thousands of other saving precepts to His disciples, and these two, which indeed seem to be to one another as if from opposite regions, yet preserve complete harmony between themselves. I speak, indeed, of peace and war. War, indeed, on behalf of Himself and the pious confession which is concerning Him; but peace, which is from Him toward the same, according to which the constant conjunction of all the faithful everywhere is understood as one Church: of those who, among the nations and barbarians everywhere throughout the whole world, preserve the pious understanding. For it is better to use these equivocal terms among those who are holy in all things, in whom war is initiated and who grant us their peace: *I came not to send peace upon earth, but the sword*; and: *My peace I give unto you*. When, therefore, pious confession in Christ has been rent asunder, this is a better war: and He knows how to save those who are crushed, while they do not defend those things which are their own, but those which are the Lord’s. But when pious confession has been brought in, then the same peace of the wise is the salvation of the whole ecclesiastical body. These things have been said by me thus simply, and not for the love of honor. For this is far from my custom; but so that I might show that the division which took place in time against you, most God-loving brother, was rather for the sake of the truth, and not arising from any bodily matter, nor from enmities or pusillanimity. For there was a certain love and affection between us reciprocally, more indeed than with others, which, even if conversation had not planted it according to the aspect of the face, yet the union of things had brought it about very well and most firmly and sufficiently. But I received the cause of the discord, the transmission of those chapters—which I wish had never happened. For your God-loving self ought to believe me, that they threw us into so much amazement that we did not even think these were yours in the very beginning (and your holiness perhaps has known this from our letters which were written to some), but those of someone of those who do not savor the things that are ours, that is, the Church's. And this, I say, we suspected, being greatly troubled about them, of which chapters no small salvation has been made. ^B And indeed, those things which were lately written by you, most God-worshipping one, do hold out to us the hope of a perfect healing; these which were directed to my master, the most God-loving common father, Acacius. They have gladdened all, however, who are lovers of ecclesiastical peace, regarding which we also are affected beyond measure. Although they were joined indeed with many things, 727 as far as it pertains to fraternal accusations: for they provided us with no small satisfaction. And they do not require much addition, that which you yourself promised you would carry out, saying this: Since peace has been made, it will be even more inflamed [in a good sense] as far as it pertains to satisfaction. But that which gladdened us more was that you received with great pleasure the letter of the blessed and common Father Athanasius, which is sufficient to resolve all discords, in that it not only contains the truth, but also because he, being worthy of trust in the faith, removes their conflicts. For let this man be for us an interpreter, to whom it should deservedly be believed, of that faith which was set forth by the holy Fathers at Nicaea.

^C Because there are some, either from among those who are within the Church, or from those who are outside the Church, who bring her forward—as if she carried some great help to men, but diverts the things of some that are impious to her own sense, and to that which has simply pleased each—it suffices to say just this. These things therefore having been well begun, let those things by which there had been developed a diversity between us rest from now on; but let those things which pertain to peace remain. Let us hasten to the peoples laboring throughout the whole world through various opinions, by which they are distracted hither and thither, while many of those who distract them neither know what they are saying, nor concerning what they affirm. For the clouds of anathemas abound everywhere in huge numbers, and the insults which brothers seek against brothers, and priests against priests, and the people against the people.

For some indeed call the Christians Jews. This insult is Apollinarius's against the universal Church, whom most have received with his sense. For that impious man and adversary of God, in attacking his own errors—I speak, however, of the Fathers of the Church—is not in the least ashamed to call them Jews. But others indeed call these pagans and worse than the heathens, who perhaps more often ^D together with them have partaken of the communion of the ineffable mysteries. And there is nothing else to see happening throughout every land but perturbation, and an unspeakable war, and an irrevocable anger, and a cruelty that overcomes every barbaric inhumanity. And there is no one who sympathizes over the contrition.

of Joseph, while they mutually provide pleasure to the enemies of piety.

And I say these things not as if I were blaming the former while excusing the latter of blame, but rather attributing all things to the confusion which has occurred because of our general sins: for they profit the Gospel. And with pagans and heretics looming, the enemies of piety ^A necessarily rage against us, 728 they who, having embraced the time of the present perturbation, have impudently corrupted all things. Whence the reverence of Christianity itself has been trampled underfoot; the enemies of God have suddenly made a noise, they have lifted up their heads over the people of God, and have devised a plan against you.

Because of all these things, I and my master, the most holy Bishop Acacius, have invited my brother, and truly the beloved of your God-lovingness, my master the most holy Bishop Paul: and he himself gladly laid hold of the opportunity to come to your holiness: so that he who has always stood out as illustrious among ecclesiastics, and is skilled both in how to handle matters and in words, and possessing reverence toward the Lord—which, using it righteously, he has often profited the community, with God guiding him—might come. He is even more profitable for the sake of the devotion which is implanted in him. Deign to look upon him kindly, committing yourself to him confidently, as to me; and just as if it were I, he will commit himself to you trustingly. And together you may consider those things which might avail to reassemble the world. For your God-lovingness ought not to consider only me or yourself, but rather how, with scandals removed, the part returning to itself may return to the Church of Christ, so that, these things being done, those things which pleased the most pious Christ-loving Emperor concerning ecclesiastical peace may come to pass.

CHAPTER LXXXI [169]

Epistle of Theodoret, bishop, to Alexander, metropolitan of the province of Euphratensis. Irenæus said:

By murmuring, some strike at us because of the opinions which come from Egypt, judging that we revere ^B them if we are freed from everyone, and they do not know that peace is greatly cherished by us. It is sweeter than everything that delights in this life. For we desired it so much that we would have wished to run toward it without anyone’s urging, had not the terror of that judge prohibited us. But because it is by no means safe for this to happen in such a way, the will endures necessity, that it might enjoy its desire with pardon. Since, therefore, the things which rumor defames are many and distant from the truth, and born to perturb the soul, I ask your holiness that you teach us through letters what the truths are: so that, preparing ourselves, we may adapt ourselves to this very thing. For we desire peace with piety, and we reject it with iniquity and impiety.

CHAPTER LXXXII [170]

Epistle of Andrew, bishop of Samosata, to Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis.

Your holiness rightly gathers in advance from the very 729 beginnings the end of the ecclesiastical cause. But I myself from the letters which I just received, I will not prefer the same [opinion], but I will know one thing: I have manifest causes. And what indeed they are, it is not necessary to put into a letter. However, let your holiness know that nothing is sweet; but even if the Alexandrian, as it appears, neither wishes to change any of those things which were once poorly written, nor to cross over from his own sense. And for that reason, those who set out from Egypt have written nothing by letter for such a long time. We, however, even if he persists a thousand times over in his impious dogma, are content with those things which were once written by letter, which entirely preach orthodoxy. ^C Such are the present matters; but what end they might have, and up to what point the destruction is ordained, Almighty God knows. But while they now proclaim him a mortal unworthily, they clearly bear confidence for their impiety: while those who seem to feed them, zealously inciting them, exercise them not toward blasphemy alone, but toward all impudence and malice: and whoever has not consented is proclaimed an impious man and a denier of the Lord everywhere, and worthy of many thousands of deaths.

And these men, too, who once did not even bear the hearing of this impiety, having now become incongruous and sluggish, have almost everywhere yielded in some measure to checking these things, and they themselves have also been bent, lest by chance they might also be seeking after those things which the adversaries bring forward—thinking they have a good standing—and especially those who seemed to be the leaders among you striving for orthodoxy, seeing them declined toward that, and having embraced peace with them. And ^D we groan over these things regarding the calamity of the Church, and we wound ourselves night and day and with many other sorrows, because the present time is the worst of all times. And I have frequently desired for this reason to talk to your holiness in some solitary place, and to do nothing else; but only to weep and lament, as much for these things which have been said, as for other things which I have learned are almost now being brought to pass.

While these things were happening in the East, peace was made in Alexandria, Paul having given the letter of peace to Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, and Cyril, through the same bishop, transmitting the pacific letter to John, bishop of Antioch, through his own clerics. But because some of the Orientals are blamed, because they suspected or wrote about this peace as if it were otherwise than they ought to have, let us examine also the letters sent by Cyril, the archbishop, after the peace to various people. Nevertheless, let us also duly and sincerely seek the synodical codices with the fear of God, and we shall see, I think, that no one can blame one party, at least those who thought the same as Theodoret, with the suspicion of the Nestorian dogma, who nevertheless also struck at the other concerning favor for the Eutychian dogma, if, however, it is not on his side.

693 SYNODICON AGAINST THE TRAGEDY OF IRENAEUS. 730 CHAPTER LXXXIII [172].

Epistle of Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, to Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, concerning the peace which was made between him and the eastern bishops.

This indeed the followers of Dioscorus and Eutyches bring forward for their own dogmas against the Catholics; where they also add the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Since I have learned that through the grace of God you have prevailed by your prayers, even beyond your bodily presence, so that what was under consideration might be established in the Churches, and that the letters of the God-beloved and Christ-loving Emperor have come to the most glorious and in all things virtuous tribune, Aristolaus, commanding that he should compel each of the bishops in his own Church to anathematize the polluted dogmas of impiety of Nestorius and Theodore, I render thanks to God, the honorable Ruler, and praying much for your zeal, I write, greeting your reverence on behalf of all, and I beseech your zeal, which is according to God, that you should think equally for all the Churches, and despise no Church whatever, but either by your own presence, or by sending some persons with the most admirable and glorious tribune—faithful and zealous men from your own associates—that every one may be compelled to anathematize publicly the dogmas of Nestorius and Theodore: especially those who speak of two natures after the union, with each one properly operating. For of those who are in Germanicia, having tested some, I found indeed that they do not refuse to speak of two sons, yet they do not object to speaking of two natures. Whence, if it be conceded that it be said and taught by them that each nature operates by itself, and that this one indeed has suffered, while that one has remained impassible, it is nothing else than to confess again two sons, and to introduce parts. I beseech, therefore, your incomparable and God-devoted soul: be vigilant, receiving the time from the Lord Christ, and perfect the union of the Churches without scandal and without scar or spot.

To this, Bishop Cyril is said to have replied with that letter concerning the peace of the Church, which is known and which you will find below in its place and number, that is to say:

CHAPTER LXXXIV [173].

Testimony from the second epistle of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, to Successus, Bishop of the city of Diocesarea in the province of Isauria.

^A ...of the Word: but while both remain in the property which is according to nature, and while understanding according to the mode which we just now stated, ineffably and inerrably united, He shows us one nature of the Son, nevertheless, as I said, incarnate.

^B Those who think that one incarnate nature is so called as if it were made from two into one through the composition of the union, understand these things falsely. For both the words that follow continuously and the example added concerning the composite nature of man show this. For he added without any intermediaries these things:

For it is not said truly of simple things alone according to nature, but also of those that are composed through the composition, or brought into the same; such indeed is the thing which is a man, from soul and body. For they are of an alien species, the one from the other, and not consubstantial to one another; yet when united they have perfected the one nature of man; although in the accounts of the composition a difference persists according to the nature of those things which were brought to the union.

Let us hear now how he says it is contrary to say two natures of Christ after the union, and to say one incarnate. And because these, as he says, conflict with one another, whence it is more manifest that ^C he wishes one nature to be spoken of after the union, as composite, to the negation of two. For after a little, of that very epistle he says thus:

"But I learn that there is also another thing concerning this which comes into question. For he who says the Lord suffered in the flesh alone, makes the passion irrational and not voluntary. If, however, one says that He suffered with an intellectual soul, so that the passion might be voluntary, nothing prohibits us from saying that He suffered in the nature of humanity. If this therefore is true, how shall we not give that two natures subsist through the union indivisibly? Therefore, whoever says that Christ suffered for us in the flesh, says nothing else than that Christ suffered for us in our nature."

These words, which are altogether catholic, this priest, opposing them to himself as a question, and as if destroying what he had shortly before confessed through the pacific epistle, soon produced such words as these against this indivisible union.

^D This proposition nevertheless conflicts again with those who say that the one nature of the Son is incarnate; and as if willing to show that it is vain, they strive by all means to show two subsisting natures. But they were ignorant that whatever things are not wont to be spoken according to speculation, these in every way depart from one another into an otherness which is in part set apart and separated.

Although the only-begotten Son of God is said by us to be incarnate and made man, yet He has not been fermented by these, as it seems to them; nor has the incarnation changed the nature of the Word, but neither has the nature of the flesh.

^A Likewise, therefore, we must condemn those who preach that the Lord Jesus Christ came in a phantasm, and who, by a different line of error, do not say that it is one and the same Son, but that one is He who is born of God the Father, and another he who was generated from the Virgin, whereas the evangelist says that the Word was made flesh, so that you might believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, and not two. Some have also believed that the Word of God is one thing and the Son of God another, even though the evangelist testifies that He who was in the beginning the Word with the Father came into His own. There are some, however, who have thought that the Word was made Christ just as He was made one of the prophets, and not that He Himself is the Word of God. But it is said of none of the prophets that the Word was made flesh. None of the prophets took away the sins of the world. Of no other is it said: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." We read of none of the prophets that he is the Lord of glory, which the Apostle said of Christ, that the Jews crucified the Lord of glory. But while we refute these men, others emerge who say that the flesh of the Lord and His divinity are of one nature. What deep hell has vomited forth such a sacrilege? The Arians are now more tolerable, whose strength of perfidy grows through these men, in that they assert with greater contention that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not of one substance, because these men have attempted to say that the divinity of the Lord and His flesh are of one substance. Furthermore, since these men say that the Word was converted into flesh, hair, blood, and bones, and was changed from His own nature, a place is given to them to distort the infirmity of the flesh into the firmness of the divinity by a certain transformation of the divine nature having taken place. There are also some who have proceeded to such a point of impiety as to think that the divinity of the Lord was circumcised, and that the perfect was made imperfect, and that on the wood it was not flesh, but that divine substance, the worker of all things, that hung coagulated in the likeness of flesh. Who, however, would not shiver to hear that the Word of God made for Himself flesh capable of suffering, not from the Virgin Mary, but from the divine substance? By asserting this, they fall into the error of contending that the body of the Lord was not assumed in time, but was always coeternal with the Word of God. The authors of all these errors are those who said that the divinity and the flesh of the Lord are of one nature. ^B Wherever he compares God here to the soul and humanity to the flesh, he comes to the point of saying that one animal was made from God and man. For one animal is one genus, one substance, one nature, and also one species. But we do not say that the two natures are to be perceived according to speculation alone, so that it might be possible to speak of them as one; far from it! Nor again, as he says, that they depart from each other in all ways into an otherness that is removed and set aside in part; far from it! Nor do we say that we perceive the difference only in the subtlest phantasms of the mind, nor again that the natures are to be posited through parts, nor do we abruptly allow the power of incision to pass through both; but we use that reasoning which the blessed Bishop Gregory Nazianzen wrote, and which Cyril himself, Patriarch of Alexandria, approved in the Ephesine Synod among the testimonies of the Fathers together with the remaining bishops, saying that in Christ, ^C who according to His divinity fulfills the Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the matter stands conversely than in the truly most holy Trinity itself. For just as in the Trinity the humanity does not prejudice the number of persons, and just as there again the number of the three subsisting persons does in no way divide the singularity of the divinity; so here the number of the subsisting natures cannot cut into the singularity of the subsisting person, and for this reason, there are there one of the three subsistents—it is not a person, but a nature; so here the one of the two natures is not a nature, but a subsisting person. But I say that "to subsist" means that it is not an accident—just as a part of a city and of a people is spoken of—nor is it transitive, just as one taking the place of another performs the services and the cause of another. For because it is not permitted to say that the one nature of Christ was made from two through mixing, to the extent that it was condemned by the Church among the dogmas of Apollinarius before these men, of whom we now speak, were born, the most worthy writings of the blessed Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, testify, a man famous among the Church of God beyond the other bishops, and ^D whom for his merits not only Catholics, but also the other princes of his time revered above all priests, whose testimonies the Ephesine Synod also used. Ambrose, therefore, says in the book against the dogmas of Apollinarius, among many similar things, also this: And these—if I had not read them myself, I say, I read in certain books—it was placed thus, and 734 the instrument and the instrument by which it was moved, were of one nature in Christ. Which I have set down here, so that the name of the author may be detected from his writings, and that even though they oppose with the most exquisite arguments and flowery sermons, the force of truth cannot be covered up. And here he frequently reminds me that he is holding the treatise of the Nicene Council. But in that treatise, our Fathers [maintained] not flesh, but...

^A said that the Word of God is of one substance with the Father, and they confessed that the Word indeed proceeded from the paternal substance, but the flesh from the Virgin. How then is the name of the Nicene Council claimed, while new things are introduced which our ancestors never conceived, since in any case the Scriptures say that Christ suffered according to the flesh, not according to his divinity? The Scriptures say that the Virgin shall conceive in her womb and bear a son. She received the power, and gave birth to the Son, whom she herself received. Finally, Gabriel himself declares this in his own words, saying: *And that which shall be born of thee, holy, it shall be called the Son of God.* He says "of thee," so that you may observe that which was born of her was according to man. For Mary brought forth from herself, so that in what was generated from her, while preserving the prerogative of the Lord's generation, there might be the true nature of a body. But Paul also says that he was separated unto the Gospel of God, which he had promised before by his prophets concerning his Son, who was made ^B of the seed of David according to the flesh. And to the Galatians: *But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman.* And to Timothy he said: *Remember that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead of the seed of David.* Therefore he took from us that which he might offer for us, that he might redeem us from what was ours, and that he might confer upon us from his own divinity by his bounty what was not ours. Therefore according to our nature he offered himself, that he might work beyond our nature. From ours is the sacrifice; from his is the reward. You will find in the same many things both according to nature and beyond nature. According to the condition of the body, he was in the womb, he was born, he was suckled, he was placed in a manger. But above the condition [of nature], the Virgin conceived and the Virgin brought forth, so that you might believe that it was God who was renewing nature, and a man who was born of a human being according to nature. Therefore, if the flesh of all was subject to injury, and in Christ [was also subject to it], how is that flesh said to be of one substance with the divinity? Is the Word and the flesh, which has its nature from the earth, and the Word and the soul, with which he took on a perfect human nature, of one substance? But the Word is of one substance with God according to the paternal confession and the assertion of the Lord himself, who says: *I and the Father are one.* Is the Father ^C therefore asserted to be of one substance with a terrestrial body? And do you still feel indignant at the Arians, who say that the Son of God is a creature, when you yourselves say that the Father is of the same substance with creatures? What else do you say in asserting these things, unless that you either compare the dust of Adam and our earth to the divine substance, or certainly transfer divinity into the injury of terrestrial corruption? For by saying that the Word was made flesh, you say that he was in any case changed into earth, because flesh and bones are of the earth. It is written, they say, that the Word was made flesh. I do not deny that it is written, but I consider what follows. For it follows: *And dwelt among us*, that is, that Word which assumed flesh, this [Word] dwelt among us, that is, he dwelt in human flesh. And therefore he is called Emmanuel, which is, God with us. This, therefore, is what *The Word was made flesh* means, in that he was made man. Just as Joel also said: *I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.* For it is not upon irrational flesh, but upon human beings that the outpouring of the Spirit is promised. And if you hold to the letter, so as to think from that which is written, that *the Word was made flesh*, that the Word of God was changed into flesh, do you deny that it is written of the Lord that he did not commit sin, but was made sin? Was the Lord therefore changed into sin? Not so: but because he took upon himself our sins, he was called sin. For the Lord was also called a curse; not that the Lord was turned into a curse, but because he took our curse upon himself: *Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.* Are you surprised, therefore, that it is written, *the Word was made flesh*, when the flesh was assumed by the Word of God, since concerning the sin which he did not have, it is written that he was made sin—that is, not [having] the nature and operation of sin, as having been made in the likeness of sinful flesh, but so that he might crucify our sin in his own flesh, he assumed the liability to the infirmity of sinful flesh for us? Let them cease, therefore, to say that the nature of the Word was changed into the nature of the body, lest the nature of the Word be seen to be changed into the contagion of sin by a similar tempering. For what he assumed is one thing, and what was assumed is another. Power came into the Virgin, just as the angel also said to her: *The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.* Thus was the body born of the Virgin. And therefore the descent was indeed heavenly, but the conception was human. Therefore the nature of the flesh and of divinity could not be [the same].

^D Although this reading sufficiently marks the heresy which says that one nature was made in Christ out of the two, yet its conclusion is, as if by way of contrast, of that same madness which they still hold to this day. But the aforementioned readings, also, are no less significant, which lie not only in the second epistle to Successus, but also in the epistle to Acacius of Melitene and to Eulogius. And indeed in many other writings from before the peace, similar things are contained. But this is more significant here, because even after the peace, they are found to be renewed again against the faith of the universal Church, on account of the suspicion of which all the disputes were stirred up. Therefore, those who blame Theodoret for the letters which, if they are his, we shall be able to show by the grace of God were written with a good intention, must either say against Ambrose that it is not heresy to say "one nature of Christ after the union" only, and [must blame] the followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus.

^A are joined openly and separated from the rest, or at least are not blamed, for not knowing how Theodore spoke, nor another whom they venerate, since we now know how those things were said, they are compelled, by all consequence of reason, to be condemned. For if we should not act from fear of God regarding both parties, but should choose to discuss both by human presumption, we are caught by the necessity of all reason in the precipices of whichever impiety—and, what is worse, if we think that "one nature from two after the union" can be rightly said in Christ, we likewise dare to judge the dead, and how do we not shudder to say that we exclude Ambrose, as if he condemns piety for the gravest impiety, just as many other Fathers do? But let us now prove from the words of Cyril himself, the archbishop of Alexandria, that he preached these same things before the peace that he preached after the peace.

CHAPTER LXXXV [173]

Cyril to the presbyters Theognostus and Charmosinus, and to the deacon Leontius, health in the Lord.

Regarding all matters we write to you. Then you write as if you knew nothing, filling us with disturbances. I know, therefore, that I wrote to you that the most holy and God-fearing Acacius of Berrhoea, through the exhortation of some of the most reverend bishops of the East, wrote to me through my lord, the most magnificent Aristolaus, that all things which have been written in books or letters ought to be obliterated, and that we should be content only with the symbol which was set forth in the holy Nicene synod. I, however, wrote back to him a letter of many verses, which you have certainly received in every way. For the most beloved presbyter Eulogius taught this. And now, indeed, with the most reverend bishop of the city of Emesa, Paul, coming to Alexandria, all things have been arranged, ^B sweetly indeed and peacefully, but cautiously, just as it was fitting. For we have not received the deposition of the God-fearing bishop Maximianus, nor do we communicate with those who have been communicants, nor do we absolve them from the sentence that has been pronounced over them. Nor did we give communion to the aforementioned Paul simply for his own person alone, unless he had first offered a document, confessing that the holy Mary is the Theotokos, and that he anathematizes the dogmas of Nestorius. Taking, therefore, the place of speaking in the church, he said with a loud voice: "We confess the holy Virgin to be the God-bearer, and we anathematize those who do not say this, and we confess that there is one Son, Christ and the Lord, not two." But because he arrived having a document that he would anathematize the dogmas of Nestorius and would confess that he also held the deposit, but [the documents] were simply letters which were directed by him, having nothing necessary—I said that we cannot restore communion to him before he does these things. But when I saw them being disdainful on account of this, and the most reverend bishop Paul himself being too much constrained, and the most magnificent lord tribune and notary Aristolaus—giving a solution to the cause, and lest we be thought to be refusing peace while the cause was being dragged out by long delays—we wrote communicatory letters. ^C The document was indeed dictated with the counsel of the most reverend bishop Paul, in which the Antiochene ought also to subscribe. And I sent with the most admirable Aristolaus two clerics, so that, if John subscribed to the rejection or condemnation of Nestorius and anathematized his dogmas, he should give him the communicatory letters; otherwise, he should detain them, the most admirable Aristolaus receiving [them] with an oath that the document itself would not be lost in the least. He said, however: "If he is unwilling to subscribe, I shall make for Constantinople by a direct route and I shall inform our most pious prince that the Alexandrian Church does not stand against peace, but it is the Antiochene who does not love peace." Let no one, therefore, be agitated. For we are not so delirious that we anathematize what is our own; and we remain in those things that we have written, and we shall think the same things. For they are right and such as ought not to be accused, and are consonant with the divine Scriptures ^D and with the faith which was set forth by our holy Fathers.

CHAPTER LXXXVI [174]

Who shall speak of the powers of the Lord? let him make his praises heard. Sweet and good tidings have arrived from Alexandria, which could not be hoped for, joining in one sense the Churches of Christ that are everywhere in the earth and sea. And by the grace of God it will come about after a little, that we shall destine to your religiosity or God-fearingness those things which have been written to us. In which my lord the most religious bishop Cyril, having used to satiety the sharpness of dogma, receives and approves those things which have been destined by us, but rather praises them through hymns, as being good, and well composed, and consonant with the confession of the Fathers; he himself also composing similar ones, and with all most full satisfaction: whence we have thought it just that I should especially make you rejoice with this sweet news; so that each one may also receive joy in part.

^A I believe that all who love God will celebrate this feast, since we receive tidings which restore and lift up the senses of all the faithful. For God has unexpectedly restored to its original state the pious confession of the Fathers, which was in peril and rent into many and various opinions, giving joy to those who are in heaven and to those who are on earth. For that adulterine sense of one nature, or rather that infirmity, has been clearly expelled from the letter, and it has indeed confessed the difference of the natures. Furthermore, that singularity and supreme conjunction has also been expelled, and even that consubstantiality and unity which was introduced is now preached. And we divide the terms as we do the natures, not only we, among whom from the beginning and from the Fathers there is a friendly division of terms concerning the Saviour, but also those who are in Egypt, just as we who are in the East. But this whole matter is the work of God, through the exercise of discussion, which has been held with charity. For affection often knows how to prevail over greater necessity; and often what contention could not recall, this has restored through the persuasion of its own grace. And that I may not draw out the discourse, the confession of the right faith itself will arrive in the letters to you in a little while, when the second letters follow them, through which your God-belovedness will clearly know all things. For my lord, the most holy bishop Paul, who was able to carry out those things for the general good, has set out from Egypt and is on the way, God consenting. These things indeed we prayed for, but they pleased God. And awaiting his presence, that nothing concerning the fear of God might remain hidden, we have written these things in the meantime, wishing to satisfy the common body of the holy Church of God. We salute all the brotherhood that is with you.

CHAPTER LXXXVII [175]

Epistle of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, to John, bishop of Antioch, in reply, and responding to the aforementioned news of peace.

The soldiers of the masters serve best against the enemies when they stand on the whole perimeter of the wedge, and fight bravely for those who are laboring. And when they have celebrated a peace, they number among them in the making of the peace not only those who are present, but also those who are absent from the battle. And the great David, when he had at some time gone forth to battle and emerged victorious, and had brought the spoils back to the city, distributed an equal portion not only to those who had fought, but also to those who had been ordered to guard the vessels. And the law was made from that time, commanding that those who had been the baggage-guard remain to share the booty equally with those who fight. ^B How then is it not incongruous that, while the law commands that when those who sit far from the battle in the guard of the vessels have been made useful, they should share equally in rewards, we should despise those who from being previously common enemies are now expelled, men who in Ephesus and in Chalcedon fought bravely for piety and have stood with us until the present, and have in no way ceased to act laudably? If therefore the peace which is proclaimed stands firm and is true, it is necessary that all should enjoy it, and that no one should be outside our wedge. If in truth this is a hollow business of peace, and the confederates have given it only a naked name, we judge such a peace to be hateful to God and unworthy of any pious person.

For it is neither holy nor salubrious that we should indeed undo just depositions or condemnations, and receive illicit orders, and grant pardon to those who have turned all things upside down; while from them, even in the very time of peace, those things which are of enemies are perpetrated, and they drive the outstanding men of our wedge from the churches. Your holiness should therefore write both to the Christ-loving Emperor and to the great judges, and make it manifest to them that we shall in no way suffer to accept this peace, and to embrace the communion of those men, unless first those who were with us at the time of the struggles have received back their churches. For it befits your holiness to provide such a peace for the churches as is free from every stain, and which wounds the pious no more than the battle itself.

I am compelled to write these things for the present, receiving again the letters of the most holy and God-beloved bishop Himerius, blaming us as traitors to the common struggle. Therefore, let your holiness also console him, and signify to the Emperors that we judge this peace to be worse than the battle. ^C For that battle indeed both crowns us before God, and makes us adorned before those who are wise in divine things; but such a peace as this fills us with confusion here, and before the just Judge will render us worthy of supreme punishment.

Good military discipline holds firm against the enemies on the whole flank of the wedge, and they fight bravely for those who labor. And when they have celebrated a peace, they count not only those who are present, but also those who are absent from the combatants in the making of the peace. And the great David, when having gone forth at one time to battle he proved victorious, and had brought back the spoils to the city, distributed an equal portion not only to those who had fought, but also to those who were ordered to keep the vessels. And the law was made from that time, commanding that those who bore the military instruments should in like manner share a part of the booty with those who fight. ^D

CHAPTER LXXXVIII [176]

Epistle of the same to Theosebius the bishop. Irenæus places both.

Since indeed we left Ephesus, which has an ill name, I have neither written to your holiness, nor has it fallen to me to enjoy your letters. And that I may make a common satisfaction, I think the cause was not the length of the journey; but because we and your religiosity live further away from that road upon which the horses run. Nevertheless, even if we have not received letters, we are continually delighted by your praises: for we have heard of your zeal for piety, and your fortitude against iniquity, and we greatly admire the perseverance of your soul. For we, indeed, being far from the enemies, and as the saying goes, sitting outside the fall of arrows, are able to do nothing arduous, unless it be to extol the virtue of good men with our words, while abstaining from the deeds themselves.

Your own amiability, set in the midst of enemies ^A and surrounded on all sides by them—when your enemies encompass you—stands out as the stronger for the evils [it faces], and like some very brave man clad in armor, you repel the cloud of arrows sent against you with your helmet, while with your lance you put the oncoming to flight. Thus, your holiness, clothed in every manner of spiritual armor, extinguishes the flaming arrows of the unrighteous with the shield of faith, while with the sword of the Spirit and the doctrine of divine discourses you refute falsehood, and show forth the strength of the truth.

For which reason we bless you, most holy one, and entreat the Lord: doing something similar to those who, sitting on land, pray fervently for those who struggle amidst the waves of the sea, that, if it pleases Him, He may dissolve the storms from heaven. If, however, it remains necessary ^B for those who are like us to be chastened, and for them to be revealed to us, may He grant you strength until the end of the struggles: for it shall be a common confidence, and a primacy of virility for all who choose to descend into this stadium. That which the wicked one truly opened—vaunting against our nature—God, who uses the machinations of the wicked for salvation, has made useful and accommodating for the provision of good things. And so, even now, those who were asserting things contrary to the apostolic doctrine, and who were teaching that one nature was made of the natures of Christ, and were dogmatizing a blending—contrary to the unconfused union—and who attempted to ascribe 741 to the inconvertible and immutable divinity those sufferings which, for our salvation, are attributed to the flesh of the Lord, He has led back into another doctrine, which is clearly contrary to these, and has compelled [them] to be taught again the evangelical rule.

Hence, they are persuaded at this present time to confess two natures, and, banishing changeability and confusion from ecclesiastical dogmas, they proclaim with a clear voice the difference between the natures, and, adapting the sufferings to the flesh, they confirm the divine nature to be impassible. By so much did this stadium profit the adversaries themselves: not because of the malice of the devil, but because of the mercy and wisdom of our God. We trust that He also refutes iniquity, just as He has laid bare impiety; and that He looks out for justice, just as He has shown forth piety; and that He persuades all that there is nothing which is not ruled by Him: nor does He neglect anything; but, wisely governing all things, He permits the storms to rage against the ship for a short while, so that the virtue of those sailing may become known. Conduct yourself virilely, therefore, lord, and let your heart be comforted, and wait upon the Lord. And do you, I pray, support me with your prayers, who am utterly in need of such a protection, as much on account of the infirmity of my soul as on account of the languor of my body. ^C

CAPUT LXXXIX [177]. Words of Irenaeus which he spoke against Theodoret after the letter of John written above.

Believing in these, or rather, having been induced by them, this lover of God—and former doctor of the Church, who was guiding the chariot—is indeed greatly “taken in by the good messengers of peace: for how could it happen otherwise? But not yet knowing the method of this most famous agreement; and not even admitting in his mind at all, on account of the excess of impiety, what the machinations were, he used such letters not only to him, but also to many others besides. ^D

CAPUT XC [178]. Letter of Andrew, bishop of Samosata, to Alexander of Hierapolis.

Many are announcing peace to us, both through letters and personally; and these seem to us to rejoice in this good news. I, however, seeing the things that are in the middle, just as your holiness also knows, seem indeed to receive the messengers with distaste; but I groan within myself, thinking as if something no newer were now being brought to us from Alexandria: Peace will be made with the corruption of the faith. For indeed, reading the letters that were sent directly from Alexandria, which I once transmitted to your holiness, I saw a clearer impiety being spread. I see, however, many of those who seemed to contend for the faith, privately making concessions and satisfying those who incited us to quarrels, as if they had been led astray and held the right opinion. And what outcome the cause may receive, I cannot see. I fear, however, lest I find [something similar] regarding my Antoninus, just as receiving blessings from Apollinarius. But your holiness, lord, contending sufficiently for piety, both confirms and strengthens us, and may God be to all who cherish you a pillar and a foundation of the true faith.

CAPUT XCI [179]. Letter of John, bishop of Antioch, to Emperor Theodosius concerning the peace of the Church.

To our most God-beloved and most pious emperors, who are worthily honored by God, or ordained, Theodosius and Valentinian, Augusti, John, bishop of Antioch of your Syria, sends greetings in the Lord.

It is opportune now to quote that utterance of the prophet. For the crooked shall be made straight. For when God does something, there follows in the things that are done an ease of name; and no one resists the divine will. He has willed now, and it has pleased Him, that through your pious intention, and these blessed cares which your empire has taken up for the Church of Christ, you might join the world in peace, and grant a union in which no one thinks anything else about ecclesiastical dogmas,

but one sense is preserved, and the same regarding the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. We all hold the same view, therefore. And a common confession has been made by us, embracing in harmony those things which the Fathers formerly explained from the beginning, satisfying one another in those matters about which we were in doubt while contending against my lord, the most God-fearing bishop Cyril. He himself, now receiving those things which were directed by us, and acquiescing in those things which we, composing them for your piety, handed down in the city of Chalcedon, and approving them, has interwoven with us, with similar understandings, the same confession of the apostolic faith. All heresy and contention has therefore been expelled, with your piety remaining a safeguard for the world, whose scepters have been nourished with a pious confession; and they have surely prevailed, and will prevail forever, with the divine right hand sustaining them. ^A

For since these things, as we have said, have turned out well and rightly with God's favor, prayers and supplications for your empire shall be made by all men. For through you, and through your piety, tranquillity has been restored to the Churches; and the affairs of the Christians have been saved. The cities, peoples, and provinces are living in peace for the rest. It is altogether fitting for your empire that there be no disturbance. And as you are yourselves, tranquil and gentle, so it is fitting that the state of affairs should also be, so that all men in common, and each one individually, may embrace this union, which has been brought about beyond all hope. For it is praiseworthy, and every man is blessed before God, who, even in individual parts, has restored those things which had been in confusion. And [we act] according to the voice of the Lord, who says: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt. v, 9). We know that His unconquerable power is now working together with this intention of yours, which is so pleasing to God. For you are a fountain of all good. And from your kingdoms, rivers of benefits are poured out into the whole world. And the priests of God enjoy their former quiet, for which they mainly yearn, so that they may offer sincere and diligent prayers for your empire. ^B

And so that your empire may know both the things which were written by us to him, and by him to us—in which we preserve one and the same paternal sense in our ministrations—we have sent our letters to one another, attaching them to these letters of ours, and delivering the epistle to the most illustrious tribune and your secretary Aristolaus, whose ministry has been used in this cause, so that your will might be accomplished, since it is pious and holy. Matters being such, therefore, and the faith receiving its indubitability, we have followed all that you have commanded, most pious emperors, through the most God-fearing, or rather most religious, bishop Paul—a man whom you also know, as I judge, to be a lover of peace and possessing no small knowledge in ecclesiastical affairs. We therefore receive the ordination of the most holy and most religious ^C, or rather most God-fearing, bishop Maximianus, a man whose virtue and manner of life we have known for a long time. And we consider Nestorius, who was once bishop of the great name of Constantinople, deposed or condemned, subjecting to anathema whatever things have been said by him in an alien and foreign manner against the apostolic doctrine.

We beseech your piety, however, that you may grant a perfect festival to the world, so that no city may be excluded from this celebration of the common festival; and that you command that those most God-fearing bishops, who appeared to have been expelled from the Churches amidst the preceding disturbances, be brought back to their former state, and be free from all annoyance, so that no remnants of pusillanimity may remain in the Churches. It is easy for this to be done by your empire, for the reason that you have old examples of this kind of correction, which ancient, God-fearing ^D bishops [employed against] their own...

CAPUT XCII [180]. The Epistle of Meletius the bishop, written in reply to Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis, against Paul, bishop of Emesa.

We were not pleased even before by this divine condescension which is criticized, while indeed there were many who were obscuring it. But now, after an incontrovertible and clear demonstration, we shall in every way, by the grace of God, confirm the opinion which we held concerning them even before. For it is better that a person, being established in the faith of the apostolic dogmas and in no way relaxed regarding that strictness which it is necessary to show concerning those things which are divine, should himself be a teacher of the truth by his very deeds to those who wish to live piously, than that, because of an occasion of condescension, he should fall from the best height of piety by slipping. For the other will in every way follow, that he himself at least is in no danger, even if there is no one whom he benefits. It is permitted to those who wish, it is permitted even without fear, to ascend the adamantine tower of truth. Indeed, the way is paved, and there is no one who forbids it. On the contrary, there are many altogether who encourage it. If, however, anyone should count the multitude of the saints who have fallen asleep, or even the companies of the angelic hosts, who would gladly and certainly embrace, and...

^A lead to an ascent, as many as might desire the truth, that they might seek it: for there are many to whom persistent goodness is profitable. Hence I think it better not to be hasty regarding this descent; nor, because of this, to prefer others for such salvation. Whence not even by another—whoever it might be—will anyone be protected. For it is necessary that both be caught similarly in the snares of perdition. Nor did he propose the matter of humility by the grace of God.

We have indeed directed the rescript of the Egyptian's epistle, which was brought to us recently, which he made to certain of his clergy at Constantinople who blamed him, as though he had indeed anathematized his own dogmas, while having prepared all to desist from them and to spit upon them. Whence you may clearly see both what kind of ecclesiastical peace has been made, and what things have been done by our most divine legates; and that he has been received rather, O most godly lord to me. Vouchsafe, however, I pray, as is your custom, to intercede for my humility.

And from these writings it is sufficiently shown, which is everywhere to be noted, that all those Orientals who did not wish to condemn Nestorius, not Cyril, but John, said that they had yielded; and that those who held the contrary will were held by a contrary opinion concerning both:

745 CHAPTER XCIII [181].

Letter of Bishop Alexander to Bishop Andrew.

The end has come, and communion has truly been made with the impious Cyril, not by Cyril abandoning his heresy, but by us ourselves, through one word which is placed in the epistle, introducing heresy. But what sort of judgment I hold concerning that epistle, your holiness does not ignore. Since, however, I have no part nor lot with them, but whether exile, or death to me, or a precipice, or fire, or beasts are proposed, God strengthening me, I would endure all things rather than communicate with such, let your holiness hold firmly. The Antiochene also wrote an epistle to me. He defamed the orthodox, attempting as usual to deceive everyone. So even now, as if no one had ears, eyes, or a heart, he defamed the correction of the faith and the change of the Egyptian: not blushing even at those things which are read in that very letter of the Egyptian himself. And I immediately dictated a *Hypomnesticum*. For I do not write him as a bishop, from now on cutting myself off from the communion of Cyril, and of those who are added to them. And I am keeping that *Hypomnesticum* for the time being: not that I am thinking anything else; but that I might send it both to your holiness, and to the most godly bishop Theodoret. I have therefore deemed it necessary to make these very things known to your holiness, lest you be saddened regarding us, as if I had indicated nothing about this. ^B

CHAPTER XCIV [182].

A similar letter of the same Bishop Alexander to Bishop Theodoret.

Scarcely at last those things which were being brought forth and were being carved immediately after the rejection of the Egyptians, who at the time were able, together with lord John, to obey the most honorable Paul, and to lead to the light. Your holiness is mindful, however, that I did not bear to share with them in any counsel regarding that epistle which was produced at Ephesus. On the surface, indeed, it was written as if at the occasion of John the Count, as if the emperor had said that we should indicate something to him regarding the word by which he is called *Theotokos*, that is, one who brought forth God; in truth, however, this word, as it was sought by us, was inserted for the betrayal and calumny of him who was teaching the right faith. That, therefore, nothing of those things which I feel might be hidden from your holiness, I indicate that the papers which were made at Ephesus, through which I hold in writing both the constancy of the orthodox and the recession of the heretics, and the books of the heretic Cyril, I have entrusted to a certain unanimous person for safe keeping. For I wish, for the satisfaction of my soul, to meditate on these things repeatedly, especially being removed from cares. ^C 746 Nor indeed does it sufficiently matter to me concerning papers and base books, whether they are given to me while I go out from my place, or are not given. These things have been written by me in brief to your religiousness, not indeed wishing to move anything whatever against anyone concerning those things which are being done; nor yet enduring the communion of those who are added to them, so that if any remain harmonious with us, and it pleases them to remain in our parishes, this may be done: otherwise let us immediately remove ourselves from the midst, and I, separating myself, shall save my soul. For I shall not suffer myself to consent to these things which have been offered by Paul and received by the Egyptian, God confirming me, even if many thousands of deaths are commanded to me. And not even if the whole world were to agree. Which indeed I say conditionally. For I fear him who says to strive for the truth unto death. And furthermore I know that the betrayal of the Catholic voice, premeditated for a long time, has now come to effect. And indeed, so that in the festivals, or in the proclamations and doctrines, the Mother of God, or the one who brought forth God, might be spoken of incautiously, by the orthodox only without addition, or the God-killing of the Jews, or because the Word has become "thickened"—and whatever things are such, which we find to have been said by the orthodox with less suspicion—they are certainly worthy of no accusation, in that these things were not posited dogmatically, and, as I said, were not spoken maliciously. Indeed, not from a sordid will, nor was such a question now proposed. But truly after the corruption of the whole world, and from the time when the passible God began to be preached by the impious chapters of Cyril, ^D

dogma is to be placed on the sole word which pronounces the one who gave birth to God, that is, *Theotokos*, without that which declares the one who gave birth to a man, that is, *Anthropotokos*, it is nothing else than that those things which are of Cyril should be preached. For this single expression introduces all sufferings and death in the same way, although the other word is added thousands of times through various circuits, and to one reading the letter carefully it is allowed to see that it is in no way free from his heresy.

But if they who offered were of a sound conscience, and he who received, received it: what hindered them from calling the holy Virgin *Christotokos*, that is, one who gave birth to Christ, they who clearly preached the Lord Christ as God and perfect man consubstantial with us? But if they are delighted with this composite word, why did they refuse to join to it the word which is *Theotokos* and *Anthropotokos*? Far be it that it should ever weary any of the pious to confess the name of the *Genitrix* of God, if he also puts forward the *Genitrix* of Man! For just as it is impious to refute the word *Anthropotokos* along with *Theotokos*, so too [it is] *Theotokos* along with *Anthropotokos*. ^A When, however, both words are placed, both the heresy of those who preach that God suffered, and that of those who say that Christ is a mere man, are simultaneously renounced. Now the fathers of either heresy are exposed, just as are the great doctors of the Church who struggled for the sound faith against the heresy of Apollinaris, resisting the dogmas, using both words: by which they both clearly noted all heresies and preached orthodoxy irreprehensibly.

And these letters, and those which follow by Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, were placed in order by Irenæus in that which is called his tragedy. They declare, however, sufficiently the differences between both, and who are Catholic, and who appear to be moved by another will: if they indeed exist.

CHAPTER XCV

God, who searches all things wisely, and providing for our unanimity, and sparing the salvation of the peoples, has prepared that we should come together into one, and he shows the wills of all to be consonant with one another. For in common we read the Egyptian letters, and discussing their mind subtly, we recognized that those things which were written by letter are consonant with our own; and the twelve chapters, ^B as it were from the opposite side, against which indeed up to the present we have persisted in struggling. For those have [points such as]: the Word of God made flesh carnally, and the union according to substance, and the gathering concerning the natural union, and God the Word having become the firstborn from the dead.

But those things which are now contained in the letter are clearly adorned with evangelical nobility. For there is preached in them God and perfect man our Lord Jesus Christ, and two natures; and the difference of them, and the unconfused union: not as if by the mixing of liquids one with another, or the coagulation of leaven, but ineffably, and effected in a way worthy of God, and which preserved the properties of the natures intact. And the God Word is indeed impassible and inconvertible; the temple however is passible, and handed over to death for a little while, and raised again by the united power of God. The Holy Spirit also does not have subsistence from the Son, or through the Son, but proceeding from the Father: yet truly proper [to the Son], because he is also consubstantial with him, as [he is] named. ^C Seeing this rectitude in the letters themselves, and as from the opposite side finding what is contrary to the things which were previously written, we have praised God, who deigned to loose the tongues of the stammerers, and changed an uncertain sound into an articulated and sweet voice. Of these things, therefore, we have had this opinion. But other things have been rumored, which have disturbed us too much. For they say that he, who has here used repentance, is striving to exact not only a subscription of rejection or condemnation from your sanctity, but also an anathematism of the doctrine of the most holy and God-beloved bishop Nestorius.

But if this is true, that he hurls this as if from the citadel of the city, he does something similar, as if someone having been led with difficulty and at last to confess the Son consubstantial to God and the Father, soon strikes again with anathema those who from the beginning have understood and taught this. And this man indeed, after he was at last joined to our dogmas, soon attempts to exact their anathematism, as if repenting for the very rectitude of things. Since, therefore, this whole matter greatly disturbs our people, I beseech your sanctity, and again I beseech, that you teach us whether the opinion which has disturbed us all is true. For to write to your sanctity concerning the subscription, I judge to be superfluous, which often promised ^D that it compels no one against his will to these things. We all wish to write these things in common, but I, and the most holy and God-beloved bishop Andreas, have decided rather, not by encyclical letters, but by friendly ones, to make these things known to your sanctity, and by your wise medicines to restore the perturbation which has been born from opinion.

that he is at one with our volition, even if he currently hesitates, seeking the subtlety of names and being content with a confession that is not yet fully understood.

^B Irenaeus also inserts this writing in the name of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. Whether it is authentic, we do not know; for it is not recorded that anyone objected to it while he was alive, or demonstrated that it was his. Yet, I confess, if the letter is indeed his, it does not seem to me inexcusable. For the fact that it could have been written in the interest of the right faith for everyone is shown by the fact that it praises the faith of the unifying letter of the blessed Cyril, which, as we have proven, Alexander does not alone execrate. ^B 749 But no other of those who remained separated from the Church with Nestorius approved of it either. Regarding his refusal to consent at present to the deposition of Nestorius, this he shares with the other bishops. He was previously, and after a considerable time he continued to remain in the Council of the East; none of whom, as if returning from heretics, were then penitent, because it sufficed for the Church of God that they change their opinion. Furthermore, it is one thing for a person to hold an incorrect opinion about the faith, and another thing entirely. Just as it is one thing to praise the act of theft itself, and another, having not yet discovered a thief, to defend him as innocent because one believed him to be so. The logic regarding dogma is similar. For it is read not only of Theodosius, the prince at that time, but also of many others, and indeed even of the saints Pope Celestine and Cyril of Alexandria, that they had approved his ^C initial state—for they had consented, as their writings also speak, to his presiding over such a great city while he was a presbyter of Antioch; an office which the canons would not have permitted except for great merits of doctrine and character. But such as he was still thought to be for some time by the Orientals, this occurred because he denied that he had preached such things in Constantinople as were being rumored. And furthermore, in writing back to John, Bishop of Antioch, he had very clearly designated the Mother of God, and other things which those who have read them marvel that he could have written. And what is more, he wrote that he had assented to the very faith at Ephesus, which is contained in the union letters of Cyril and John, mediated by Bishop Paul; to which faith, however, Nestorius was afterwards detected to have assented deceitfully—for his accomplices, one of whom is this Irenaeus, most clearly argue for this confession of faith, which Theodoret praises so greatly. For Irenaeus himself, ^D criticizing the aforementioned letter of Theodoret, and praising the letter of Alexander against it, says thus: "Burning with divine zeal and prophesying, he accuses the betrayal of the term. And this we see clearly from the very letters of Cyril. For he took from here all the matter for his deception, and this first and last, or rather, he dragged only this into the middle. He reproaches certain orthodox doctrine as if it were polluted, but on this occasion exalts his own error, and soon inserting some things in the name of the blessed Cyril, he added as follows: 'The great Alexander, foreseeing this long ago, abhorred the betrayal of the term, as the one which exists as sufficient, if "Theotokos" alone—without the addition of the name "Anthropotocos"—is brought forward, to introduce the feebleness of heresy and to corrupt ecclesiastical dogmas.'" 750 The same Irenaeus, with a few intervening words, added these as well:

CHAPTER XCVI [184].

"I am mindful, when we were speaking to one another in the place that is called Arbathimilas, that I said to your holiness then, when I had certainly pretended nothing before, as if I had heard some truth from elsewhere, that perhaps the legate of this peace might have brought only the term, which is 'Theotokos,' to the Egyptians. And I believe it was not without the providence of God that this was said. For there arrived to us the letter of John, which was recently composed to Cyril, and from Cyril to him; it was being circulated in the city, in which the Egyptian, keeping only the name 'Bearer of God,' as if it were suitable to all his own errors, praised it with many commendations, saying he had never thought otherwise, nor did he think anything besides this. And he truly said so: for this is like the fortress of his entire heresy. And your holiness is surely mindful of how, placed at Ephesus, I resisted the communion of such a letter with all my strength, while it certainly greatly accused those blasphemies that were present in the chapters of Cyril. For in the new letter, when I had run through the whole portion that also lies in the letters of Cyril, and had compared it to that which was then written by your religiosity, I found that those who were sent to Egypt had placed neither the beginnings nor the endings of that very letter. But this is clear not only from those terms which the same Egyptian transcribed, but from those words through which, with many altercations and accusations, they drenched both him and his chapters, and detested his heresy, those who were then writing at Ephesus. The Egyptian will therefore accept then, as I said, through this sermon, their consent to all his written heresies; and in..."

which he had previously simulated the truth, he has henceforth the protection of heresy: and to those reading the letter attentively, he himself is also manifest, always sowing the seeds of his own poison. I had indeed directed the same letters [to be sent], had I not known that your holiness already had them.

CHAPTER XCVII [185].

This epistle, if it is believed to be true, does not seem excusable to me. For Paul, the bishop of Emesa, could not have been displeased with it because he had made a peace that was supposedly not in agreement with the Catholic faith, but because he had not consulted the weaker bishops of the East in that way. And certainly he had praised the unifying epistles regarding the faith a little before; indeed, he never ceased to praise them.

CHAPTER XCVIII [186].

CHAPTER XCIX [187].

Your holiness knows, even if I should say nothing, that for this reason I came to Marbathimas first, and then to Hierapolis, and for no other reason, except that we might discuss together what we ought to do; and that what had been agreed upon might be put into effect. Since, therefore, it has pleased your holiness that we meet at Zeugma, I ask your holiness not to delay: for all things which your religiousness desires, as I hope, are to be done, and no one will resist your holiness in anything: for we all revere you as a father, and as a lord, and have revered you, and will revere you. I ask your holiness therefore again, deign to be wearied; for in truth I believe that God, the author of goods, has deigned to dispense those things which pertain to us. Nor will he abandon us, that we might either offend against him or be confounded before men, illuminating our mind, and showing us what is pleasing: for I also said to your holiness before ^D that they have anathematized the dogma of my lord, the most holy and most God-beloved bishop Nestorius. Nor do I, to these [things]...

communicate. And if it shall please your holiness that this also be inserted in the letters which are to be sent by us, this too shall be done. I beseech you, therefore, do not linger, through your holy steps. I commit the matter to your God: and He Himself will guide, as He knows how, your holiness and our own lowliness.

753 CHAPTER C [188]

Of the same Irenaeus:

And your religiosity is aware ^B that on account of his right faith I am unwilling even now to come and to discuss with you those matters which are being treated as equal. But since I knew regarding the rest, what has already been given by them as the form of condemnation of his person, it seems to me too ridiculous to seek an anathema of the chapters from a man who has condemned an orthodox man along with his dogma, and especially since it seems to your religiosity that Cyril hath been changed. It makes no difference whether one compels you to condemn if you have communicated with him who condemned a preacher of orthodox things. Nevertheless, those things which we then discussed in Antioch among ourselves, saying that, if Cyril accepts that condition and rejects the chapters, it is fitting for peace to be made, we said these things knowing that the rejection of heretical chapters is ^C also the strength of the right faith, and the subversion of those things which were done against that person, and the solution of the general scandal. Since, therefore, I am certain that the impious Cyril has appeared more impious from these things which have just been written, and he himself has not been changed, but has received those who were added to him as if they were his own; how is it possible that I should seek from him an anathema of the chapters, who by the very communion entered into with Cyril has both deposed the person and condemns it, as we most perfectly believe? For we shall immediately truly be objects of reproach and laughter if, after we have betrayed the orthodox ^D faith, we now desire a mocking satisfaction. I have thought it necessary that these things become known to your religiosity, so that you may grant me pardon for not wanting to be weary. But if those things which your religiosity has dictated, you should desire to direct, and there should also be added concerning that person himself, that the Antiochene might satisfy us through his writings concerning the anathema of those chapters, and because he does not himself condemn the preacher of orthodoxy, and resists with us even unto death those who seek his condemnation (not on account of the person, but on account of the orthodoxy which that person preaches), and you should have dictated these things to me, which you shall have directed, that I might receive an exemplar thereof with the subscription of all of you, who are God-beloved bishops of the same diocese; and moreover, even if he should yet desire to satisfy us, I will not refuse to be weary: for the lord Nestorius was condemned not on account of the depravity of his life toward them, but was condemned on account of his heretical faith. He, therefore, who condemns him, condemns his faith likewise. I, therefore, am doubly scandalized in the lord John, as one who has both betrayed the faith and condemned him whom he knew to be orthodox, along with his own faith. But if these things in no way offend you, I am superfluously concerned with you.

753 CHAPTER CI [189]

The epistle, he says, of Andrew to the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which he wrote inviting him to consent immediately to the peace arrangement that had been made.

From this, I write to your holiness, I went forth from the province, wanting to satisfy ^B those perturbed against us by the calumnies of Gemellinus and Rabbula. Whence, pressing upon this chiefly, I beseech your holy head, that even now considering the utility of timely condescension, you might think about entering into communion and peace with the other priests. For neither have they themselves departed from the truth, nor have we embraced peace having betrayed piety, but having found the confession of the two natures in the writings, and the impassibility of the divinity, wh...

^Aich was what primarily had been opposed or resisting. 755 But if the chapters have not been anathematized by him who made them, certainly he also rejects those things which, having been done afterwards, are a right confession. Let your wisdom, perfect in Christ, consider that it was not possible for him to clearly become his own accuser, since he was under suspicion of being in danger. And therefore peace and the union of the Churches could not come about, but schisms will remain in their state, and, contrary to one another, our stubbornness, and laughter from pagans, Jews, and heretics against the Church.

Now, however, may your divinity consider that since the concession was made in this matter, all scandals are at rest, and the blasphemy that until now was diffused against God, saying divinity is mortal, which priests in the Church affirm, is put to sleep. How great a good it is, therefore, that through the letters of the Alexandrian himself all may be persuaded that it is necessary to confess the impassible and immortal divine nature! I dare to write these things out of the great affection I have toward your holiness. For although you excel us in all things like a head, you know fully that comfort is often brought even by the smallest members. And if you would wish, lord, being persuaded by us to yield a little, you will see in no long interval of time how great a utility will result from this cause. I, and those who are with me, greet your holiness most abundantly.

CHAPTER CII [190].

I have nothing to write to you regarding this ecclesiastical business beyond what I intimated to your holiness some time ago by letter; for it is two years since, having followed all things which were brought forward in writing and without writing by the contrary parties or by us, I have comprehended, as I judge, the proposal of Cyril to be heretical, and contrary to the right faith which is vindicated by us. But if it seems otherwise to anyone regarding the instructions or responses, everyone is master of his own will. I have, however, given this response also to the most God-beloved lords the bishops, and to the lord Theodoret, who wrote that I should hold these very things which your holiness writes. Henceforth, therefore, it is superfluous for me to write or for your holiness to indicate anything further on this. For I wish your religiousness to know that I have no part with those who communicate with them. But I delay leaving the Church because of secular violence for this reason alone, under the witness of truth, lest I seem to incur the condemnation of a deserter and traitor of the sheep of Christ.

756

Chapter CIII [191].

I am greatly saddened about your holiness, lord, considering how great a speed and machination the demon constructs to disturb the Church of God, which has been committed to your governance, envying it because it has progressed greatly under you. For which cause I, bound on my bed, leaped forth to these letters. And I entreat your holiness, and I touch your feet, that you might make a thought even now that is fitting or meet for your past life, committing the outcome of affairs to God. For you have not lived so, nor are the things which you have performed throughout your whole life such, that you should be despised by the good God. Nor have you worshipped him in such a way that he does not think of you at all. But I trust firmly that he will provide some marvelous and unexpected outcome for these present sorrows, which we meanwhile cannot think of, because he himself, as is his custom, after the increase of the worst things is able to show his solace toward his own worshippers. I ask, therefore, that you neither be troubled, nor dispose yourself to depart from the Church; for this is too impious, and more the work of a hireling than a pastor. Do not hand over so many souls without vengeance, but possess the overturning of all things, which you have previously wrought most wonderfully. But consider, as I said, the power of God. And because he who reconciled to peace both the things which are in heaven and the things which are on earth will both join together the divided members of the Church and will grant for your holiness to be satisfied, so that you may communicate and consent with other priests: because we also, not simply, nor even as someone might say, have looked toward this intention impiously, but considering what would be expedient for the Churches.

CHAPTER CIV [192].

I give thanks indeed for your admonition, coming from an affection of benevolence. But so that you do not expend much paper on our account, cease, I ask, from advices. For that impious Cyril is a heretic, and those who offered that paper to him, as he wrote, have become co-operators, and are rather princes of perdition against the orthodox faith, your God-loving soul knows. For also those things which pertain to the most holy Bishop Nestorius, how they may have disposed them, not sparing their own souls, let them be omitted, to be reserved for the judgment of God. Perhaps, however, he also commits an injustice who accuses your religiousness as though it were provoking. For you are orthodox, and you preach the right faith, and yet you have worked confusion, and have mixed heresy into the orthodoxy by way of dispensation. 757 Whence cease, I ask, to advise us: for neither, with God comforting me, do I communicate with you, nor with Cyril, not anathematizing this heresy clearly, nor with those who communicate with him. You, however, as far as concerns you, have carried it out, you have made haste, you have run, you have sought the lost sheep. She does not wish to be found; for the rest, cease. For before that terrible tribunal we shall surely see one another.

CHAPTER CV [193]

The letter, he says, of the same man, which he wrote to John of Germanicia, who had similarly asked him for peace.

^A And formerly, when your assembly collected at Zeugma, that is, of the bishops and pastors most dear to God, to seek and save the sheep that had perished, and, while you were manifesting every form of pastoral discipline, I could not attain to the height of the knowledge granted to you, nor look into the inner chambers of the repentance for the Egyptian abomination, with many other things moved among these—so that I might not repeat your propositions and regrets—you knew that it was my lot, with the cooperation of God, who also gives us the light of knowledge of the true faith, to accept every pious condescension and to refuse the impious dispensation which is under the pretext of peace. And now, nevertheless, we hold the same sentiment: for my intention is to preserve an unshaken conscience everywhere, and to keep the terrible communion of divine and heavenly mysteries separate from all heretical mixture. But if to me, which God forbid (for we have the Lord's commandment, that we pray that we may not enter into temptation), it should be commanded by imperial necessity that I either accept the communion of that impious one (for now, as we are practiced in other cases, all things seem easy to us) or undergo ten thousand deaths, with God strengthening me even then, you shall know that you are weak in persuading us, but we are not inclined to lose what we received from the Lord Christ, ^B by whose grace we shall undoubtedly seek restitution from him.

CHAPTER CVI [194]

The letter, he says, of Andrew to the agents of the bishop of Alexandria, most dear to God, stating that he has communicated with the Antiochenes and all the rest.

I hear that the most holy bishop is very angry, and is directing letters against us in many places, as if we had seen the most religious bishop Rabbula—which, indeed, has not yet happened. But if it had happened, I do not know what common fault could have been committed for which he should have been indignant. For I, who once communicated with the most holy bishop John and embraced peace, was repulsed from his communion, conversation, 758 and presence; and so I am to be repulsed, and to impose upon myself this greater retribution? Nor even if—God forbid—I had acted impiously, could he have been able to impose it upon me; since he, who even speaks with Jews and pagans, could not bear to come into our presence because we communicated with the most holy bishop John, whom I have called orthodox. Perhaps, indeed, I am to be sought out by individual bishops for individual retributions? Therefore, that he may not be constantly troubled anew, behold, I say openly, just as I formerly wrote, that even after the last ^C epistle from Egypt was brought, clearly containing the dogmas of the orthodox faith, I also embrace peace and communicate with all the most holy bishops everywhere: with the most holy bishop Sixtus, and Cyril, and Maximianus, and Rabbula, and him of Melitene, and all of Pontus; and I have been separated from no one, so long as the dogmas of truth prevail among them all, and the union and peace of the Church pertain to the glory of God. And I confess the Lord Christ to be God and man, two natures, one person, the humble and sublime things of Him inserted in the divine Scriptures: the former indeed as of man, the latter truly as of God, with an unconfused unity obtaining, and He being one, as I said, Lord and Christ. If therefore he wishes from now on to embrace peace as a Catholic with Catholics, and to free those shipwrecked by our discords and contentions from scandals, he will do well; if, however, he does not wish it, I indeed will be saddened that he has been so disposed; yet God is the judge of all. Let no one, therefore, bring questions to me hereafter; for I have clearly declared my sentiment from the beginning, and now I have deliberated nothing new, but what I held from the beginning, as soon as the letters were brought. And would that it were possible for me to join and unite to the Church all those who do not consent; and that I had this efficacy given by God, by which I might think myself to have found the greatest remedy or solace for eternity. ...we nonetheless hold the same sentiment: for my intention is to preserve an unshaken conscience everywhere, and to keep the terrible communion of divine and heavenly mysteries separate from all heretical mixture. ^D

CHAPTER CVII [195]

The letter of Paul, bishop of Emesa, showing his intentions.

To my lord, and most magnificent in all things, the master of the soldiers, Anatolius, Paul. Clearly knowing that your magnificence greatly desires to know that the peace and ordination of God has been declared, I make known what through the grace of God I learned at Berrhoea together with the devout man Maximus, the agent in rebus, from those things which the bishop Cyril, most dear to God, wrote: that through the grace of God he has assented to our propositions and has accepted and approved all things out of the many that are from us. For how could he not do so, when they were sound dogmas and consonant with the sentiments of the Fathers? For which reason, most magnificent and glorious lord, be in all joy, knowing that through the grace of God your Orient will quickly receive the competent order of the Church of God and will enjoy its accustomed peace, your magnificence valuing the peace thus begun—that it be brought to a perfect end—more than great things. My lord, most holy and most dear to God, the archbishop John, is hastening to Berrhoea, that he may speak of all things and decide most clearly. For, a beginning having been given by the grace of God, all things for the rest will be inclined toward perfect correction. For to you...

^A all remain firm through the good God and your holy prayers. But those who are in our borderlands, especially those who inhabit the mountains, for whom there is a necessity of trading both in Cappadocia and in Armenia, suffer many thousands of evils, because the bishop of Caesarea ^B wrote to me, and I was unable to obtain from him any reply, nor could I accept his letters myself. Therefore, they have undertaken an implacable war against our people from now on. I ask, therefore, that your holiness might deign to pour out constant prayers for us, so that his wickedness might be turned back upon himself, and our people might be most perfectly strengthened.

CHAPTER CX [198]

When especially we ought to have enjoyed the consolation of letters—for the storm now raised is indeed more violent—we are then deprived of that which alone remained to us. I indeed wrote once and twice concerning these things which are being stirred up, both seeking common counsel and manifesting my opinion, and requesting clearly from your holiness what your intention is; and I have not even once obtained a reply. I received only one single letter of recommendation throughout the whole period. And I confess that I have been deeply astonished. For I fear lest some accusation coming against us—for such a work is common among many, though always, yet especially at this time—might have disturbed the purity of your charity, persuading you that we have become deserters who have left the battle line, and that, like certain ^C polypods or chameleons, we have changed our color according to the rocks and leaves.

Hence I come again to these letters, and I ask that your holiness be the same toward us. For with the grace of God helping, we do not imitate the varied courses of ^D currents, which are wont to run sometimes here, and at other times there, but we hasten to remain in those things which we deliberated from the beginning, which are right, and to endure the sorrows, whatever may come, and to await the nod from above. Wherefore, that letter which was directed from Egypt, because it is orthodox, we have received; but the rewards, which for that same right faith he demanded—he who could scarcely at last learn it—we have turned away from as hateful to God and abominable. For who among those who have been nurtured in piety ever demanded homicide as a reward for right faith? Or who grants it to one who demands it? Or who would call him truthful who does not wish to honor the truth without a reward? For let us grant that it is not evil, which is

sought, to explain the reward. For it seems to me that one cannot call that man perfect who is strong in the virtue of his spirit for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, but rather him who is held by the love of goodness, and who embraces the good for its own sake. And the Lord testifies to this, saying: "He who loves me, will keep my commandments." He does not say, "He who desires the kingdom of heaven," but, "He who loves me." If, however, He also mentions rewards everywhere, sometimes indeed saying, "For theirs is the kingdom of heaven," and at other times, "For they shall possess the earth by inheritance," and whatever things are similar, He does this to show His own generosity and to lift up the souls of the faint-hearted toward good things; but it is the mark of perfect men to proclaim: "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain." And: "For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." And: "I am pleased with my infirmities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ. For when I am weak, then am I powerful." But this champion of orthodoxy, or rather this egregious teacher, demands a reward for the orthodox faith—and a wicked reward, and one fit for those beasts that drink blood.

But let us shout to him: "We do not offer worship to your gods, and we will not adore the golden image which you have set up." We hold such a judgment, most God-loving lord. Let no one therefore accuse us before you, as if we thought otherwise. But pray and entreat God to strengthen our soul, which is infirm, and our body, which is grievously afflicted. For my right foot, held by numbness, has again confined me to my bed. But I know that these things, too, the inspector of the universe has disposed in a useful and wholesome manner. ^A

762 CHAPTER CXI [199].

We give thanks in all things to our common Lord and Savior Christ, who has made us worthy, on account of the desire for Him and the confession of the pious faith, to embrace spiritual vigils in the midst of many who are drunk. But we rejoice more because we inscribe your holiness like a head in our struggles; which He, who permitted temptations to be exercised here on account of the multitude of our sins, will Himself restrain in whatever way He wills, especially if, struggling for piety, we resist our adversaries with a firm stance. Since, however, it was necessary that, after we learned of the execrable conspiracies of the impious, we should gather the most God-loving bishops of this region, so that they might deliberate together with us on what should be done, we have this prepared, God willing, to be done. Indeed, those things which it shall happen to be formulated by such a synod of bishops, we will surely make known to your holiness. Pray for us, lord, most God-looking in all things. ^B

CHAPTER CXII [200].

Since it is fitting that your holiness should not be ignorant of any of those things which are happening here, I have hastened also now to make known to your holiness what has been determined by us, duplicates of which I have directed to you. May your religiosity therefore deign, having inspected these, to bring aid to this cause, I pray, as much through your holy prayers as through the constancy of good which is within you. I, and those who are with me, greet the entire brotherhood established with you. ^C

CHAPTER CXIII [201].

Inmmoderate disturbance having been stirred up against the pious faith, and infamous voices ringing around the ears of men, by the letters of the most pious and Christ-loving emperors, who commanded all the most God-loving bishops to assemble together, we came to the metropolis of the Ephesians. But Cyril, the former bishop of the city of the Alexandrians, not remaining in the ancient 27 faith of the Fathers, attempted to agitate it with twelve chapters, and added anathemas, showing his own putridity throughout the whole earth: this man, before all the most God-loving bishops had assembled—concerning which it pleased our Christ-loving emperors—presiding by the authority of the council, 763 usurped judgment for himself, and by calumny circumventing the most God-loving bishop Nestorius, who was also absent, nor had he departed from the piety of the faith, as he thought, he laid down a condemnation.

Nos, therefore, who had assembled from all sides, the orthodox bishops from the Eastern region and various provinces, deposed him, and made him alien to the priesthood, together with Memnon the Ephesian, who also cooperated with him in all things, and wished to confirm the impious heresy. But the rest, who assented to them, we deprived of communion, until, recognizing their own error, they shall have anathematized the impious dogmas of Cyril and acquiesced to the sound confession of the Fathers. When the Christ-loving emperors learned of these things, and had approved and confirmed the condemnation which was made over them by us, they commanded each of the holy bishops to return to his own province.

Verum, since now, assembling in the metropolis of Anazarbus because of ecclesiastical cares, we have learned that some, beyond those things which were then agreed upon in common, not having cast out the chapters of Cyril, and admitting from him those things which he set forth, into communion...

and not rejecting them by his own subscription—the heretical chapters which he put forth—that they be alien to our communion, until those things which were previously agreed upon in common are brought into effect and Cyril anathamatizes his impious chapters; but let him remain in the faith of the three hundred and eighteen who gathered at Nicaea, adding nothing to it, nor taking anything away. For we shall not allow, with the Lord Christ working with us, either to receive Cyril into communion as if he were orthodox, or those who are joined with him, unless those heretical chapters have been in every way cast out: even if we must needs contend against fire, and the sword, and the teeth of wild beasts. Maximinus, bishop of Anazarbus, I consent to the above-written, and have subscribed. According to this subscription, all have subscribed.

CHAPTER CXIV [202]

The letter, he says, of the most God-beloved Helladius to the most God-beloved Bishop Alexander, through which he indicated that the bishops of the Second Cilicia who were gathered have given a certain formula concerning the cause which is being discussed; which the bishops of the First Cilicia also approve.

That a synod of the most God-beloved bishops of the Second Cilicia should be gathered, you indeed knew in every way, most God-beloved one. But because it has also been gathered ^A and it has been set forth by them, just as they also commanded us through the most God-beloved presbyter of Mopsuestia, Olippus, that in that condemnation the Egyptian should be held—to whom he was long ago supposed—until he anathematizes those impious chapters, and these indeed, who communicate with him, should be considered excommunicate: necessarily we also, embracing this zeal for piety, and following the apostolic dogmas of the truly holy bishops, and also following their apostolic purpose, and acquiescing to these things which were synodically set forth by them, we have enjoined upon your holiness, that if it is indeed possible, you should exert yourself to this extent, to subscribe to the synodicon itself, which you also ought to do; but if you are perhaps prohibited from this by any violence, although there is nothing more violent than this, as you also, most God-beloved one, indeed say, unless perhaps bodily infirmity, deign to make known to us by letter what pleases you. For it is impossible, as we estimate, even if those who have undertaken the cause of the Egyptian simulate this many thousands of times, that it should not be injurious to piety for the apostolic dogma to subsist, unless those wicked chapters have been abjured. ^B

CHAPTER CXV [203]

The letter, he says, of the most God-beloved Bishop Dorotheus, metropolitan of Moesia, to John of Antioch, which he wrote noting from opinion that a concord had been reached at Alexandria between Paul and Cyril.

Those who have shipwrecked from our pious faith, which [is] supported by its own... [alt-version omitted] among many opinions here they disseminate, saying that your religiousness, and those who are with it, the holy bishops, have acquiesced to the communion of the Egyptian, not having condemned the twelve chapters known [to be] blasphemies. For it [the report] took on a mouth in this [way], that the chapters themselves are indeed probable to the perfect, but to those who cannot grasp them, they are alien. Whence, they say, being requested, the Egyptians received the holy synod of the East into communion. With these things thus disseminated by them, they have devised another fraud against the pious. For in the royal city, wishing to deceive the simpler [folk], gathering their own servants and domestics, and certain others before dawn, into the forum which is called Constantine's, under the pretext of a litany, they made them gather, preparing that one should meet the people with crosses and candles, that deceiver who was illicitly ordained by those deserters.

But they were not able to hide their fraud for long, but being caught, they did not have power to act against the peoples, who persisted in their piety, and who, learning of this deceit, turned away from the error. But while these things were not enough for them, they feigned that letters had been sent from the most admirable Aristolaus to Maximianus, ^C which they also made to be read in public from the ambo: narrating that peace had thus been made between your holiness and the Egyptians, so that by the calculation of your holiness and Maximianus’ ordination was confirmed, and the most holy and God-beloved Bishop Nestorius was accounted as condemned. Concerning therefore all these things, wishing to learn precisely, I was compelled to send the most reverend presbyter Eustochius, and with him Thomas the monk, asking that you deign to instruct us in the truth by your letters. I and those who are with me salute all the brotherhood that is with you.

CHAPTER CXVI [204]

The same placed this letter:

To my most God-beloved and most holy lords, and to be named with all reverence, holy fellow-ministers, Alexander and Theodoret, Eutherius, greeting.

The divine zeal of your holiness, which reaches everywhere, shining night and day, the whole earth and sea now proclaim, by which also we, being very sluggish, have been stimulated to the desire for good things, and to the persistence of pious confession, so that we dare to entreat by letter, and concerning those things which are to be done, com- ^D

- ^A mand. It is therefore clear that it is just at the present time that your holiness should add to your other acts of rectitude this effort also, which the time now demands, that you direct some persons with this common formula, and with suitable letters, to the parts of the West, and that you excite to this struggle for the faith those who are there, having an ingrained zeal for the faith. For there is a fear that, if the letters of others reach there first, as if a union had been made, and all consenting to incongruous things, they may appear less eager to correct the things that have been done amiss. And we indeed, as if in a book, setting forth what is pleasing—that is, I and my lord the most holy bishop Helladius in all things—have directed the rescripts of these to your charity, which is according to God. It is, however, for your religiousness to approve, to put forward, and to bring to an end. We, with your holiness, and those who are with me, greet the brotherhood. ^B

CHAPTER CXVII [205]

The Lord Christ, providing much for the human race through individual times, at one time prepared other luminaries for the guidance of those who are of good will, and for the conviction of their opponents, and for the destruction of falsehood, but for the confirmation of the truth. Just as also under that greater Pharaoh 33 he brought forth blessed Moses against Jannes and Mambres, and just as he brought forth Peter 768, who conquered well over Simon Magus; so also has he brought forth thy holiness against those who have now risen up, the enemies, through whom we too are of good hope that the world may be freed from the Egyptian error; ^C who, existing as a new Moses, shalt strike every heretical Egyptian, but shalt save every orthodox Israelite. Therefore, against the truth, with many thousands of deeds performed, and while the most pure pearl of orthodoxy receives many hostilities, and as many as no history ever relates, from those who have discovered the novelty of these words against the paternal apostolic faith: it is for us indeed, who suffer threefold and manifold storms, and almost fall among pirates, to cry out to Him who was brought forward by God as a steersman, and to instruct him as much as is possible for the love of truth; but it is for your grace and wisdom not to despise, nor to pass over in idleness a question of this kind, and so great a cause; but also to investigate with the love of good work, and to impose correction with all constancy and God-beloved confidence. And indeed, long since, ^D as those heretical tares have often risen up from Alexandria, your apostolic see has sufficed through all that time to convict falsehood, and to repress impiety, and to correct what was necessary, and to strengthen the world for the glory of Christ, both under that thrice-blessed Damasus, who is to be numbered among the saints, and under many others, glorious and admirable. For the sake of which thing we also presume to offer these supplications, that you may assist the world; both in that part which errs, and in that which sustains tyranny; and which is assailed to this end, that it should grant consent to things that are not fitting, because it neither wishes, nor does it judge it expedient, to receive the various novelties of words in the Egyptian chapters.

For Cyril of Alexandria, writing a blasphemous novelty of words through twelve chapters, contrary to the entire divinely inspired Scripture, and anathematizing the legitimate and ancient traditions of the holy Fathers, and especially of those who attribute exalted things to the divinity of Christ, but humble things to His humanity, in no way to be severed by His union, he proposed also to the one who then governed the holy see of the great city 34, who was from the beginning approved, and known concerning the faith, concerning life, concerning the doctrine of the Word, and concerning all things Nestorius, that either he should agree to his chapters, and subscribe to them, and remain bishop, or certainly be endangered in his rank, and be driven from the holy Church. He, however, with the fear of God preferred to the wicked proposal, chose rather to deliver himself to many thousands of dangers being unjustly inflicted upon him, than to grant consent to heretical deceits, and to confirm the error of the whole world. To these things a synod met in Ephesus: and in nothing having been corrected, nor being asked to render an account, before all who were being supported met, he was exacted a penalty, as he had opposed the blasphemy of those chapters, and he was subjected to all cruelty, to what is called condemnation, and to some other things. When certainly Cyril did not have the authority of a judge, but the rank of one who is to be judged, in that they had moved questions against each other. And the one who presided was the accused; and the leader of the sentence, he who was being supported, [was to be] subjected to many sentences.

These things having been done, to some indeed all that was enacted seemed worthy of tears, but to others ridiculous, so that even he who held the Antiochene Church of God, coming after these things, subjected Cyril and Memnon to condemnation, by the common decree of the God-beloved and most holy bishops, up to twenty-two metropolitans, and the others who were present together, who judged them to be the leaders of heresy and sedition, and rivals of ecclesiastical sanctions. But the others, who had been accomplices to them for all unfitting things, they made aliens from communion. But those outstanding ones, relaxing indulgence for themselves against the truth and rules at the same time, irreverently and immediately presumed upon the communion of the terrible mysteries for themselves. Others indeed they caused to communicate with themselves dangerously: so that

all divine rules, by a decree to which they are subjected and which governs them thus, might wholly destroy them. Learning this, the God-beloved and good victorious prince immediately decided that those proceedings, which were so disorderly and illogically carried out against one who was convicted of nothing, but was abruptly and furiously condemned, should be void; and that a question regarding the dogma should be raised anew with a love for truth, through interrogation, response, and demonstration, which would persuade everyone, not one which would dictate by tyrannical authority. But they, for the resolution of the canons, added even this, that they would not obey these pious letters.

^B And as for those things which were done concerning John of Antioch, we would wish, if it were possible, to keep silent. Such was his irrational fickleness toward us, and his manifest transgression, and betrayal of the truth, which was accomplished or carried out so unexpectedly. For he, because he found the heretical fraud of the chapters before we arrived at Ephesus, indicated it to many by his letters. Through the first Cappadocia, and the second, and through various places, he warned them to be on their guard, as if they were in harmony with Eunomius, and Arius, and Apollinaris. And he who had leapt forward sharply and fervently into the condemnation of Cyril, and had exhorted everyone to this—indeed, he even approached the royal city itself to resist this impiety—he himself also wrote to us while we were still established at Ephesus, saying first that our souls were greatly grieved upon learning that he—that is, Nestorius—was dismissed from Ephesus, because those things which were done unjustly and without a trial seemed, in the meantime, to be strengthened. Secondly, because even if Cyril should reject those blasphemous chapters, we did not promise to receive him even then through the sacraments, because the prince himself has become of an impious heresy. Whence, receiving a different heart, we know not why, he set himself against all his own movements and became a communicator with Cyril, not repelling what he had badly written, which he had sworn he would never receive, even if he had refuted them 769 in writing. And he alone untied the bond which had consequently brought so much harm to Cyril and Memnon. And procuring no security for those who had been offended on behalf of piety, he himself indeed was reconciled to him whom he had previously marked out as one to be loved; but he permitted the Churches to be disturbed, and certain prelates to remain deposed, while others he allowed to be still multiplied in their turmoil.

And acquiescing no longer to speak or hear anything concerning the faith, they betook themselves solely to universal stubbornness; they began to draw others to a consensus of judgment, some by fraud, others by violence, others by bribes. ^D Being stunned by these things, for a long time we begged, we implored with all confidence, we challenged them that nothing should be held or done irrationally, but that a common discussion and council should be proposed concerning the question of the dogmas and the chapters of Cyril, and that whatever was pleasing to all should be confirmed by one sentence; but that concerning him who had so openly endured the tyranny, a true and legitimate judgment should be made, so that, if he were convicted of the corruption of the truth, he might be subjected to a judgment consonant with the decision of all; but if he were proven to be entirely innocent, he might in writing renounce those things, 768 which some, in his name or in the name of others, had cast forth out of suspicion or accusation, which were incongruous.

But these things were displeasing to those who wished to conquer by authority alone, and not to persuade or be persuaded. They commanded all others to anathematize abruptly and to subscribe to the condemnation. But whoever preserved himself for a more upright deliberation was condemned and replaced by them, subjected to calumnies, and called by the name of false doctrine. Instead of such men, others were appointed because they were willing to consent and indeed to praise chapters worthy of condemnation; but to condemn him who, as far as we are conscious, said nothing other than those things which were manifestly handed down by the holy prophets and evangelists and apostles through the Holy Spirit. For they even wished to criticize the apostles, while they judge in vain the one who was preaching those things which are their own. For they performed such an action regarding the things that are said to have been done, that they brought forward inconsistent and uncertain things against that man, and generally they criticized what is irreproachable. Why, they ask, did Nestorius say that the passion did not touch the deity, but the humanity of Christ? Meanwhile, they would write falsehoods, positing that words had been spoken by him which not even any of the infidels, nay, not even the savage demons, would have dared to say. That is, that Christ was the Lord of Christ, just as Saul, just as David, just as the infidel Cyrus—in which it is easy to convict the calumny.

And he even produced wonderful letters, in which he says that he holds Nestorius condemned and that he anathematizes whatever he said or thought impiously. He failed so much in his accusation and demonstration that he did not even say: "I anathematize this or that, or even that sentence"; but he says: "Whatever has been impiously said by him"; when he certainly ought to have spoken openly, so that everyone might be more cautious regarding his meaning. Just as we clearly abominate the chapters of Cyril, and we beseech everyone to guard themselves against the malice inherent in them, by pre-convicting the blasphemies which are in them, and clearly publishing them to all. We have written these few things out of many with great abbreviation, knowing that the excess of these evils is worthy not only of the lamentations of Jeremiah, but has surpassed the entire tragedy.

We beseech you, and we prostrate ourselves at the feet of your sanctity, that you may stretch forth a helping hand, and take away the shipwreck of the world, and command that an inquiry be made into all these things, and that you may grant to these illicit matters celestial-

^A correction, so that holy pastors, who have been unjustly driven from their flocks, may be recalled, and order and ancient harmony may be restored to the churches; and so that they may no longer offer lamentations and groans in place of prayers and psalms while many are dispersed. And so that they may not encounter danger over those things which are of primary importance, while they avoid receiving from heretics either the laver of regeneration or the mystical communion, which they are not allowed to receive from the orthodox for their salvation.

Having seen these things in part, and having heard them in part, we who come from diverse regions—that is, from Euphratesia, from both Cilicias, from Second Cappadocia, Bithynia, Thessaly, and Moesia—would have for a long time hurried to your holiness, whether to pour forth fountains of tears or to publicly lament the strange and unaccustomed evils of this life, had not the terror of the wolves, who lie in wait for the flocks for the sake of plunder, error, and every kind of adversity, restrained us. Whence we have been compelled to send in our stead the most religious clerics and monks, who may fulfill our place. We petition, therefore, that you arise without delay, and with fervent zeal erect a great trophy of victory against the ranks of the envious, having before your eyes the diligence of the good shepherd, as well as his care for the sheep that had strayed; and do not count it as lacking in peril if anything is done negligently regarding so many pastors and sheep, while those indeed wander, while the others endure tyrannical violence.

^C Imitate rather the great herald of piety, Paul, the eye of the world, whom we deem to be held as a pledge of our familiarity toward your holiness. For he, being our citizen, once the error of the whole world was extinguished, became the ornament of that apostolic see, and received from blessed Peter the right hand 38 of fellowship, that it might appear that an equal subtlety of dogmas is preserved by both. We also beseech you not to despise us, whom so many evils surround. For we do not contend about money or glory, or any other temporal thing, but for the common possession of piety, for the paternal treasure of the faith, for the common hope of the faithful, for the good confession of the apostles, for the immortal contest of the martyrs, and especially for the coming and kindness of the Lord, whose invincible power invoking without ceasing, we cry out: Spare, O Lord, thy people, and give not thine heritage to reproach [a].

Eutherius, bishop of the metropolis of Tyana, have subscribed. And I pray that you may pray for me to be kept safe, O most God-beloved and holy Father. Helladius, bishop of the metropolis of Tarsus, have subscribed. And I ask that you may pray for me to be kept safe, O most God-beloved and holy Father.

CHAPTER CXVIII [206]

CHAPTER CXIX [207]

It is worthy and pleasing to your holiness also that there is present study; and it is pleasing to the Lord Christ, who has granted such watchers to us at the present time also, so that by tending toward them we may have a way, as is possible in such a storm of this life, to direct our own journeys. For all things are not ours, but His who contains the universe. It is enough for us that we may be able to strive even with a sincere intention, if nothing more, toward which, looking down, the Lord of all is about to grant, through the prayers of your holiness, that we may not be submerged even in triple volumes. We have received the clerics most beloved of God in such a way as it was consequential for our own and for those who were destined for such a cause. We have also dismissed them, that by the grace of God they may proceed to further things. But we hasten, if the Lord shall assent to the prayers of your holiness, to also carry out similar things, because it behooves us entirely that we also offer what we believe to be expedient. For perhaps God, wishing to test more fully those who are worthy of their own...

^A All the brotherhood that is with you in Christ, I and those who are with me, greet most abundantly.

CHAPTER CXXI [209].

THE WORDS OF IRENAEUS, BISHOP OF TYRE.

b Isa. V, 20.

VARIOUS NOTES.

41 *aliter*. It is not read in the codex. M. 42 Garnerius had referred readers to his Auctarium, p. 95 (See Vol. IV of our edition, p. 1356). We have deemed that epistle ought to be inserted, as it is read in Mansi, Vol. V, p. 898. 43 *Deo amicissimo*. This epistle is had from another version in the fifth collation of the fifth council, and again from another in Marius Mercator. In the fifth council, however, it is noted that it was written after the unity made between the Orientals and Cyril; which can also be gathered from the preface of Marius Mercator, or rather from the title which the same Mercator placed upon this epistle. B. 44 *obsequi regulæ*. Council V, "neither by secular care nor by glory." Mercator, "and that he should not exceed in deference and glory." B. 45 *chamæl*. Council V, "turncoats." B. 46 *Irenæi-dicta*. Ends in Mansi. *Ea quæ*, etc. And this epistle also is Theodoret’s, who is known at that time to have been vehemently alienated from Cyril. B. 47 *prophetiam*. M. 48 *Ægypti*. M. 49 *Vel si veram*, etc. In Mansi’s Collection of councils, the epistle begins from these words. This is approved indeed by Baluze, but for Lupus, who attributed these things to the title of the epistle, argues the codex which Mansi used, for from those words, *ea rescripta*, to *Odi fictam*, it is written in rubricated characters; then from *Odi*, etc., it begins in black. 50 *Egyptii pænitentiam*. Some among the Orientals pretended that the epistle of peace written by Cyril, sent through Paul of Emesa, which exists in the Acts of the council, part three, c. 34, was a libellus of repentance offered by him. Irenaeus, addicted especially to Nestorius and Theodoret, notes and vilifies certain chapters of this epistle. G. 51 *Quia*, etc. These words are Cyril’s from his epistle to John of Antioch. B. 52 *Nunc satisfactum*. Baluze added these words to the preceding words of Cyril, and for *ab eo* (by him) placed *habeo* (I have), but against the authority of the codex, as Mansi taught.

The paper, he says, that he put forward to us constitutes an irreproachable confession of faith. Behold, I implore you, the pomp of every word, which is condemned by the devil’s pride. He called it a "paper," and did not even deign to bestow upon it the name of "correspondence." And he added: "He put it forward to us." And though asked to judge, he is puffed up. And he added: "containing an irreproachable confession of faith." As if sparing those who are defamed, he declares them irreproachable. And after these things, he declaims: "Which paper," he says, "he affirmed was composed by you and by those God-beloved bishops who are there." What else is this that he says, if not as if he were saying: "I was indeed distrustful that the faith among you was irreproachable; but I put aside the suspicion I had against you, in that you were defamed for the impiety of your dogmas, as I was believing the one who swore much to me and who presented the paper to me, asserting that he would not lie." How, therefore, can anyone think of such insolence—as if he himself knew better—as penitence? But perhaps he excels, being justly condemned, so that he might not appear to be saved. But proceeding, he exposed the truth.

Let us see, therefore, if you please, the following parts of the letter. And first, let us bring into the middle the first chapter of this "good" penitence of his regarding them. "If," he says, "we say that the holy body of Christ, the Savior of all, was made from heaven and not from the Virgin, how then is the 'Mother of God' (Dei genitrix) understood? For whom at all did she not bear, unless it be true that she bore Emmanuel according to the flesh?" These words of his are both senseless and most blasphemous. Senseless, indeed, because to demonstrate that it is well said that the flesh is not from heaven, he uses this word by which she is named the "Mother of God." He who murmurs into the ears of everyone throughout, that it is fitting to be called by what is greater. If, therefore, it is something more to be called the Mother of God, how can that which is the name of the greater designate that which is the lesser? But how does he, who receives that word, "Emmanuel," as signifying the God Word, who is born from the Virgin—while he brings forth the prophetic testimony and frequently cries out up and down about the Virgin, "she bore Emmanuel according to the flesh"—take up this name now for the meaning of the birth of humanity? Why did he prefer the name of Emmanuel to the name of Mother of God, as a name for the Word only, or only for the deity brought forth from the Virgin? But if by the word Emmanuel he says the Word is signified, because the same word proclaims, "God with us," why does he say it again, as if it were the signifier not of the deity, but of the flesh which is from the Virgin, and proclaim certain words that are contrary to themselves? And this is indeed a demonstration of the dementia of the things said by him.

But repeating the same words, perceive also how great the blasphemy is. "For if," he says, "we say that the holy body was made from heaven and not from the Virgin, how then is the Mother of God understood? For whom at all did she not bear, unless it be true that she bore Emmanuel according to the flesh?" He is not deterred from preaching to insane men, because the name of God is, in its signification, of the carnal generation, such that the mother of the flesh is the Mother of God. What, therefore, is the name of that divinity which is united to the flesh, and which is with the generated flesh, if, while she is called the Mother of God, the term belongs to the birth which is consubstantial with the Virgin? It is one of two things: either God the Word is signified when she is called the Mother of God, and hence the birth is without the name of the flesh; or if the name of the Mother of God is constitutive of the flesh, then the mother of the flesh is the same as the Mother of God. And how will that which he says, "she bore Emmanuel according to the flesh," stand for him? Unless perhaps he said that the Virgin bore the flesh according to the flesh. Besides these things, however, would I consider it sweet to seek out him whom he thinks to have been predicted by the prophet as Emmanuel? Is it that inseparable temple of the God Word, in which God was seen working with us; or the Word himself properly speaking? For if he said the Word himself properly speaking by her, who is called Emmanuel, he would be defaming that naked man by the dignity which is thence for him, whom he pretends to object to us as if we were doing little; but if he assigns that same name solely and properly to the visible one, he defames for us that Emmanuel as someone other, besides the Lord Christ, born from the Virgin. But let these things be said by us thus far.

But let us come also to the second falsity of such penitence: "Descending from heaven," he says, "God the Word emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and was called the Son of man, while he remained what he was, that is, God." For he is inconvertible and immutable according to nature, as one now to be understood with his own flesh. By these things he secretly mixes the properties of the natures like leaven. And while indeed being wary of the term "one nature," which is customary to him, lest it be a known sign of blasphemy—as if he were to say "one nature"—he interposed, "as one." "For inconvertible," he says, "and immutable is God the Word according to nature, as one now to be understood with his own flesh." He says, "one to be understood with his own flesh." And he does not add "one." For he did not say, "one Son," or "one Christ," or "one begotten," or anything of the sort, to be understood with his own flesh, lest we understand one property of the Word and another of the flesh. And wanting to be more evident, he made a blasphemy in what follows, saying: "God the Word was named, and man from heaven, existing perfect in deity, and perfect the same himself in humanity." He does not say, "perfect God existing in a perfect man"; but, "existing perfect in deity." And again, "perfect the same himself in humanity," in order to set the natures themselves as parts completing one another, and to introduce into the ears the well-sounding confusion of the natures. On account of which, by him, that which is "the same himself" is supposed for the sake of secretly deceiving. Not Christ; not the same Son himself, but "the Word was named," he says, "and man"

^A And after the bait of the capture, he introduces confusion; as one who, to avoid suspicion, has uselessly used the term "natures" to imply error. For what did he say? "Although the difference of the natures from which we say the ineffable union was made is not ignored." Again, that which he added—"From which, as though the parts of the Lord's nature were made into one certain thing"—was as follows. For he ought to have said, not "from which," but "of which we say the ineffable union was made." For it is not from the natures, but an ineffable union of the natures themselves. I pass over that he also assigns the death of the flesh through the cross to the divinity of the nature through "appropriation," and thus induces the divine substance to be passible. And because he proclaims that the back of the Word was given to stripes. And he cannot even understand that the relation of insult to that which is divine is a ^B "appropriation," but the [real] passions, which are naturally of the flesh, do not become a property of the divinity.

And he is not confused to say these things, who a little before had said the sacred words there, which stand thus: "We know indeed that God-speaking men, while communicating certain of their words as if over one person, while dividing others as if over two natures; and while handing down those worthy of God according to the divinity of Christ; truly humble ones, according to the humanity." And again: "We confess our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, God perfect, begotten of the Father before the ages indeed according to divinity; but in the last days from the Virgin Mary according to humanity." Truly, it is manifest that by a necessity divinely and ineffably forced upon him, he consented to these things, just as Balaam also blessed against his will. Again, however, relaxed from it, he turns back to himself, and to the accustomed blasphemy of confusion. Nowhere, therefore, among his verbosities does it appear regarding the two natures, that the flesh indeed died, but the deity raised it up.

And what need is there to be occupied any further in this abyss, when I would perhaps not have said anything about these things, had not your religiousness excited me through your letters? For what is common to me for discerning who truly or falsely repents, who rest in myself alone, and proclaim with pleasure those things which David says: "For thou, Lord, hast established me alone in hope"? I therefore, once for all, commending the things that pertain to me to God, deride the vain labor of this impiety, sustaining to receive from the divine right hand that hope committed to me by myself, which does not hear those voices, which are thence ineffably emitted: "For no one snatches them from my hands." I give thanks, ^C however, 777 O friend of God, to your mercy, which has so much [care] concerning us according to God ^D affection, which we always relate even to others, because it is sweet for the orthodox to hear these voices. Far be it, indeed, that oblivion could ever avail so much among us, that we should forget those struggles which were undertaken by your religiousness for the right faith: to which the Lord of all is also about to grant a crown, both here and in the future, from the victories against impiety. For Christ, the patron of the pious, is not weaker than the patron of the impious, the devil. I, and those who are with me, greet with the utmost affection the entire brotherhood that is with you.

Chapter CXXII [210]

To my most reverend and most God-fearing fellow-minister, Bishop Theodoret, John sends greeting in the Lord.

Since those things which formerly were pleasing between us, God alone being the mediator, you asked—for your own protection and reputation—to be given to your holiness in writing also, O God-beloved brother, promising under witnesses of God that these things are to be handed to no one in the meantime, unless perhaps time and necessity after these things shall require, I have judged it useful to write these letters to your holiness. Whence, the divine grace being pleased, I have handed over to your holiness all power, that you may confidently use [your] machinations and dispensations, that you may rejoin our brothers, who have been severed from our union, by the coaptation of their members, knowing that it is pleasing to the divinity for you to use all means for this, and all councils, as far as it is possible, in that cause, [and] so to use them toward them, if it should so be necessary, to soothe or soften them. And that this be done will bring me no sadness, as I confess before God. I say this, indeed, even if I should seem to be affected by your charity and by insults among them. For what so great a thing could any one think they are sustaining for the salvation and peace of so many and such brothers, when the Lord of all himself, the only Son of God, voluntarily shows such condescension for our salvation? Whose also an exceedingly peculiar disciple desired to be anathema from his dear and omnipotent master for his brothers according to the flesh. Nevertheless, the blessed Moses also proposed to be blotted out from eternal life for Israel according to the flesh: and certainly while he was speaking to the God of all. These things, therefore, and things similar to these, reflecting upon them oft and incessantly in your mind, O God-beloved brother, with Christ the Lord comforting you, approach the aforementioned matter with all the diligence to which you are accustomed.

I, John, by the mercy of God bishop of Antioch of Syria, have written and subscribed.

May you remain safe, praying for us, O God-beloved brother.

[index: entries preserved]

CHAPTER CXXIII [211]

Receiving the letter of your magnificence, through which you deigned to make known the fact of the prelacy in Constantinople through the grace of God, I received this joy with full heart, on account of the goods which are to be everywhere for all the Churches of Christ. Which also your magnificence, while announcing these good things, has indicated. Know indeed, most magnificent lords, that there is no small experience for me of that man, but rather a great deal of knowledge, and I know how accommodatingly he conducts himself toward all things. And I confidently say that God has given great things to the Church of the Constantinopolitans through your zeal and the care of the God-beloved prince, who, once he saw well, quickly brought to completion the things he had decided, lest any envy should violate the good judgment. But just as it has been brought about through your magnificence, so I ask that you deign to consider also the peace of those parts. For there are a few ^C unbridled men, who consider the peace which God has given, and which the pious emperor has implemented, to be their own injury, and prefer not to be subject to the prince over all, which is expedient as much for themselves as for all the Churches, when it is certainly altogether worthy that they should approve the ordination of the most holy bishop, the lord Proclus. Let us not be injured by the few, whose disorderliness is defamed everywhere. And they proceed from that to worse things, because up to now we and you have been lenient toward them.

CHAPTER CXXIV [212]

Before I speak of sad things, I make known the resolution of them to your holiness. If, however, I am brought to mentioning those things, I am compelled to do so for the confirmation of what is said, and at the same time to maintain the order of events in my narrative. We heard long ago that Verius, who ^D lurks in Constantinople for John, had worked much and had distributed much gold to some, so that he could obtain an imperial sacred order which would compel us either to communicate with John, or to depart from the Churches. Which also truly happened. For Domitian, who is now quaestor, wrote to the God-beloved Bishop Helladius that Verius had indeed obtained a sacred order against us, commanding the aforesaid; he himself, however, out of the kindness with which he is held toward him, had in the meantime restrained it from being published, thinking it necessary, before it should be published, and before necessity should be imposed through it, for that man to be reconciled to John without any necessity, acquiescing in the things written by him. For this reason he said he had sent a decanus also, that he might be a minister of the future reconciliation between the two.

But in truth it was only a theatrical simulation, composed for the sake of handing over to John for the receiving of gold: for thus he announced to us, he who came here, a most admirable judge, who was also present in Constantinople, and knows each one of the things that were done: for indeed it was his cause. The sacred order against us was truly full, but the most magnificent prefect Taurus, knowing this, and moved as if truly by some divine impulse, does not permit it to be published. But entering to the prince, he testified against the future destructions of cities from this, and openly said, that such as is Thrace, such will be Cilicia, which almost alone has remained for the paying of taxes, if he should permit this to be fulfilled. And thus he made the sacred order vacant in every way. From this, Domitian, as if restoring the wages received, first, because he found nothing else he could do, sent the decanus to John, boasting indeed that he had retained the sacred order, and in the meantime, if you do not comply, as he says, to address those things which were written by him. Who also urges that without any delay we should embrace the communion of John.

Because we have learned that he will also come to your holiness, we have made haste to make these things known to him, so that you may know how you should act with them, my God-beloved lord. We have also sent the rescript of those things which were written by Domitian to the God-beloved Bishop Helladius, and of those which were written by the same God-beloved Bishop Helladius to us. From which you will be able to understand more clearly the things that have been said by us. And that the man himself should be entirely despised, embellishing for the sake of deceiving those things which were long ago repulsed by divine nod. Which also, if they had prevailed, should by no means be held in honor by us, being the emperor’s earthly commands against the heavenly and eternal King.

CHAPTER CXXV [213]

Knowing that every abundance of good things is present for your holiness entirely, I am not lightly afflicted, considering the things that are now happening, being a lover of the peace of the Churches, and I keep this most holy and unshaken by my prayers and works. How you might not embrace it recently, is very wonderful to me.

^A It seems so. But even if one were to concede that if a single man does not enjoy what is just, and that which is useful to one is omitted for the better benefit of the many, such a compensation might be tolerable; yet when no harm is actually done to the one who thinks himself harmed, and on the contrary he himself is harming others, how is it that your holiness does not endeavor to secure what is useful to the many? For your holiness knows that by speaking well of others, you have committed that which is the principal thing in him; and you ought to impute to yourself the fact that you have been cast down from power.

And your holiness knows this better than I. I ask, therefore, that we do not, as I said, do harm in many ways, bringing confusion upon the multitude, and becoming providers of indiscipline to the cities and of things most unwished-for to many. May you hasten ^B immediately to enter into conversation with the God-beloved and most holy Bishop John, and may your holiness hasten to embrace his peace and communion together with the other bishops of the first and second province of the Cilicians. For let divine virtue know that I have in the meantime held back the divine decree, which is completed and signed and ready to be promulgated, for the sake of this matter, because I had whispered a sweet hope to myself that your holiness would agree with my exhortations—or rather, with the truth itself—and correct those things that cause sorrow. I ask, therefore, your religiousness, that you command this to be done quickly, lest, while the divine letters are being issued, correction be despaired of. And indeed it is certain that no harm is done to your holiness in anything, whereas you are now rather being greatly harmed, in that you reckon the utility of the many as your own, and similarly make the losses of the many your own. But even divinity is accustomed to exact accounts from those to whom it has entrusted things that need correction.

CHAPTER CXXVI [[214]]

It has pleased our most pious and Christ-loving Emperor to command that none of the God-beloved bishops should now fatigue themselves by traveling to his court, but that each one should remain in his own Church. This notice I have ^C taken care to have made known to your religiousness. ^D Since, therefore, we judge it to be neither just nor free from danger to keep silent about the things lately commanded to us, we make manifest to you that it behooves all to obey the commands, and for each of you to remain at rest, cherishing his own Church: for it is holy for the most pious and Christ-loving Emperor to make these things known to those who are under your religiousness, 781 to the God-beloved bishops. But your religiousness will know the reason a little later. Give many greetings to all the brotherhood that is with you.

CHAPTER CXXVII [[215]]

The admirability of your Antiochian presented me with the letter, which I did not receive on account of certain ecclesiastical questions. However, it was read to me by your goodness. And so that you may be able to demonstrate this, I have written this letter to your nobility, declaring that in those things which have been commanded by our most pious and Christ-loving Emperor, I remain, so that I shall not at this time fatigue myself by traveling to his pious court, and I remain in my own Church, offering prayers for his empire. The notary, however, who is with me, has received a copy of it.

CHAPTER CXXVIII [[216]]

I am mindful of those things which your religiousness spoke to me in Hierapolis, when you announced to me the intention of the Antiochene, saying that he desired peace, promising that he would never do anything that would cause us sorrow. Look, therefore, most God-beloved, at the truth of the sacraments. Behold the plundering of Naboth’s vineyard, and the unjust ordinations against the Law. Behold the transgression of the canons, and the contempt of the divine laws. What rule grants him to consecrate in another’s parish? Or rather, what rule does not forbid this injustice? It did not suffice for him to ordain illicitly; but he also added another impiety, in that he committed the priesthood to such men. And your amiability knows Marinianus better than all, and you hear clearly about Athanasius. Whence let your religiousness know that we sever ourselves from the communion of one who presumes such things, fearing the judgment of God. Similarly, we also avoid the 782 communion of those who receive these iniquitous consecrations. I am truly compelled to write these things at present, mindful of what the charity of your holiness is, and wishing that you, being eminent in all things, may not be stained by any reproach. I and those who are with me salute all the brotherhood that is with you.

CHAPTER CXXIX [217]

The same Irenaeus says: To the Bishops most beloved of God and most holy throughout Syria, and of the first and second Cilicia, and of the second Cappadocia, Alexander, Theodoret, Helladius, Abbibus, Maras, David, Acilinus, greeting in the Lord.

The Prophet Jeremiah, indeed, lamenting the burning of a single city and the captivity of men, sought a fountain of tears, sought the extremity of the wilderness, and wrote down lamentations so that he might bring forth the anguish by which he was being burned within, as if by the evaporation of smoke. We, however, lamenting the assault upon the Church of God, the further betrayal of the saints, and the corruption of the priesthood, call upon you, O fellow-pastors, ^B to participate in these lamentations: not that we may teach those who are ignorant, nor that we may lead the joyful into mourning; but that through a communion of grief some small consolation might be acquired.

For your holiness knows what things have been done, or are being done, unjustly and illicitly: that legation which was sent to Alexandria contrary to the will of all the Eastern bishops; that which was done by him tyrannically and not ecclesiastically, the dissolution, as he thought, of the condemnation. While nearly two hundred Egyptians consented to the condemnation, by taking two or three into the communion of his tyranny, and rejecting all others, he indeed absolved this one—as he presumed—but him who was neither judged nor preaches anything contrary to the apostolic doctrine, but has followed the footsteps of the fathers—that is, the most godly and most holy bishop Nestorius—he cruelly and like a robber put to death, not receiving into his mind the eye that sees all things, ^C not fearing the future judgment, not constrained by the continuous arrows of conscience, not pitying the men whom these things wounded, not keeping the testimonies written for that man, which he sent everywhere, a little while before the synod happened, persuading the Galatians and Cappadocians that that man was orthodox: but in the synod, sending letters everywhere by land and sea, and accusing the impiety and iniquity that had been committed.

Having excluded all these, he not only received an unjust and iniquitous condemnation, but anathematized his orthodox doctrine. Nevertheless, even regarding the deeds up ^D to now, we have kept silent, hoping for some change in these sad affairs, and desiring to see the tranquility of the Church. Yet, while we hear almost every day, with many, or rather all, murmuring, that the power of the priesthood, which is a divine gift, has become venal; and that those who have received freely, and have been commanded to give freely, are selling the things that are divine for money. And the sons of Zion, who were precious, while they ought to have shone like the sun, have become like earthen vessels, the work of the hands of a potter. But that which is worse than all the worst things, while he orders it against the laws, not even content to hide the iniquity itself, he insults divine things and parades the holy mysteries. Soon after the very ordinations, he triumphs over the life of those who ordain, and saying such things as are abominable and execrable, even to those who live in a secular manner, yet take care for chastity; to say nothing of those men whose purpose it is to teach chastity and holiness. Whence, thinking that silence is no longer without danger, we have separated ourselves from his communion, fearing the future judgment.

You, however, who preside over the Churches and are good pastors of the sheep of the Lord, we ask that you vindicate the sheep of the Lord, which are so excessively corrupted and devastated by such a great pestilence; and do not despise these things, while the apostolic laws are trampled underfoot and the decrees of the Fathers are violated; but remember the doctrine of the blessed Paul. For writing to the Corinthians, he says: "If any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such an one, do not so much as eat" (I Cor. v, 11). In the present case, however, not one species of evils, but a whole wedge of evils together has thrust itself through this man into the Churches. Whence it behooves your holiness, who knows that terrible judgment, not to despise the Churches of God, which are in such a storm and are in danger of sustaining common shipwreck; but to vindicate them with all your strength, and to break the force of the volumes, and to arrest the growing wickedness, which desires to obtain all things, and struggles to fill all things with its pestilence.

I, however, Alexander, who salute your holiness, have for more than a year, as you know, since the coming of Paul, separated myself from the communion of Antioch. Your piety, and those who are with it, and those who are with us, we salute most warmly.

CHAPTER CXXX [218].

To my lord, he says, in all things most God-beloved father, and to the most holy Alexander, Theodoret, Heliadius, Abbibus, Maras, David, Acilinus, Helladius, Matronianus, Cyrillus, Zenobius, greeting in the Lord.

The things which have been written to us by your holiness, O most religious, are indeed lamentable and intolerable; yet they are not new, nor are they alien to the confusion of the present times, and to those things which have been presumed since that time when, whether at Ephesus or subsequently, matters were conducted improperly and most basely to the insult of the canons. Having recalled these in order, and groaning from the depths, we considered gathering a synod of bishops among us who are most beloved by God, and addressing synodical letters to your God-belovedness. But it was not possible, the days preventing, as you see, because the festival of Easter is at hand. We who are found in the metropolis, and, God favoring, know that there is one mind among all, as if from a common person, only write this much back to your God-belovedness: that it is necessary to be raised more fervently to the Lord of all, for it is not possible, as you yourselves also confess, most God-beloved, for the solution of such great evils to be looked for from elsewhere; for although, because of the multitude of our sins, worse things are strengthened, and among those who so wish, the mockery of the rules is increased, yet if God shall so will, by His will alone He will appease the manifold and unbearable magnitude of the diabolical storms. And we write these things, not as if your holiness is in need of our warnings, but because we despair due to the extreme difficulty of the times; and because such and so great evils, which we have heard of, are permitted to happen: which, however, ^A God, in the manner of His own goodness, is able to remove, and to provide swift peace for His Churches. Pray for us, most God-beloved, and salute all the brotherhood which is with you, from us, and from those who are with us, most warmly.

CHAPTER CXXXI [219].

To my lords, he says, and in all things most God-beloved and most holy bishops, Alexander, Theodoret, Heliadius, Abbibus, Maras, David, Acilinus, Hermogenes, Meletius, Hesychius, Heliodorus, greeting in the Lord.

We indeed, from the time that the iniquities were committed ^B against the decrees of the holy Churches of God, have been mourning from that moment, and are in much pain. But now, having received the letter of your holiness, and knowing what has been done, we have received additional causes for another sorrow, considering that through all things the ecclesiastical decrees are being trampled upon. Yet it behooved your holiness, since they omit what it teaches, and invent greater injustices on top of their sins, to be attentive to the cause every day, and to ordain most swiftly and not drag out the time, so that those guilty ones might do what they have done. For we believe your holiness remembers the matter of the communion, because we wrote back to your religiousness last year, indicating to you this very thing, that we had separated ourselves from them to such an extent that they do not cease ^C every day, in whatever way they can, to war against us. But God, who fights for those suffering injustice, may He Himself, through your prayers, quickly do what is expedient for His holy Churches, and grant us from now on to rest from evils. And now indeed we write back the same thing, acquiescing to those things which have seemed good to your holiness. We salute you, your religiousness, and those who are with you, most warmly.

CHAPTER CXXXII [220].

The letter, he says, of Alexander, bishop of Apamea, to the most God-beloved bishop Alexander, which he wrote back asking that, where possible, they might meet to deliberate about these things which are transpiring, and what ought to be done.

I wished to converse with your holiness, and to confer about those things which are being agitated. Which I did not conceive to deliberate about just now, but long ago; yet I have been recalled by various impediments. At one time, indeed, by an instant bodily infirmity, the remnants of which I still bear; at other times, indeed, by causes which constrain us. Since, therefore, neither do ^D the holy days allow me to go there at present, nor your holiness to come here, deign to weary yourself in the middle of the journey, at some monastery or village where it pleases you, and to converse with us. For this is expedient both for me and for your holiness. And, as I speak before the Lord, unless the present holy day were hindering me, it would not be wearisome for me to come there. If, therefore, you approve that this be done, deign to make it known to me, and where and when you will be present, that on the same day we may meet.

CHAPTER CXXXIII [221].

The letter, he says, of bishop Theodoret to the most magnificent master of the soldiers, written about these matters.

As many as are worthy of the light of divine knowledge

of being made partakers, and have received the brightness of that ray, believe that God exists, that he is concerned about human affairs, and that he wisely governs every creature; for he produced it, and granted it existence. Seeing and beholding it, therefore, he surely delights in good works; but he rejects iniquity and other pursuits of wickedness. But while he abhors the latter, and accepts the former, he most certainly measures out just retribution to the workers of each. Neither dignity, nor riches, nor power, nor anything of this sort which is illustrious in this life does he judge to be of account; rather, he scrutinizes the fruits of the mind, the products of thoughts, and the actions of things. But those to whom he has entrusted greater dispensations, he exacts greater punishments; for divine Scripture says: *The mighty shall be mightily tormented* ^A. And: *To whom much is given, of him much shall be required* ^B. And: *All things are naked and open before him* ^C. And: *We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive according to what he has done in the body, whether it be good or evil* ^D. And blessed David cries out to God: *You will render to each according to their works* [E].

Therefore, because you have this faith, most excellent sir, and desire to abide within the boundaries and laws of divinely inspired Scripture, and you await that great, terrible, and desirable presence of our Savior, in which everyone shall receive retribution according to his life and conduct, I pray you, do not believe deceivers, nor lend an easy ear to those attempting to deceive. But believe the most strong Job, who says: *Doth not the ear try words, and the mouth taste meat? With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding* [F]; and seek retribution from those who attempt to slander and accuse us. If ever we armed a multitude of rustics in the ecclesiastical district; if we ordered the workmen or stewards not to provide the revenues to those in charge; if we withheld anything belonging to them—while most certainly we have suffered many thousands of injustices inflicted upon us by them.

For a great multitude, gathering against us, threatened to burn the basilica of the saints, the victors and athletes of Christ, Cosmas and Damian—and perhaps they would have carried out in deed what they threatened, had not the multitude, out of reverence for our meeting, taken flight. Let your magnificence exact retribution from them for the impiety committed against the most holy Bishop Abbibus, whom they cast out half-dead, not allowing him to meet the end of his life in his bed, while he neither [had offered] sheets of renunciation nor had he become deranged, nor had he lost his intellect, as they lie, attempting to excuse themselves. And your magnificence shall know this from the letters which were written to us by him, the equivalent of which I have destined for your greatness, so that from them you may recognize the magnitude of the impiety that has been presumed in him. Do we not most rightly sever ourselves from their communion? But fearing the judgment of the just Judge.

For we know Athanasius's life in detail. For he was caught living shamefully even among us in the hospice. And there are many of those who exposed him still living, and men worthy of testimony. But also in the royal city he has many who witnessed his enticements—prefectorial officials, masters of offices, and public officials of the city, whose testimonies we read, which were offered to us in writing at Chalcedon, as well as the testimony of him who illicitly ordained him. For I think it superfluous to speak of Marinianus, who in a short time became known to almost all the inhabitants of Antioch. There are many canons which command that a bishop ought not to be consecrated without his metropolitan, nor without the decree of the bishops of his region; but that the ordination should be celebrated either with all present, or, if they are absent—either on account of infirmity or other necessary occupations—that they consent by letter, so that the shepherds of Christ's flocks may be consecrated with harmony and in peace.

But if anyone is ordained while these are omitted, they have declared such an ordination to be invalid and rejected. They command that those acting against the law, whether by ordaining in a foreign province, or by violating the canons themselves, be deposed. These laws, having been transgressed by them, compelled us to withdraw from the communion of the authors of iniquity. For we have not served discord and strife, as your greatness has suspected, nor do we delight in disturbances and turmoil; but we choose to suffer everything rather than that ecclesiastical sanctions be trampled upon. Therefore, we reunited that other Absalom who was railing against his father, and we accepted an oath from him that he would not invade the city of the Dolichenes while he who established him as presbyter and steward, and entrusted sacred funds to him, was still alive, and we immediately dismissed him.

He, swearing by ten thousand oaths, not only in writing, but even without writing in the presence of many witnesses, and soon despising such great impiety, and neither pitying the old age of his father, nor fearing participation at the table, nor revering nature, like a tyrant seized Dolichium.

^A For this reason, the battle arose against us, and we did not receive that phalanx of horsemen with pleasure, and mindful of the Lord’s laws who said: *Blessed shall you be when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all that is evil against you, untruly, for My sake. Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven* (Matt. 5:11-12). And again: *If the world hate you, know ye that it hath hated Me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you* (John 15:18-19). But also the blessed Paul consoles us, saying: *All who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution: but evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse, erring and driving into error* (II Tim. 3:12-13).

And for these things, we are indeed happy, while we suffer insult or mockery, and are so strongly and dreadfully attacked. But when we recall that a holy man, adorned with faith, having the greatest care for charity, anticipating the resurrection and the judgment, and sustaining just retribution, has undertaken such a journey against us in vain, and has publicly proposed insults against us, and has ordered the most God-beloved circulators to be unjustly dragged away, we are grieved in spirit and are wounded by great tribulations. For the great David says: *If my enemy had reviled me, I would verily have borne it: and if he that hated me had spoken great things against me, I would perhaps have hidden myself from him* (Ps. 54:13). Hence, we endure the injury bravely and pray to the Lord to grant pardon for sins. For we have learned from the most divine Paul to say: *We are reviled, and we bless; we are persecuted, and we suffer it; we are blasphemed, and we entreat; we are made as the refuse of this world, the offscouring of all even until now* (I Cor. 4:13). We ask your magnificence, however, not to believe easily those things which are said, nor to accept accusations against us abruptly, but to seek the truth subtly. For thus you will appease the Lord of all, and you will reap the fruits of glory among all men.

CHAPTER CXXXIV [222]

It has come to me that those who drove me from my city have sown a false opinion everywhere against the pinnacle of the priesthood and [their own] tyranny, fearing infamy before all, claiming that they did not make a bishop in Dolichium before they received refutatory petitions from me. I make known to you, therefore, swearing by your prayers, that I neither sent refutatory petitions to the Antiochene, nor did I ever wish to depart from this bishopric, and I will not suffer to remain silent, having been violently expelled: but since your holiness is nonetheless striving for me with your prayers, it will not grieve me, I hope, either to undergo the length of the journey or to hasten to a council of many bishops. For I have endured such things in a time of peace ^D as no one is shown to have endured, while he was forced to act against piety. Let there be no place, therefore, among your religiosity for the falsity of those men who make excuses for their sins. And now indeed they say that they were led to a new ordination after I had been deposed; but now they say that petitions were given by me, through which I renounced the care of the bishopric.

CHAPTER CXXXV [223]

God has adorned your empire with piety: wherefore it has remained for a very long time, and shall remain; for He Himself protects you: and He has often taught your empire this through the events themselves. Defend, therefore, you also, O friends of Christ, His Church which is being attacked: not that it stands in need of the solace of a human hand, but that you may procure for yourselves unaging and eternal crowns. But what the battle is, we shall teach in a short while. We came to Ephesus long ago because of the questions that had arisen there. But with no judgment made, nor investigation, nor conflict, nor colloquy, some indeed deposed the most holy bishop Nestorius; while others contradicted the deposition, calling it unjust and iniquitous: one of whom was the prelate of the Antiochians, just as your piety knows. And he indeed waged many struggles for him at Ephesus, and very many at Chalcedon in the consistory, and in the presence of our most pious and Christ-loving emperor, calling the same man orthodox, and accusing the very deposition of iniquity. But after he returned from there, and received his dismissal, he anathematized the dogma of the truth. He added, however, to these, another iniquity, and committed perjury twice over. For those who were not willing to communicate with him in this homicide and impiety, he attacks in turn. Whence he has even barked against our province, and against the rules of the holy Fathers, he ordained two bishops, abominable and perverse men, and workers of all lasciviousness. He even invaded the martyrium of the holy and good victor, the martyr Sergius, which was under the Hierapolitan Church, and he recently ordained a bishop there against custom, of whom it is not even hidden...

but it is known to all. For this reason, we have been compelled to send the clergy and monks who are most beloved by God with these present letters, by which we beseech your piety not to despise the Churches of God, but to instruct our most pious and Christ-loving prince ^A regarding these iniquities that are being done against us; and to persuade him that his empire should order these iniquitous ordinations to be voided, and that the bishops of our province should celebrate ordinations according to the rules of the holy and blessed Fathers; and that the basilica of the holy and good victor, the martyr Sergius, according to ancient custom, should be under the church of this metropolis, just as it was before this temple itself was built, and those very high walls, and other buildings within that same fortification. For it befits your holiness to remove this iniquity ^B and to strengthen the rules of the holy and most blessed Fathers, by whose prayers your empire is fortified.

CHAPTER CXXXVI [224].

Since most wise Solomon determines through divine grace regarding contrary times, saying: *A time to weep, and a time to laugh*, I consider that the present time is not one for childish play, but for tears and wailing, and for much mourning. For who would not lament while reading the chapters of the impious Cyril, and those other writings that agree with them, and this epistle which he now wrote to my lord, the most holy and God-beloved bishop Acacius (of which the proemium is in a way like this: *Your holiness, seeing with all instance and fortitude, now also takes up the care befitting you*), using these very things everywhere, as much in the proemia as in the final conclusions? By which he preached most evidently that the Word of God was made the firstborn from the dead, and that the Word of God was revived, and that a natural union and a union according to subsistence was sustained, and that it was reduced into one nature. And he contends for these as if they were pious and orthodox, and consistent with the divine Scriptures, so that he does not even assume to cast these aside, as if they were consistent with the divine Scriptures; but, according to him, the dogmas of Nestorius are those that are impious and polluted. ^C And never are we to be received into communion either by him or by those who think the same things as he does, nor is the excommunication to be dissolved, unless we have condemned Nestorius and, as he himself says, have anathematized his blasphemous and impious dogmas. And in the middle of the epistle, showing off his polluted innovations of terms, and the objections of a falsely named science, and the tortuosities of his own thoughts, he wrote thus: "Because," he says, "the Word of God is inconvertible and immutable, and is susceptible to no passion, for that which is divine is impassible and does not suffer the shadowing of conversion." And he adds other things. To these, indeed, he added: "Because He is insusceptible to all passion according to his own nature." And he subjoined: "Because Christ, and the Lord, and the only-begotten Son of God suffered in the flesh." In saying these things, he deluded the conclusion. And your holiness knows this more subtly than all others, knowing his impious dogmas, which he directed through many provinces, before he set out for Ephesus, through Cappadocia, and Galatia, and all the Orient. And he moved everyone against them, wherever he could write. But even after his return from Ephesus, writing via an epistle, your holiness, concerning those things which were done in Ephesus, to the most admirable and magnificent Appinianus, duke ^D of Mesopotamia, most cleanly exposed the author of the abominable chapters, and his heresy.

If, therefore, just as the epistle seemed orthodox to the most holy bishop Acacius, it also seemed so to your holiness, I consider the fatigue of my lord, the God-beloved bishop Paul, to the Egyptian to be superfluous: for I, having read your holiness's epistle, and Cyril's to the most holy bishop Acacius, while the God-beloved bishops were with us, and many most reverend clergy, and those who are of our city, and those who are from the province, and many others, I found nothing—neither I, nor those who were present—that is consistent or similar. But indeed let your holiness know that the impious one does not now use these deceits. I have directed the interpretation of his first anathema, where he exposes the impious Apollinarius into the faith of the Fathers, using these words for seduction: "Because neither fermentation, nor retempering, nor a pouring back of his substance into the flesh has been done." But he placed in the interpretation itself: "Because he also took hold of the seed of Abraham, and similarly partook with us in blood and flesh." And soon the wicked and impious one adds: "For he was begotten of the holy Virgin according 792 to the flesh, and appeared as a man according to us." And it is possible for him who reads the interpretation of the first chapter with the fear of God and reverence to find very many things in which he seems both to cast a shadow and to expose his most manifest heresy, just as in many of his writings.

If, therefore, the Egyptian persists in the same things, and does not deny the chapters, nor truly confesses Christ, from whom the angel evangelized to the holy Virgin, to be God and man, the same without a doubt being also the son of man because of the nature which is from the seed of Abraham and David, and without a doubt the Lord David himself because of the divinity, with the Word of God raising up the temple from the dead according to the opinion of the Lord Christ, and the two natures being known in one Son, Lord, and Christ, unconfusedly and indivisibly into the infinite age, we have no communion with him.

nor with those who communicate with him without this confession. For to say nothing of prophets, apostles, evangelists, and martyrs, I now strive to follow even the blessed Susanna, saying: If I have done this, I shall not escape the hands of the Egyptian, and of those who communicate with him; yet it is more eligible for us to suffer all things from emperors, judges, and other men than to betray a pious confession and sound faith, even if there were many thousands who mocked us. Whence, sending a supreme letter on the proposed cause to your religiousness, let it now discern my manifest reason: for I know the most holy Bishop Nestorius to be preaching in his sermons those things which the prophets, and apostles, and evangelists preached. And it was necessary for us to stop our ears, when the impious Cyril proposed to us that we should anathematize his dogmas as impious and polluted. At Tarsus you deposed five ^A of these heretics, and we agreed with you. But now Cyril promises that if we become heretics, he himself will give us communion.

CHAPTER CXXXVII [225]

The pact, which was not well made with the Egyptian a while ago under the guise of peace, Proclus now clearly reveals, he who was ordained in that great city. For he wrote 793 letters ^B full of calumnies against us, both to the most reverend clergy and to the Christ-loving orthodox people. Therefore, for a more complete understanding of the aforementioned writings, I have sent a duplicate of the same letter, joined with my own letters, to your religiousness, so that if it seems right and useful to you, we may all hasten to the great city, that we may speak with competent confidence in God to the Christ-loving emperor on behalf of the orthodox faith, that we may not neglect this in the least. I make it known to your holiness, that you may rejoice with me in the Lord, because the most reverend clergy and the Christ-loving orthodox people are advancing day by day in the Lord, contending for the evangelical faith. All the brotherhood that is with you, I, and those who are with me, greet most warmly.

CHAPTER CXXXVIII [226]

Hearing of your fortitude, we are strengthened, and ^C directed toward you, we lay aside our slothfulness. For God, who presides over these struggles, has set you forth as a principal example of virtue for all who would wish to imitate it, so that we may be marked by the imitation of your characteristics. Since, therefore, you have great confidence before God, provide us with such fervent perseverance there, and establish us with prayers, that we may remain firm in the dogmas, and close our eyes, so as not to see the unjust judgment of blood, and close our ears, so as not to hear, and fall to the ground: for we shall enjoy these and suchlike good things if we have obtained your prayers.

CHAPTER CXXXIX [227]

Those who devote themselves to the art of navigation, and choose to live on the sea, while they resist the worst tempests, being assailed by contrary winds and savage billows, and detained by much darkness—if suddenly a light shines upon them, they are consoled, and having shaken off their terror, they resume the confidence which does not allow those who hope for better things to despair. Something of a similar nature have we also ^D now suffered, reading through the letters of your God-beloved selves. For seeing the great commotion of the Churches, and beholding tempests and storms crashing on all sides, and from this a fermenting and growing volume, and one threatening shipwreck, and a thick fog spread about, which does not allow one to see what is near, we saw your letters—as if a small light suddenly appeared and an arrival at a harbor—and we enjoy consolation, and we have taken courage, and we bravely endure the assaults of the tempest, and we sustain a pure serenity: *For God is faithful, who will not suffer us to be tempted beyond our strength; but will with the temptation make also a way of escape, that we may be able to bear it* [1 Cor. x, 13].

And indeed we may be able to convict the falsehood, and to prove the truth more lucidly. For now the composition of falsehood has been convicted, and the virtue of truth shown. For behold, those who had confounded the natures of our Savior Christ by impious discourse, and had presumed to preach one nature of him, and had put forward the law so that passions might be attributed to the divinity, and had on this account attacked the most holy and God-beloved chief of the priests of God, Nestorius, as if broken in their jaws by bit and bridle, and drawn from the left to the right, have learned the truth, and

^A teach things contrary to their former state, retracting under that leadership to the truth which they had previously attacked. Not now do they confess two natures, but rather they anathematize those who speak of a commixture or confusion; they revere the divinity of Christ for its impassibility, and they teach that the passions belong to the flesh; they distinguish the evangelical statements, assigning those which are exalted and worthy of God to His divinity, and adjusting the humble ones to His humanity. Such are the letters now brought from Egypt.

But those who have finally, though with difficulty, learned the truth of the dogma, and have been taught the rule and standard of the Gospel, remain even now malevolent toward him who has become their teacher in these things, and who liberated them from error and led them to the truth, in that they attempt to attack him as one who is impious and a foe, both in deeds ^B and in words; and they are not satisfied by barking against him. But they will not overcome the truth, for truth is a firm reality; for Christ Himself is the Truth. And He has already convicted, as I said, the adversities of falsehood, and has indicated the ray of truth, which crowns the lovers of the truth; but He is about to show it more clearly, and will shatter falsehood entirely. And those who have availed themselves of it will learn that there is a God in heaven who sees even what happens, and hears what is said, and sets struggles before His athletes; and ^C He teaches tameness to lions flowing with hunger and fury, and changes fire—nourished beyond measure and excessively kindled—into the breeze of dew, and in the great conflagration preserves this fugitive safe; and He descends into a pit of mire with the prophet; and those who had sent him there, He drives out through wars as captives; but the one who renders Him obedience He establishes as a brazen wall and a strong tower against the barbarians; and in wars He causes him to shine forth, and through two faithful men, for the most part, He puts to flight many tens of thousands of the unfaithful. And the witness to this fact is Jonathan and his armor-bearer, 795 who, trusting solely in the divine nod against the aliens, put to flight entire thousands of the aliens and made them consume one another. But time will fail me as I recount the miracles of my God, and His providence, which takes place in us day by day. Knowing these things, therefore, most beloved and God-beloved brothers, put your trust in Him who said: "Take courage, I have overcome the world" [John XVI, 33]. For even if we are unworthy of His mercy, nevertheless, on account of David His servant and Jerusalem, which He chose, He will both extinguish the storms and still the tempest, and will order the ship of the Church to be steered straight once again.

CHAPTER CXL [228]

CHAPTER CXLI [229]

Your Admirable self seems to be ignorant that this struggle of ours is not for the sake of money, nor for possessions, nor for any other thing that pertains to this life. Nor have we persisted until now to please men. For far be it that we should be so insane: for with what hope of reward do we choose to die for our own cause? By what utility do we endure the threats of princes, the contortions, or subversions, and the pretense of exiles? To what end has that which belongs to human affairs prevailed against us so far, that for this reason we should institute a struggle against everyone? And certainly we see them, those who are greatly intent on contention, yielding to the violences brought upon them by their superiors, even while they are unwilling. Only one thing in human affairs is unconquered: a conscience dedicated to God, defending what is pleasing to Him with the whole heart. For it recalls the hope of future things, and the beatitude that is sustained, and confidence in God; and other things which are as much better than all the things of this life as they extend through infinite ages.

Hence, men become regardless of all present things, knowing that even if they are loosed from the present life, heavenly beatitude succeeds without a doubt, and the fellowship of the kingdom with the Lord Christ. And therefore, some not only count present things as nothing, but 796 even hold them as the greatest benefit, that they may be freed from them, knowing well that they cannot obtain the future things unless they are freed from the present ones. Nor have we, therefore, by the grace of God, initiated this struggle for the favor or enmities of anyone, but for the pious confession of the faith, for a conscience devoted to Christ: for whom we deem the things that are in the present age as nothing. And that I do not feign these things, hear briefly, as far as it is possible, point by point. Cyril set forth chapters full of all heresies, on account of which the whole world was disturbed. The synod was collected at Ephesus: this man also arrived there from Antioch. And judging then the insanity of the expositor, he deposed him with the whole oriental council. He swore in the presence of the prince: Even if Cyril should repent,

^A I would not restore the episcopate to him, because he has become a heresiarch. And we have copies of these things.

The same Antiochene returned from Constantinople to the East and held a council again in Tarsus. He wrote synodical letters, in which he deposed both Cyril and those who had ascended with him to Constantinople; their names are manifest. At last Aristolaus came, and he accepted the proposal that Cyril should anathematize the chapters themselves, and everything he had poorly explained, and that he should be satisfied with the confession of the right faith. Cyril, accepting this condition, wrote through Aristolaus to Acacius of Berrhoea a letter of many lines, affirming that the chapters were well-behaved and that they would never be rejected by him. After these things, the Antiochene sent Paul of Emesa to Cyril, who, going and doing those things which I cannot now enumerate, at last brought back a letter which did not contain an anathema of the chapters even in a dream, nor did it speak of anything worse than the chapters on the surface. From this letter it was already rumored that Cyril was repenting of the things he had written; and he was received by the Antiochene as such. Hearing this, Cyril wrote to Constantinople to certain of his clerics, saying that he had neither repented of what he had written, nor moved anything at all of what he had explained, and that he had not been received by begging anyone, but rather that he himself was begged from the opposite side and had accepted the Antiochene. And we hold the copies of all these things.

He wrote these same things ^B to Acacius of Melitene, that he had not withdrawn anything of what was explained by him, nor had he asked for any reconciliation, but rather, on the contrary, he had received the Antiochene at his request, where he said that there is one nature of the Son after the union. And he himself cries this out throughout the whole world, and asserts at every turn that he neither rejected the things written by him, nor would he suffer them to be rejected until death. Therefore, we separated ourselves from the Antiochene, because he, under such perversity of Cyril, succumbed after so much, and through the very unity of communion with him, made himself a partaker of him: not, indeed, because of any enmities toward John, which we do not have, but because of our conscience, which is bound to God, which we cannot deceive for the sake of human favor, even if someone should bring upon us a thousand kinds of death. Whence we also act greatly for that person, because our conscience is bound to God. But he says that Cyril rejected those chapters. Let him therefore show his letter, anathematizing those chapters by name, and being content with the confession of the Nicene faith. ^C

But he has nothing to show. Yet he brings forward for us a letter as a great thing, which differs from the chapters as much as it does not openly blaspheme in all things. But we have no talk about this. Truly, if he wants enmity between us to be dissolved, let him persuade Cyril to anathematize by letter by name everything he has poorly explained, and to be content with that Nicene exposition of the blessed Fathers, just as that blessed man, our master Theodoret, explained it: for he himself is the true intellect of those things which were explained. Or if he does not do these things, let him anathematize him together with his chapters: having dared this, of course, against all those communicating [with him] who assert the same things as Cyril. And all things are solved: for we, through the grace of the Lord Christ, love the peace of the Church. But we love it so that we may enjoy it with a conscience devoted to God; not that we may consign ourselves through it to Gehenna: for this is no longer peace, but total extermination. And no other occasion of adversity will remain for us, except for the sake of the pious confession of the faith. Otherwise, we are worthy of every condemnation, and truly the most unhappy of all, if we disturb things which are divine for the sake of trivial occasions. ^D

CHAPTER CXLII [250].

The rescript, he says, was published, as an end of those things which were written to the most magnificent count and vicar Titus by the most glorious master of soldiers, Dionysius.

What the imperial clemency determined to define concerning Helladius, and Maximinus, and Alexander, and Theodoret, the most reverend men, bishops, the very divine letters shining forth will be able to teach your magnitude. How indeed they were also cautioned by us, the attached designates. Whence may your diligence, receiving our precept, labor; so that with all art and most subtle craft they may come to effect, which the imperial authority has decreed. For your magnitude will not enjoy small glory if you are able to bring speed to so great a cause. It pertains to the religion of our souls. It pertains, if I may so say, to the care of the heavenly divinity, the quality of the present cause. Whence while both the divine letters and our authority prepare your magnificence; may the most reverend cult of orthodox piety caution you by days and nights, with all urban tranquility preserved, without any noise or disturbance, you will provide the obedience befitting what is divinely commanded.

CHAPTER CXLIII [251].

The letter, he says, of the most magnificent Dionysius, master of soldiers, which he wrote to each one of the bishops named in the Sacred [decree], that they might either consent to those things which were done by the Antiochene, and communicate with him, or depart from the churches and cities.

The invincible lord does not ignore how much his pro-

^Avision for the empire secures the devotion of sincere worship, and how much the faithful investigation of orthodox worship prepares security and enlightenment for the provinces. Hence, he is rightly deemed worthy to obtain whatever he may believe ought to be requested from the propitious Deity. For it is necessary that all things should turn out prosperously if one obeys God in the truth which has been defined by Him. Moved, therefore, by appropriate holiness, when he learned that your Beatitude does not associate with John, bishop of the city of Antioch, in the holy rites, nor communicate in the adorable mysteries, he deigns to issue a heavenly decree, which shines forth in the things that have preceded, that you must either communicate with the aforementioned, and with the rest who agree with him in the worship of the celestial divinity, or withdraw from the city and the holy Church over which you are known to preside. Having therefore pondered the divine letters, you shall do one of two things. ^B For it is necessary that you either communicate with John, bishop of the catholic Church, so that, with strifes removed, the holy Church may enjoy quiet and the peace which He has brought forth, or, by contending, you will be compelled to undergo the form given by divinity: for you will be deprived of the city, and you will be deprived of the Church, if you should perchance refuse to obey and assent to the better course. Let it therefore be the object of your deliberation to receive these divine and adorable precepts, if you desire to decline the sovereign’s wrath.

CHAPTER CXLIV [232].

CHAPTER CXLV [233].

CHAPTER CXLVI [234].

Jacob, and to the lord Simeon, and to the lord Baradatus, and to us. These letters contained threats that, if we did not agree to be reconciled, they would ^A immediately cast us out and appoint others. And indeed, I laughed at the threats, but the holy monks afflicted me very badly, begging much for peace, as if we were the guilty ones. But while I, becoming angry and receiving these things ill, was prepared to leave both the city and the province, and to flee to the monastic life, the aggrieved ones promised to accompany me as far as Gindarus, and to persuade the Antiochene to come there and speak with me. But because I said that, unless those men were cast out, it would be impossible for peace to be achieved, they sent three 801 God-beloved presbyters and archimandrites, both to him and to the most magnificent count Titus, commanding them that it was not just that holy men, and those who had adorned their own provinces, should be cast out so unjustly and iniquitously: for if any such thing were done, disturbance would necessarily follow. If therefore you care for peace, deign to come to Gindarus, and taking our bishop, we will come to you. Therefore, I thought it necessary to make these very things known to your holiness, so that nothing of what we are doing might be hidden from you. We have, however, entirely refused ^B for the meantime to go to Antioch. May your holiness therefore pray that this, which is pleasing to God, may be dispensed, and that those things may be done which are expedient for the holy Churches.

CHAPTER CXLVII [235].

Your holiness has done well to indicate to us in writing the things that have recently occurred. In part, however, reputation also announces these very things to us, which is accustomed to add falsehood to the things that are said and the things that are done. Nevertheless, I, through the grace of God, which has strengthened me even up to now, hope that I fear no one's threats, so as either to communicate with the impious Cyril, or with the betrayers of orthodoxy, who have both anathematized it and cast down the orthodox, so that from this, as far as they are concerned, falsehood is clearly proclaimed everywhere. For ^C that the heresy of ill-repute might grow and spread among them, I think that it informs your holiness, even of those things which have now been written from Constantinople. And indeed in Antioch, not one, nor two, nor ten only from the Hierapolitans were present in the Church, among whom was also my lord, the God-beloved presbyter Maranas, when both Macedon in the greater week in the cemetery, and Antonius the bishop of Chalcis in the church of Saint Zachæus, openly preached the Deo-Passian heresy. I am compelled to write these things, bearing it with great difficulty on account of the curiosity of the holy monks against us. I ask, therefore, that even if all the dead from the beginning of the world were resurrected, provided they are at rest, they should pray for us. But if they condemn us, may God spare them: for they ^D are not of greater authority than the angels from heaven, and that chorus of the Apostles: whom Christ, through Paul, has anathematized if they presume to preach anything beyond the Gospel of Christ. But if it should ever happen that your holiness speaks to any of those same most holy monks, and they themselves should raise a conversation on this matter, persuade them from me—that, according to the 802 truth, not even if John, of whom there is no master, were to give me the whole kingdom of the heavens—and I do not speak of Rasaphas and the other cities of this desert—would I endure to communicate with him, unless those things which have been perpetrated through the orb of the earth for this shipwreck of the faith had been corrected accordingly. For I am mindful of the one who says: Neither height, nor depth, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. And I give thanks to God, that with them are synods, and sees, and kingdoms, and judges: but with us is the Lord God, and the pure and undefiled faith in Him. And through your holy prayers, because if the fear of God did not restrain me, I would not await the violence to be inflicted by the powers of this age. But lest I seem to have betrayed the flock of Christ, I endure the necessity. Knowing therefore your holiness’s purpose, if it pleases you, I will also enter Antioch.

^A And I have sent to your holiness the replies to those things which were written to me by him. He also directed to me a copy of the letter of my most holy and God-beloved lord Bishop Eutherius, containing the same virtue. I therefore beseech your holiness that, reading these, you may think as much of the peace of the Churches as of the true faith, which are being excessively shaken according to the truth, and we have become a laughingstock to the whole people. If, however, it seems good to your holiness that we should accept the conditions of the Antiochene for the peace of the Church, so that, with those who were iniquitously ordained by him excluded, we might converse outside of Antioch, you shall do this also, as becomes your religiousness. But let it not be hidden from your holiness that I, reading the letters to the most pious prince at Antioch, was greatly grieved in my soul; because I clearly know that its writer, holding the same [opinions], without judgment or justice condemned him who taught nothing newly concerning his doctrine. ^B Indeed, the anathema inserted therein is sufficient to perturb the reader even more than the assent to the deposition itself. Nevertheless, it is not placed indefinitely, but with a certain determination, and provides a small measure of consolation. For he did not say: "We anathematize his doctrine," but "whatever is alien to it, or in whatever way said or thought [is] beyond the apostolic doctrine." I indeed 804 have presumed to make this request: but it is for your wisdom to both consider what is expedient, and not to be angry, but to inquire into our intention.

CHAPTER CXLIX [237]

The letter, he says, of the God-beloved Bishop Alexander, which he wrote back again to the God-beloved Theodoret, directing to him also the preface of the synodical letters of Proclus.

Your holiness is not ignorant of what it is that separated me from the communion of the Antiochene from the beginning. ^C The East knows this, and the West, and the North, and the South. And there is no word for me from any of them that would either reproach or accuse me, or heap insults upon me. But it was not the crowd of ordinations that removed me—through which iniquitous men are promoted and set before those altars of God which do not at all pertain to the Antiochene; but the betrayal of the faith and the communion of the heretic, who was previously deposed by nearly two hundred bishops; while John and Paul are now yielding communion to him. ^D And I have held and will hold this constancy, with God strengthening me, that I will communicate with none of those who communicate with Cyril, while he does not examine and anathematize his impious chapters in writing.

And as for what I have since learned and may learn—whether by word, as from men worthy of faith before the Lord, or by letter—or what the confusion of preaching in the Church of Constantinople may be, or what force the synodical letters sent from there possess, or what corruption may exist among certain bishops of our province who attach themselves to the Antiochene party and are circulated everywhere with the Egyptian, I consider it superfluous to write. I have one intention, which all who know me are aware ^B of, namely, that I hold steadfastly to the true faith and flee from heretical communion. Nevertheless, having zealously transcribed the preface of the aforementioned synodicals, as being sufficient for my satisfaction in the present matter, I have sent a copy of it to your holiness. For I am mindful of those things which were commanded me by your holiness a short while ago, and I judge that I should testify for myself that this was clearly my resolve—God, if I am not mistaken, illuminating my mind—and that He wrought such a satisfaction in it that neither tribulation, nor distress, nor persecution, nor famine, nor nakedness, nor peril, nor sword should separate us from the true faith, so that we might serve piety rather than the times.

CHAPTER CL [238]

SYNODICAL OF PROCLUS

No less than at any other time, the grace of God now opportunely manifests its own goodness most clearly, resisting the magnitude of malice and the sickness of the Church with gentle power; and while a great depth was feared, it heals with swift and effective medication, anticipating future danger in a wonderful and unexpected way of salvation. For while a storm of seditious men—who arose from the corrupt seeds of the doctrine of Nestorius—held sway for a long time in the intervening period, and persisted while Maximianus of holy memory stood in the midst ^C for the most holy Church, who indeed used all diligence for the removal of this evil—yet he did not suffice to eradicate this evil plant. Therefore, when the same man of blessed memory had suddenly departed from the present life, those who were bringing about this sedition—as if seizing the opportunity for presumption—did not deign to hold their wickedness in secret nor to contain it, but gathered multitudes in many parts of the city with public clamor, demanding the return of Nestorius, and threatening the city with dangers and the church with arson. And certainly these things [happened] even under him of blessed memory, though this lethargy resisted him. The rest is missing.

CHAPTER CLI [239]

The grace of God has granted the return of my most reverend and God-beloved lord, Donatus the presbyter, and Acacius the deacon; and it has freed us from the care by which we were being consumed and exhausted. What the intention is of those who are on high, your holiness will learn from the letters brought by him. For all of those who have ceased from bringing us help in anything, have offered us counsel for peace. But those who are very zealous, fearing this most evil time, did not even deem us worthy of a letter. However, your holiness will learn these things more fully from the aforementioned God-beloved men; and recognizing these things, I ask that you deliberate together on what is expedient for the Churches. For our urgency, ^D as I see it, will profit nothing sweet, but will hand over the perturbations to the churches and the peoples who are shepherded by us to raw wolves devouring them. It is clear that they intend our exits. And there will be those to be produced for us. And there is a fear that, because of this excessive severity, we may pay the penalty to God, intending things that are ours and not considering what is expedient for the people. Therefore, weighing and balancing everything with your wisdom, and comparing gain with gain, and loss with loss, choose the greater gain and the lesser loss. For thus, as I think, we shall please God, and we do not wound our conscience, and we shall benefit those who look upon us from everywhere, and we shall not lose the peoples entrusted to us. But sufficient is the ruler of all, God, and the protector of the holy Churches, to show us through your prayers what ought to be done, and to deliver us from these many and most evil volumes, and to grant us a little serenity and tranquility.

CHAPTER CLII [240].

^A And that we are so disposed, the Lord himself will make known to you. For just as he who begins to suffer daily stands firm, knowing that the rewarder also awaits the end of each one: because He makes it laudable not only for each one to begin with Him, but also to finish. Which your holiness has often taught us along with that most holy and God-honored archbishop of ours, and witness, our master Nestorius.

^B Since I have often written to your holiness concerning these things, I think it superfluous to write the same things about the same matters. I ask, therefore, your religiousness to read the epistles which I previously sent to you, and not to be importunate with me. For the Lord God lives, and I prefer the desire of God and the kingdom of heaven to the honor and glory of this age, counting gain as gain. And comparing loss with loss, I approve even more of the expulsion, and exile, and temporal death, and the reproach of men, and the mockeries that are here, than of eternal torment. But let not your religiousness marvel: because you indeed write those things, since you consider Cyril to be orthodox; I, however, write these, because I hold Cyril to be a heretic by common consent, at the time when the most blessed bishops were being expelled in our times, to mention a few out of many: Meletius, Eusebius, Barses, and all the rest. God knew these things, and before all things, He was mindful of the Church. And He did not exact a reason from them, who were driven away for this cause. Wherefore, not communicating with heretics, they did not remain in their churches. And therefore, with God comforting me, I am ready with all satisfaction, both before princes and presidents, and before synods, to speak confidently of our sole hope, and to endure all things, if God permits. Whatever, therefore, your holiness knows to be expedient for the Church of God, which has been entrusted to you, let it do: for your amiability toward God knows my sentiment. Nevertheless, those things which were written to me by the God-beloved presbyter and archimandrite, the servant of God Parthenius, I transmit to your religiousness, thinking this necessary.

CHAPTER CLIII [241].

Your holiness wrote to me that the joy of your holiness has been diminished, in that I did not write to your religiousness concerning those things which have transpired during these days: as if we had indeed become more remiss. Therefore, let your holiness know this, that however much tribulation might rise up against us—just as many are excited daily, which we also keep silent about, lest we appear to arrogantly feign something—they do not turn us away from the right confession which we hold in Christ.

^C Know, my master, that those who are here are progressing rather into a reprobate mind. Now indeed they preach that which is divine to be impassible; now, however, as if from repentance or oblivion, they overturn what they said a little before, and denying the dispensation, they preach a phantom: and it is permitted to say and do all things to everyone. And as it is written: "Our lips are our own: who is our Lord?" They wish, however, for us also to communicate with them for the deception of men. Concerning belief, however, they say: "Have whatever faith you wish, only communicate with us." But far be it that we should suffer ourselves to be estranged from the truth, even unto life and death. For the truth is to confess our Lord Christ, the Son of the living God, perfect God and perfect man. And we attribute sufferings indeed to the humanity of Christ, but miracles to His divinity: preaching one Christ, one Lord, who descended, suffered according to the flesh, and is to come in the glory of the Father to judge the living and the dead. This faith we hold, which we also learned from your holiness, and in it we persist. And from this confession no one shall be able to separate us unto life and death. For the constancy of your holiness regarding the truth has closed the mouth of all, and has stirred up even those who were sleeping. For, being in one climate of the East, and shining forth even unto the West and beyond, you are seen clearer than the visible sun, by that love with which you love Christ. Deign, however, to pray for us, and to provide good news concerning the desired health of your holiness.

CHAPTER CLIV [242].

That I write the same things, to me indeed it is no sloth; but it is the protection of your religiousness. Knowing, therefore, your holiness, that you will render an account to the Lord Christ both of your remaining and of your departure, let it do…

be ^A that which he has perceived through consideration and deliberation. I received the letters from him, which I cast into the face of the bearer, so that I did not even write this letter because the action of your holiness displeased me—far from it—but rather so that I might distribute those things which protect me. If, however, those things which you previously indicated are still firm, I beseech you not to be saddened in the least. For according to the Apostle, it must be said: "The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us" (Rom. viii, 18). And: "For unto you it is given not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for his sake" (Phil. i, 29). I write this, which I also said frequently in the presence of your religiousness, because two reasons liberate me from every ambiguity: that I am not conscious of being a deserter from the military service, or an abandoner of Christ’s sheep, so that I might be compelled by imperial necessity, or be repudiated by my entire flock in agreement. I ask, therefore, that you yourself might confirm these same things with yourself, and sustain either public necessity or the refutation of your fortress.

CHAPTER CLV [243]

God clearly reveals to your holiness, and some wish to hide, that all seek their own things, not those which are of Jesus Christ. I, however, believing the promises of those who have questioned this from your holiness—that is, whether it were necessary to write or not; for they were excessive, as they also appear to be, promising to conduct everything for piety—thus I presumed to write to your holiness long ago, that you should not be lazy in undertaking the journey to us. ^B I do not know, however, how, going against their own words, they show us different forms in matters at another time, and a perturbation of soul; that is, in those things which had pleased them by necessity. For by these things they show, and now indeed asking these things, but now proposing other things, that they have no stability of their opinion: just as it is said of those animals that in the sight of those looking at them, they suddenly change the varieties of their colors. And it seems to me that it wearies them that they have maintained a simulation even until the present, and did not add themselves to the devil as the first of others. But indeed it does not behoove us to be anxious about what others want. For they even gave commands earlier, as to whether it is fitting that the blessings which are spoken of be directed or not, and knowing from my opinion that they ought not to be directed, and that letters ought not to be accepted from them, they performed all the contrary things. Concerning myself, however, let him know, my most God-beloved lord, that from the time I learned of the union made with the impious Cyril by the Antiochene, I only once, through the master of offices, letters...

CHAPTER CLVI [244]

That the Cilicians, with few exceptions, have always been both hot and tepid, not to say cold, and exalted and humble—such as they have been found even now among us—has not escaped your holiness, which also knows my opinion concerning these things. For always, while I would write to them, I placed it in the judgment of your holiness whether these same things should be directed or not. But we have even now, by the grace of God, the same consolation concerning the Cilicians, just as we had before: this is, constancy given by God, and an invincible zeal for the sound faith, your holiness. For even one sufficed to God, when the general shipwreck submerged the world; and three in Babylon, when through the terror of the burning furnace all served the idol. I ask, therefore, your holiness, do not refuse to urge us often to the struggle at hand. For behold, we clearly see that of the prophet Isaiah fulfilled, which says: ^C "Destruction and unhappiness are in their ways: and the way of peace they have not known. And there is no judgment in their ways: for their paths which they walk are perverse, and they know not peace. Therefore judgment is far from them" (Isa. lix, 7-9). And blessed, and thrice blessed, are they who are assaulted by such as these through the malignant Church! Wherefore I now beatify my lord the most God-beloved Bishop Acilinus, expelled by them from Barbalissus, who is likewise with us, and long ago earned crowns. For brighter than the sun he has lived almost from the cradle; now, however, through calumnies and factions he has been cast out from his Church by the most magnificent, and most powerful, local deputy. But pray, I ask, both for this very one, who asked me to write this, and for constancy, so that he may be strengthened by the seal of the will of God.

CHAPTER CLVII [245]

As I had promised there to your religiousness to announce the present things which happened in the matter, I was eager to fulfill it through these letters. It was agreed, therefore, by the grace of Christ God, that those things which were read as superfluous in that letter being excluded, those things should be accepted which were well and ^D apostolic...

suffice what has been said by my Lord, who is in all things most dear to God and most holy, John. ^A And I have perfected this through his holiness, so that we may proclaim through these letters what we have agreed to, and from what we abstain. Let your holiness, however, know minutely from the letters which we have dictated to him, a copy of which I have sent, what is contained therein. See fit, I beseech you—not that I am writing to provide counsel, but rather as one reminding you—to treat of this matter as one who has been nurtured by that holy and blessed Lord of ours; so that in every way the body of the Church of the Lord Christ may remain unsevered.

CHAPTER CLVIII [246]

For it is ridiculous, just as they are not dragged to the court (and I betray my conscience before God, and I destroy both myself and the people whom He has entrusted to me, while they ought to follow me, if I rule well, and thus let the Lord Christ be the leader). Truly, it is manifest that he who strives for piety ought not only to fear nothing, but also to be prepared with complete devotion to sustain all dire things, lest he lose the most precious pearl. But with God comforting me, I shall depart from my church. If it happens thus, let them not only call me a prisoner, but if there is anything worse, and whatever is viler than the others. But if they wish, let them assign me to cleanse the forum, so that I may wipe the dust of the streets with my hands, as is ^C accustomed to happen at the arrival of judges. If, however, there is anything worse than these, let them adjudge me to some other thing. For if one’s vow is bound to Christ by conscience, and to be spent through guards, and to be dragged through every kind of torture until the last breath, what will any of the rest matter to him? For which reason it will come about by the prayers of your holiness, if it seems so to God and if time remains, that I depart from the church, demonstrating by my works to all who have been committed to me how the assent of the lost ^D is to be shunned. If, however, anyone wishes to follow me, he will save his own soul. Otherwise, I will do what I ought to do, if the Lord God deigns [to help] me. But I believe He will deign, in His clemency. But what does it matter to me whether my companions are many or few?

Indeed, I cannot say with what intention those who have written have written. But this I do know, that they manifestly invite us to impious things. For by offering counsel that we should keep the churches by holding communion with John, so that the heretics may not possess them, what else is it to say than this: "Lest others become heretics, make haste to be heretics yourselves"? For it is clear that he who has chosen to communicate with these men—who have surpassed all heresies in incongruity—is himself also made one with them by his communion. For just as he who adheres to the Lord [*] is one spirit, so also he who adheres to heretics is one spirit. For what else is communion with such men but a conjunction to them through the affection of the soul? Wherefore it may properly be said of these men, that he who has adhered to them is one spirit. But the most God-beloved Bishop Helladius indicated these things more clearly to my humility by his letters, which were delivered to me on the third day of the week, at midday, which I had also intended to send to your holiness, had not the reader arrived with your [message], to which I am now replying. But I replied to him that, by the grace of God, I do not know those who are always planning to hold synods against us. Indeed, they have deposed themselves, and I do not account them of any worth at all. For who are they who provoke us to a synod? They, whom it behooved—if justice were indeed preserved by us—to be provoked to judgment, and to render an account of those things which have been iniquitously and insanely presumed by them. Therefore, I will not respond at all to the one whom they have sent, if indeed anyone has truly come; but I will send him back dishonored to those who directed him. If, however, they seemed to have the command of the prince, then, trusting that this matter is by the permission of God, and that through these temptations He is showing a good devotion concerning me, I shall rather depart from this church, teaching by my works, through the grace of God, whosoever wills to escape the pit of perdition, rather than suffer to remain in this church by communicating with them, and betraying myself to all.

What things were to be said by me to your holiness now...

^A regarding the things said by Ibas, they condemn them, and likewise the holy John, the prelate of Antioch, who in no wise rejected those who wrote such things, compensating in some way for those things which he wickedly presumed against the God-beloved bishop Nestorius. For Proclus undoubtedly embraces the communion of Cyril and John. Whence he has also transmitted a synodical letter to both regarding his confirmation, as it is called. If, therefore, John has done these things, and has confessed that he holds the God-beloved bishop Nestorius, not just in words, but introduces him into the church and sits with him, then with our own security, or fortification, we shall embrace his communion. Beyond these things, however, I would rather be driven from the church ten thousand times, and pass through all kinds of death, than to embrace his communion: even if no one of the clergy or people should wish to follow me in treading this blessed path.

CHAPTER CLIX [247]

May those also judge regarding these things who [are with] blessed Theodoret and blessed

CHAPTER CLX [248]

CHAPTER CLXI [249]

holds, by the grace of God, and the new voice of dogmas has ceased, and there is one sense of the Church. And no one compels us to commit an injustice, nor does anyone drive an innocent person to condemnation. And this I have clearly recognized by conversing with my most holy and God-beloved lord bishop John, and by subtly understanding his intention. Deign, therefore, most holy lord, since those who belong to the second Cilicia have also sent a synodal letter to me, professing themselves to be in communion through his writings. Exhort the God-beloved lord bishop Helladius to take care for the unity of the Church, so that his conscience also may not be wounded. For it is incumbent upon your holiness to seek the peace of the Church. We have indeed expended enough upon one another, as in a nocturnal battle. And work so that, recognizing ourselves for the rest, we may at last embrace each other and [enjoy] peace. ^B

815 And I do not think that I have translated these preceding letters placed under the name of Theodoret in vain, although I reasonably hesitate as to whether they are truly his. But for this reason I have done it, that since the adversaries abuse such things, the orthodox might be instructed even concerning these by the grace of God. For those who have loved the letter of the blessed Ibas deny that it is his; which is also contained absolutely under his name in the acts of the universal council. They wish it to be believed to be Theodoret’s without a doubt, because that Irenæus weaves it into his work, who, while he had first been a most acerbic defender of Nestorius, afterwards, when he had anathematized him along with his dogma, communicated him to the Church. Whence he had greatly reproached others, and Theodoret himself. And so that he might not seem to do this merely as a layman, he was ordained bishop of the metropolis of the Tyrians by Domnus of Antioch. For I have omitted many such things said by him among these letters for the sake of useless length; some of which I have translated to this end, that his intent might be known. ^C Therefore, first this very Irenæus, and then those similar to him, have abused such things, as if to reproach Theodoret regarding a mutability. The Acephali also abuse these, while surely, in saying nothing of the second council of Ephesus before their author Dioscorus, none of these objections are read. Seeing which, as is certain, atrociously, the shortage of objections impelled them to this, so that they might also be judged to be added to those things which he had written against the twelve chapters before the peace. But a late and novel error has borrowed this objection from the old, by calling the testimonies of the adversaries worthy of faith. I, however, perceive these writings to be accepted for the better to the extent that they have been able to prove those of Theodoret; even if in them, regarding that intention which they do not wish to see, [his aim was] to destroy through things said and by injury, it appears that he has spoken of the condemned Nestorius. For the whole intention is shown to have been for charity according to God toward one's neighbors. Through this alone he strove to persuade, so that, drawing the bishops of the East to the peace of Christ's Church, he might leave no one outside of it to be handed over to eternal perdition. Which thing he could not then persuade them of in any other way, unless he meanwhile mixed in such words. Indeed, when even the holy John, primate of Antioch, together with his co-bishops united with him—that is, that great old man Acacius of Berrhœa, 816 and Paul of Emesa, and others—bore these with a similar intent. Who, therefore, could be so blinded by malevolence that these words alone would incline him to evil suspicion, and not rather draw him to an understanding of a good purpose and effect? Which appear far more clearly as better, because they took away so many pastors and peoples from Nestorius and returned them to the unity of the Church. For the fruits of these writings are, without a doubt, those [people] whom we shall read of after a little while, error being condemned with one spirit; to which they could not have been led except by such a dispensation. That they understood Theodoret’s intention entirely, however, is known from that very correspondence concerning the faith of Nestorius and his opposition to him. For while Nestorius hastens to show clearly that the faith of Cyril’s letter to John is impious in a unitive way, Theodoret most constantly asserts it to be orthodox. And furthermore, after such letters of Nestorius to him, he persists in doing the same, saying in his letter to the metropolitan bishop Helladius: [N] "But your holiness is mindful that from the beginning I have said the letter which was sent by the Egyptian is orthodox. And I have had no disagreement whatsoever concerning it." Which that Alexander, who is praised highly in all things by Irenæus himself, reproaches in the letter which we have placed above, saying: "But may your religiosity not wonder that you indeed write those things, who think Cyril is orthodox, but I [write] these, who hold Cyril to be a heretic." All of which shine forth more evidently if we compare those things of Nestorius with these writings of Theodoret. ^D

CHAPTER CLXII [250]

The letter, he says, of the same to Mocimus, most God-beloved, economist of the Church of Hierapolis, through which he signifies that, having entered Antioch, he spoke with John, and composed those things which were under discussion decently and desirably. "He who does all things 60 far better than we ask or understand, prepared us to speak with my most holy lord bishop John. And having held conversation on individual matters, we received the end that we desired. We also found a remedy, which may suffice for my most God-beloved lord your bishop, for the sake of the subtlety of dogmas. Deign, therefore, O God..."

-beloved ^A one, to address his holiness beforehand and to prepare him to be easily persuaded by us. For we trust that, God commanding it, about the twentieth day of this month we shall tell you of our entire discussion, so that you too may be amazed at the marvels of the Lord. Those who are with us salute your holiness.

Chapter 163 [251]

Truly, had not the Lord of Sabaoth left us a seed of truth, most God-beloved one, we should have become like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah. For those who seem even now to be struggling for piety—not to say all of us—blushing at the constancy of your holiness for piety, seem in some way to be still wrestling, as ^B if resisting unwillingly after the wars: as if we were not about to render accounts to God, to whom it falls to attribute the cause of this contest. While certainly the fruit is reserved, to be rendered in his own time to those who love God with all their might, and for this reason most sincerely show in the present time constancy for piety. But we pray that your holiness be granted to us for a very long time, to dissolve the darkness that has emerged in this life with the festive lamp of perfect knowledge concerning God. We, however, as you commanded, most God-beloved lord, have sent letters to Bishop Helladius of your holiness, and having received reciprocal ones, have directed them to your holiness. But we fear to declare what is happening around us here. Hence, omitting this, I beseech your holiness, habitually pray for us, that the wave of impiety, which appears intolerable, may not be able to submerge us, unless a certain rich grace come from above.

Chapter 164 [252]

The consistency of your apostolic purpose and ^C of the zeal which you have borne for piety from beginning to end, these are the things which were recently brought to your holiness through the most God-beloved Bishop Meletius. I, indeed, do not in the least forget what I wrote and what I spoke to that most reverend and excellent man, and now I signify these very things to your God-loving self. For since many and most evil misfortunes are being turned against the Church of God, and men who are perverse in their thoughts and indiscreet, and other things un-desirable and to be avoided—whose number cannot be explained—are presiding over the medium of selling and buying, I am unable to discover what I should do. For to keep quiet and to observe my own soul alone, I consider that I should embrace it, as my conscience is witness. ^D I would wish to buy at the cost of many things, that from beginning to end I might use an equal life—not relaxing for the sake of the assigned ministry, nor having preferred, so to speak, a better life. But if I shall betray again, to those to whom it is not proper, the Church of God and the most faithful peoples of Christ, I know not if even a small particle of satisfaction will be left to me for the day of judgment. Whence, casting all security together and equally all care upon the Lord of all, I trust in Him alone: especially seeing that all our most God-beloved clergy, and almost all the most holy bishops, are compelling us to look to communion. And the second Cilicians, which you, most God-beloved one, have perhaps already heard, have been pacified, and the Antiochians have embraced communion. And among us they are hastening to perform these very things. But I, remaining with two most God-beloved bishops, with no less zeal, I think, for piety than your holiness, deliberating together with them, neither to do anything beyond the will of the Lord Christ, nor to betray the Church of God and the most faithful lovers of Christ's people. Let it be of your prayer, lord, for me in the rest, that just as it is our desire, so this pious intention may be directed.

Chapter 165 [253]

The judgment concerning such things, most God-beloved lord, is in all ways convenient to your God-love, living through all spiritual virtues. I, however, ask that your God-loving soul perceive this in your mind, that everywhere throughout the world at this time, public audacity is being exercised by those sick with that heresy which recently emerged, or place is offered to it by those who seem to be healthy. And that prophetic [word] is clearly being fulfilled in action: for they themselves were mixing with harlots, and were sacrificing with the initiated of an idol. And the understanding people, indeed—that the old story may be repeated—the priests who understand are compelled to fornicate. What, therefore, I ask, is it fitting further for those who fight according to the truth for piety to endure, unless it be that they are driven out, and exiled, and endure persecution, and every species of torment, according to the sentence of the Apostle, who says: For all who wish to live piously in Christ shall suffer persecution. But evil men and deceivers grow worse, wandering and sending into error. But behold, as we wrote before, our most serene and most meek emperor, while certainly our accusers have reported to him as against heretics, has proposed nothing to us, except that we either communicate with the betrayers of orthodoxy or be separated from them. We, however, who for 819 piety are struggling, what was it fitting to endure? Rest, honor, glory, temporal permanence, and to speak collectively, the fruition of the present time, or every species of torment and punishment? No one

^A during his struggle for piety, with torments distributed and assigned, ever departed; but on the contrary, he remained prepared in his mind for all terrible things. Yet, by the necessity of a corruptible body, a first or second punishment reached its end. And it would have been better for us to have departed from the beginning, rather than to have strengthened many who were astonished by our piety, only for us to grow sluggish now toward so gentle and merciful a proposition.

And let these things now be said by me, not to your religiosity, but for my own meditation, on account of these second letters. There are three things committed by the Antiochene: communion with a heretic, the anathematizing of the right faith, and the deposition of an orthodox man. Which of these, I ask, shall we be able to excuse, and for which shall we avoid communing with him? For two are indeed manifest, that they were committed by him against God, while the third is against man. But because the priest of God is injured, and this is in a way referred to God. For that thought of Eli regarding the priest: If a man sins against a man, he says, they will pray for him (1 Sam. 2:25). How, then, is it possible that we, struggling for piety, should abandon that which is primary and more necessary as a cause, and resist on account of the iniquity committed against a ^B person? Let us be silent for nothing regarding piety; but let us object that we are not partakers in the downfall, since we have once embraced his communion. I, for my part, proceeding in order and sequence, believe in the Lord Christ, that even if they threaten us with exile and death, I will by no means endure to commune with him, even when he pretends to be orthodox ten thousand times over. This is especially so because he communed with a heretic and adjured the rectitude of the faith.

But those who are now good among you through their own people, through whom they sent writings to us, even they, by yielding to the time, have betrayed the person. Whatever they might have done regarding the person long ago, when they entertained a better hope of him, has not escaped your holiness. Is it not astonishing or strange that the same thing happens to us in the temptation of the present struggle—the false mercy of those who seem to love us, but hate us in truth, and the rebukes, and insults, and mockings, and reproaches of those who change according to the times and do not struggle for the truth? And the blandishments of our own people, and our affection toward them, which is neither reasonable nor necessary. For through all these things, they were both tempted and proved, they who have become Christ’s martyrs and confessors of piety. And some indeed conquered, ^D while some for the most part succumbed. For whom among them has not a multitude of friends, wives, children, brothers, parents, neighbors, and colleagues surrounded, showing the firmness of their affection and attempting to call him back with that constancy toward the Lord?

Do we not have money, and gifts, and ships full of cargoes to send? But we have prayers and tears, and groans of compunction, and vigils before the Lord. For with these truth is armed; while with the others, the multitude is armed against the truth. But, they say, they are under obligation to our Churches. Must piety be despised for this reason? And from whence do they owe it? Have we lived in luxury from them? Have we given our own away? Have we paid our own debts? Even if we gather ten thousand treasures for them, is it not good that we keep the words of the Lord Christ in mind: For what does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his own soul? (Matt. 16:26). For such thoughts press upon us, which, through the grace of God, we destroy with other sober thoughts and words of Scripture. For it is good for those who stand in their place to meditate on those divine warnings which say: Some in chariots, and some in horses, but we will call upon the name of the Lord our God (Ps. 19:8). And, they spoke against me, he says, who sat in the gate. And they sang about me, who drank wine. But as for me, my prayer is to you, O God: the time of favor, O God (Ps. 68:13, 14). And that saying of Jeremiah: But I have not hastened from following after thee, nor have I desired the day of man (Jer. 17:16). And: The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us (Rom. 8:18).

But those things which were recently elicited against me with great zeal are a rest and liberty for me, if God permits, from not speaking of this battle. For what species of antagonism has the Antiochene not exercised against me? Did he not arm the masters of soldiers and judges against my humility? Did he not take away from me the martyr’s church, upon which we spent nearly three hundred pounds of gold, and which we left in debt? Did he not invade my parishes? Did he not move a military cohort against an aged bishop, and once he was expelled, introduce a sacrilegious man? Did he not ordain fornicators and those branded with the stigmata of crimes elsewhere? Did he not incite this whole region, as far as it depended on him, against us? And through Him who strengthened me, these things have all become joy, and a crown, 821 and exultation, and exercise, and anointing for me, that I might learn by experience that in the abundant trial of tribulation there is the abundance of our joy. To commemorate, however, your religiosity and those things which we wrote long ago from Ephesus to the holy oriental Churches of God, transcribing from ecclesiastical papers...

I have dispatched to your holiness an exemplar of the things which are among us.

CHAPTER CLXVI [254]

Although your religiosity may persecute me, and drive me away, and use rods against us, I will not cease, falling down, to entreat and to prostrate myself at the feet of your holiness, and to hold those knees which you have exhausted in prayers, and to whose service it pertains to perform all things, and to which those things which were recently done bear witness. For after ten thousand tumults, and no fewer disturbances, which I have endured, seeing the souls which were entrusted to us in great danger, once a conversation was held in the house, all things were accomplished for us by the grace of God according to our prayers. I reserve, however, the narrative for a future conversation. For we have found also a satisfaction which may suffice for your pure conscience, and avail to prevent it from every doubt. To which also the Isaurians and Cilicians, yielding, have embraced communion with my lord, the most holy Bishop John. I hope, moreover, God granting, to come to your holiness about the twentieth day of this month. I, and those who are with me, greet most abundantly all the brotherhood in Christ which is with your religiosity.

CHAPTER CLXVII [255]

For such causes the holy monks who are at Alexandria sent letters by Chometus to those who were in Egypt, to Acacius the most reverend deacon and xenodochus, and to Scyllacius the religious presbyter and archimandrite, and to Agapius the most reverend presbyter and treasurer, execrating the impiety of Cyril and the pestilence which has seized the Church of God, and requesting that it be indicated to them if any of the God-beloved bishops have been left ^A throughout the East who have not become of this time: that if they remain, they might write to those same monks, so that they might come and dwell under their shadow. For here, they say, God is preached from high seats as passible. The God-beloved presbyter and archimandrite Parthenius ^B sent an epistle both to me and to your religiosity, because they who dogmatize now in the Constantinopolitan Church say with confidence: that he, the immortal, has died. And a little before I received the epistle of your religiosity, on the eleventh day, coming, he indicated that because of this heresy infinite multitudes have separated themselves from the Church itself. Andreas, the God-beloved bishop, indeed, wrote to me before these days by epistle, that in the whole Pontic region God is preached as passible. The God-beloved and most holy bishop from Egypt indicated to your religiosity by epistle: Rabbulas indeed thinks of you that you have recognized piety; but concerning us he writes everywhere, clearly calling us heretics.

I judge that your religiosity has not only omitted nothing of those things which pertain to the salvation of my unhappy soul, but has even surpassed that swiftest shepherd who is read of in the Gospel. ^C For he went once to the sheep which had perished, seeking it; but your holiness has now approached even Harbath, my mountain, and Hierapolis, and Zeugma, and Antioch, to seek my soul, which had perished. Rest therefore, I beseech you, from elsewhere and yourself, from being fatigued and wearing yourselves out. For I do not intend to consider how the Cilicians and Isaurians act; but if all men who have been from the age, rising from the dead, were to call the impiety of the Egyptian abomination "piety," I deem them no whit worthier of the faith than the knowledge which has been given to me by God’s largess. And I would say none of these things which I am about to write, as truth is my witness, had your holiness not indicated such things to us by epistle, as if sought out for our own satisfaction.

Those who are from the second Cilicia sent a synodical letter to me, in which they also gave anathema to Cyril, excommunicating those ^D who hold him as bishop. Helladius indicated to me by a similar epistle that he also has decreed the same sentence in those things which pleased the God-beloved bishops of the second Cilicia. And because some bishops of that region think otherwise, serving the time by their own transformation, I have five letters of the God-beloved presbyters Photius and Martyrius: two indeed written comfortably, in which an orthodox epistle; three truly from the sole God-beloved Photius, in which he named it heretical. The God-beloved Zebinas, who was at Antioch, Proponianus of Eurethea, Eustolianus in Anazarbus, with the remaining bishops, before the Church anathematized Cyril and those who communicate with Cyril. But I have also discovered now: Aurelius is Flavius. I could, from these, as I foretold, have given counsel to your religiosity for investigating the truth, but I judged to keep silent at the present time. And by your holy prayers, all these have condemned the impious Cyril, wherever they have said he is orthodox, they have been transformed. Concerning this part of them, perhaps they shall be placed by me, whom the holy Paul remembers.

I ask therefore for your devoutness—since I am neither insane nor delirious—that you might spare my old age. For so truly will your holiness know that I have labored on my knees in prayer, as you yourself have said. For I, thirty years ago, while a certain Julian, living an evangelical life, suffered from the sickness of Apollinaris, and his name was being mentioned at the offering in the church of Chalentis and the neighboring monastery, worked until his name was removed; knowing also this, that I should be prepared to endure ten thousand kinds of death ^A rather than offer consent to such a communion.

CHAPTER CLXVIII [256]

Whether your holiness receives what is done by us or among us, or does not, we do not rest, doing with all our might those things which may not bring upon us any manner of condemnation before that terrible tribunal. For even if in other matters we are negligent and lackluster, and take no care of divine things, yet in these matters we both pray and labor, that we might not be much weaker than those diligent in goods. I make known therefore unto your holiness, that the Cilicians and Isaurians have sent eulogies to Antioch, and in their letters have named as bishops both the Alexandrian and the Constantinopolitan: adding that they do not communicate in the deposition of the most holy bishop Nestorius. Not a few of our common friends have indicated these things to me, commanding that I should even now entreat your holiness, and fall at your holy feet, and persuade you to acquiesce to those things which have been generally pleasing to all. For they think that I am able to do everything with your holiness. Whence I again entreat your holy soul, that you receive this my entreaty, and condescend for the peace of the Church.

CHAPTER CLXIX [257]

From the beginning, I have followed neither you nor the Cilicians. And especially ^C you, who sometimes fly above the clouds, but sometimes indeed observe the knees of that man like suppliants. Verily, the world has been marked by you, and you have suffered both by your own will. As for you, I said that I would make common what is yours. But from the beginning I separated myself from the impious Cyril, and from the communions of those who struggle even to the present for their impiety, while you especially receive those as co-operators in his heresy. For nothing, even until now, has escaped us of those things which have been written by him; but we have in our hands both what Acacius of Beroea has written, and what he wrote through Paul of Emesa, and what he wrote against your ^D devoutness, and what he wrote to his own clergy tarrying at Constantinople, and what he wrote to Acacius of Melitene, after he entered into a pact of communion with Paul. Where also he acts bitterly for his heresy. For I have never had an Antiochene as a heretic, nor do I have one: even if, on account of the time between both, he could have vacillated in some parts.

*And after other things.*

I conjure you therefore by the holy Trinity, that you might desist from me. For I truly hope in Him who was crucified. For He makes piety to prevail more with me; and He has quietly overcome the four governors and other judges of the world; and He will not allow me to be scandalized through you. For I shall receive those who are to expel me with such great joy even now that, if I had any abundance of gold, except for ecclesiastical vessels, I would give more eulogies to them than for good tidings. For that our Church neither has anything, nor had, nor have I accepted or given to anyone even up to one obol, I often think I have intimated. Whence I have not even endured to throw out any codex. But neither a single obol from ecclesiastical property, by the grace of Christ. But from those things which friends have sent to me, I have enough for the hiring of animals; and so I am placed daily as if in a frying pan, God being my witness. For without irrefutable necessity I do not leave the flock, fearing the judgment of God, lest being constituted by Him here amidst tribulations, I should also render an account of abandonment in the future. Necessity, however, keeps us free from doubt here, and from condemnation there. Let your devoutness therefore not be wearied for the sake of this matter, but only pray for us.

CHAPTER CLXX [258]

To my lord, and in truth to the God-beloved and most holy father and bishop Nestorius, Theodoret sends greeting in the Lord.

I have been very ill, after I returned from Germanicia, but those things which are done concerning my lord, the most holy bishop Alexander, afflict and torment me more strongly and validly. For he does not allow himself to acquiesce to the words of the Lord, saying: "The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep" (John x, 12). Nor to the oaths of the blessed Paul, which he used for his persuasion to us, that he swore he would even be made anathema from Christ for the sake of the impious Jews (1 Cor. x, 33); but he wishes to lose the flock entrusted to him. And he holds the vengeance owed for this as nothing. Whence I again ask your holiness, that you should write to him, and persuade his holiness to hearken to Paul saying: "For I do not seek what is profitable for myself only, but for the many, that they might be saved."

^A to entangle [him] cannot avail charity, if Theodoret, by exhorting Nestorius as to how he might recall Alexander to the Church, was obliquely showing Nestorius himself that he too ought to render himself to the Church by repenting.

Chapter CLXXI [259].

The Epistle, he says, of Meletius to the God-beloved bishop Alexander, in which he wrote that those indeed who were from the second Cilicia had communicated; but that other Cilicians and Isaurians had likewise transgressed what they had formerly judged piously.

Thanks be to the Lord God, who through single generations chooses those who protect the truth, so that what is in danger of perishing among the many may be preserved by the guardianship of the few, providing through these a most full demonstration, for the reason that it is impossible that the conspiracy of this evil be entirely exterminated. Yet the testimony remains in the few, that these things are pleasing to God, even if all alike are converted to contrary pursuits. Thanks, however, be to the Lord God, who always indeed dispenses these things for the defense of piety, and now truly [brings] your holiness to a like service for us, so that while piety is endangered in the will of all, the mystery of the truth may remain with your religiousness. Nevertheless, it is fitting for our humility to use toward your holiness words like those of blessed Paul, and to say: "All the Cilicians have forsaken us, loving the present world, and have gone each one after his own heart." But it is much more fitting for your holiness to say these things, who even before this shone forth to others, when they seemed to defend piety; and now ^C in the whole world you alone shine forth. It is fitting for us only to return thanks to the Lord God of all, who has left to us, in this time of the penury of Christians, a priest, and the summit of all goods together, and the base, and the strength, and the foundation, your holiness, so that we may not be troubled by any rising tempest. May He grant this too, that your holiness may remain to us until the end. For the Lord is of all, whereby He may bring to perfection, to the confusion indeed of every one of those who are falling, and to the fortification of those who are remaining; if at least any one is still left. For as I see, no priest has remained anywhere, except your holiness. But deign, I beseech you, even for our humility, to offer the customary prayers, that we may be rendered worthy of all, in whatever is fitting, to suffer temptations for Christ.

Irenaeus immediately interposed, speaking on behalf of him who composed it.

That God-beloved priest indeed wisely signified the epistle to this great athlete of truth. Yet the riches of his merits, and his desire for piety, were superior to every word. For he accounted all things that are of the present ^D world as loss, that he might gain Christ, according to the voice of Paul the apostle, postponing all things to the charity which he had toward God. Whence, even to the end, the same distinguished champion of piety persisted unmoved: nay rather, an adamantine tower, which so many phalanxes of friends and enemies together were in no way able to separate from the charity of Jesus. But there is no need to linger in his praises, while it is permitted from the letters which follow to learn what the pastor of Cyrus, Theodoret, judged in his epistle to the Antiochene, and with how much veneration he himself always [regarded him].

^A They say: "Let your holiness recall those words which were formerly spoken by you to us: that we all alike bear and sustain our lord Alexander, and do not permit any importunity to be inflicted upon him by anyone." For in a clear voice, she said exactly this. But he, as we shall see immediately, set it down in his letters. However, we do not admire this holy old man for those things for which some have praised him, whether in words or in letters, but for his confidence in God, and for his struggles on behalf of the truth, just as the facts themselves proclaim.

CHAPTER CLXXII [260]

I have not deferred sending a letter to your holiness out of neglect, 828 but because I did not know until now what I should write. For my most holy and God-beloved lord bishop Alexander has remained in his own frame of mind, believing him to be of the highest justice. For this reason he neither speaks to his friends nor admits petitions; but he considers the transgression of the evangelical commandments to be a matter of dispensative condescension. Since, therefore, you have known him clearly from the beginning, lord, and have also experienced the other virtues of the man, I ask your holiness to act patiently, and to restrain those who are attempting to be importunate towards him. For I say this before the truth, because it will provide much honor to your holiness, and will also gladden the man himself, who possesses no consolation from any quarter.

He allows neither his loved ones to speak with him nor to write to him, nor does he receive letters from them; he now has only one desire, that he might be freed from care by any means. Yet it is logical that he should be softened by the passage of time. If, however, he should persist, there will be no injury from this to your holiness, nor to us, nor to our common college. For that which he teaches, by the grace of God, is orthodox and consistent with the ecclesiastical faith; he is neither able to cause disturbance, nor is he going to attempt it. Since he keeps silence, he does not in any way contaminate the peace of the Church. But if he should be cast out, your holiness will know that the greatest injury will result from it. For clearly a division of the ecclesiastical body will occur from this in Constantinople, and in very many other cities, since, whether through simplicity or not, some perhaps think him a defender of the most integral faith. Others, however, rejoicing in youthful deeds and hastening to elevate contentions ^C on this account, seize the opportunity.

And forgive me, for I write these things out of grief, it will gather much blasphemy for your devoutness as well, if this should happen; just as, none the less, that which I said before would bring every grace and praise of patience. For he who, having obtained the means of taking vengeance, does not exercise his power, is inferior to no praises. But let your holiness recall those things which were formerly said by you to us: that we all alike bear and sustain our lord Alexander, and do not permit any importunity to be inflicted upon him by anyone. And on account of all things, as much for what is commonly fitting as for what is proper to your own dignity, restrain those who have attempted to act as his enemies. For I believe this both pleases the God of all, and moves men—not only friends, but also enemies—to praise. And I shall perform the rest written in order, as they were set down by Irenæus...

CHAPTER CLXXIII [261]

To my lord in all things most God-beloved and most holy bishop Meletius ^B Many and diverse things are being spread abroad here ^D concerning your holiness, to which the outcome is consonant, in that your holiness is unwilling even until the present to communicate with the catholic and orthodox assembly of the whole world, perhaps dissuaded by some who are unable to discern what is expedient. Now, therefore, finally desire to reawaken, though late, against the wiles of the enemy, and recover the affection of all the holy bishops, and do not tend towards pre-emptions and many words, which can help nothing, but rather even harm in the future age. For it is clear that God’s providence wishes all men to be saved. How, therefore, is it credible that He commanded your holiness alone to be bound by His own judgments?

Let your angel, therefore, know that divine letters have arrived, decreeing certain things against those who do not obey, and against those not communicating with the holy and universal council. For we, who always pray that the evils of the devil may in no way prevail, have asked the God-beloved archbishop John to put it off, until these letters should be delivered. Let all your religious zeal, therefore, be to set aside evil thoughts; and truly to come out and arrive at Antioch. For this is expedient to be done in many ways. If, however, after these letters, your holy angel should be unwilling to meet us, no one will have any further ground from which to find fault with anything, either against the same most holy and God-beloved bishop John, or against ourselves, when with all speed we begin to execute these very things which have been commanded from the divine height. For if the divine letters find them disobedient, in the cities where they are seen to dwell, an intolerable sadness will befall them. Fare you well.

CHAPTER CLXXIV [262]

To my lord in all things most reverend and most admirable and most magnificent Titus Meletius. That indeed the providence of God, as you foretold in your letters, O most admirable lord of mine, wishes to save all men, is evident; but certainly not...

everyone follows the divine will, as we see, but rather the wills of men, which God—making us their masters—has permitted each to use according to his own judgment, for the proving of the rational soul’s benevolence or malevolence toward God. For so Cain presumed to commit fratricide, considering little of the divine precepts; and the Sodomites declined into every species of impiety and iniquity, making no memory of the divine will. And the people of the Jews feared not at all to crucify Christ, the Savior of all, when they should surely have received Him—who appeared unto them for the salvation of all—with haste, as the intention of His dispensation also required. And to speak briefly, all divine Scripture is filled with such examples, by which it is clear that there have always been countless numbers who, apart from the divine will, have fallen into worse things. Yet there have always been, in all, but few who obtained salvation according to the will of God. ^A Nevertheless, for this reason, one should not think that the wicked are to be preferred to the best, or that the good are to be considered guilty of a crime because they are not commingled with the wicked.

For we do not in any way blame Abel because he did not assent to the ways of Cain. Nor do we accuse him of insanity for not having imitated all the rest of his own time. Nor have we thought that Abraham was deranged, who alone out of all his kind became pleasing to God, and preferred pilgrimage for piety's sake over the error of idolatry. Nor shall we say that Lot exceeded what is fitting, who alone out of all refused the works of the Sodomites. Nor shall we disregard Moses, who preferred the dangers of piety to royal service. Nor shall we pass over the three youths, who alone of all refused to likewise adore the golden image of Nebuchadnezzar as the others did; but for their benevolence toward God, they chose the flames of the furnace. Nor, indeed, [shall we disregard] the apostles, as if they were no part of the nation, who, being twelve in number out of all the people of the Jews, alone believed in Him who was called by those others a deceiver and an adversary of God. And certainly, in this very thing, He promised them nothing for the present but tribulations, and persecutions, and deaths. But has their diligent competence been fruitless to them even in the present time? ^B Indeed, look at how Abel possesses greater confidence after death before God; and Noah was miraculously saved from the shipwreck of the whole world. Look at Abraham, who became the beginning and root of the correction of all, and because of his virtue deserved to be called the father of all the faithful. Look at Lot, who escaped the great fire. Look at Moses, to whom the leadership of the Israelitic people was entrusted, and who was honored with the forms of a true shepherd. Look at the youths, who were preferred as wonders among the Chaldeans above all in Babylon, and were made benign among strangers with the first and greatest honors. The same dignity accrued to the holy apostles. Wherefore they themselves also came to be so venerated by all—emperors and private individuals, subjects alike—that they deemed it the greatest benefit, if any one knowing how to attend to the harmony of the many in the Scriptures of Paul, might consider the diligence of virtue that pertained to himself of no avail. Nor would anyone ever be found worthy and fit unless he were almost a participant in those same virtues. But now, because those who are diligent in virtues only among themselves are, in such a life, venerated by all, they sustain in the future life to be embraced by the blessed and infinite light.

Neither, therefore, will He now make those few, who hang with total benevolence upon Him and are on this account reviled, injured, and driven away by the conspiracy of the many, as outcasts before God. For even if we are not like those few and blessed ones, we are nevertheless ordered to imitate them in every way. On whose behalf, just as in statues and images there are likenesses of bodies, so their virtues have been inscribed in the divine Letters, that we, by attending to their example, may confidently emulate their deeds. And let us not think that we are instituting anything new besides those things which were done among the ancients, even if it is decried by all. And lest you think that we are running through these things now in vain, and so that you may know that from necessity itself and a conscience bound to God we are compelled toward the imitation of the ancients, hear also the cause briefly, for which we not inconsequentially thought that we must be separated ^C from the communion of the Antiochene.

Cyril set forth dogmas filled with every impiety. Because of these, the Antiochene deposed him at Ephesus as impious, taking as partners in this many others from various provinces, and all the bishops of the Eastern region. He everywhere abjured his doctrine, as being in all things consonant with the error of Apollinaris. In the presence of the Emperor, he swore—as he himself wrote at Chalcedon, of those constituted at Ephesus, whose rescripts are safe with us—that not even if Cyril had repented and rejected his chapters would he be willing to receive into communion one who stood as the leader of the heresy. He deposed him again in Tarsus, and with him seven others, who for his sake ascended to Constantinople with synodical letters made, which we all subscribed. Upon this, Cyril remained, not only abjuring nothing of his own writings, but also ^D and indeed see that Abel does indeed possess greater confidence after death before God. And Noah was miraculously saved from the shipwreck of the whole world. Look at Abraham, who became the beginning and root of the correction of all, and because of his virtue deserved to be called the father of all the faithful. Look at Lot, who escaped the great fire. Look at Moses, to whom

^A handed down, which we received from the great Theodore, who was illustrious in handing down that which was handed down to him.

And forgive us, I beseech you, for we are unable to deceive our own conscience. But if, on account of these things, the most tranquil emperor commands that we be cast out of the churches, do what is just, and do not delay to bring to completion those things which have been commanded out of malevolence. For as soon as I have seen the authentic rescript (for I will not be content with a copy), and have learned what things have been reported to him, lest perhaps the adversaries of the truth have lied to those merciful ears against us, and I have found that it commands me to depart from the Church entirely, ^B glorifying God even now, as I have before, in whatever state I may be found, I will withdraw from the Church, yielding in all ways to the laws of the emperors. I am prepared through the grace of God not only to exit the Church, but even to die ten thousand times over, rather than be able to injure my conscience before Christ. For it is not allowed for me to be found inferior to that infant of seven years who was beheaded for Christ along with blessed Babyla, to whom the oversight of the whole Church—and of the Church of which Theodoret is the doctor—was entrusted.

But that I may also mention this on account of the aforementioned: know, my most admirable lord, that even if I did not stand by the merit of a good cause itself, the very terror of this city as well as this territory ^C would be sufficient to hold me in this discord against John; for if they knew that I had merely communicated with him before the sacred rites, they would have deprived me of my life. For you are not unaware whose disciples they are, nor how they are moved by zeal for divine dogmas, all of them being so unanimous, as if they were a single soul for all. For which reason it is safer in every way to be repelled by necessity, than even without necessity to harm one’s own conscience before God, and to lose my life like a dog at the hands of those who are now subject to me. But if anyone should wish to accuse us abruptly of anything at all, we consider it as nothing. For it is easy to slander and to heap insults, and it is a thing open to all; but it belongs not to all to speak the truth. ^D

CHAPTER CLXXV [263].

I was filled with the blessing of your holiness through your personal presence, when you alone returned well from Ephesus, just as the events themselves have shown to all; but I have not enjoyed the letters of your holiness. Whence I am now forced to take the initiative, that I may begin to direct letters to your holiness. And I ask that you give me pardon. For your much-loved constancy to God has compelled me to this.

^A For here no one persists on behalf of the pious faith, but all serve the times, and those who seemed to be steadfast have likewise become pretenders. Only my master, the most God-beloved bishop Meletius, persists to the end among the bishops of this Cilicia; he who was ejected by a military cohort brought in against him, according to the order of those who are at Antioch. Pray, therefore, master, that we may be deemed worthy to follow his footsteps as quickly as your holiness, so that we may be able to offer up yourselves as intercessors on the day of the Lord Christ for our insignificance.

CHAPTER CLXXVI [264].

CHAPTER CLXXVII [265].

we may finish the remainder of the present century. I greet greatly my lord and most holy bishop Acilinus. ^A

CHAPTER CLXXVIII [266]

If it were possible for me to fulfill my desire, there would be no need for letters, but for the presence of your arrival; or rather, according to the Psalmist, I would seek the wings of a dove, so that coming I might rest beside the dwelling of the crowned one, and see, according to the prophet, your holiness as a grape in the wilderness, or, as it is more properly said, as a cluster of the grape of all the priests of all Cilicia, which the foxes have exterminated, which have almost truly destroyed the vineyards. They have not exterminated it, however, because the blessing of the Lord is in it. For truly, in the present time, the sight of your holiness would suffice to make us stronger as we love you. For if only the thought of your holiness, according to the Lord’s battles, surrounds us with the armor of the Lord, so that in no way, when various and manifold arrows are shot, do we turn to flight, how would such a sight not have strengthened us in every way, which would arm us not by words but by the very deeds themselves, and would show in itself what it is, *Do not destroy in the end*. For you have aimed, O lord most God-beloved in all things, unswervingly at the author and finisher of faith, Jesus, and crowns are laid up for you. Not only of expulsion—for you have not prepared yourself for a definite torment, but it is clear that you are prepared to sustain all things. Thus you have prepared yourself against impiety. Whence also He who surpasses our labors with His gifts, will return to your holiness the crown of justice, shining with the divinity of spiritual gifts concerning the variety of your chosen sufferings. For you have truly fought the good fight, and have finished the course, and have kept the faith. Whence also that which follows these things, God, who is not a liar, will repay to your holiness. In which your good conscience now rejoicing as it aims at these things, and is filled with the joy of the holy Spirit.

But your holiness can console our absence with more attentive prayers, until the Lord through His clemency grants that we also follow in your footsteps. For I am truly certain that I have this intention, that I follow your holiness, and am together with those who have fought before us and have been crowned. Few indeed, but precious before God. For one man doing the Lord's will is better than ten thousand unjust men. And enjoying your holy prayers, I will not depart from your fellowship; nor will tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, 837 or famine, or nakedness separate me from your charity, ^B or peril, or the sword. Especially because your religiosity, which has obtained the harbor of God's will, has greater care for us, as those who still withstand the waves of the sea, and all manner of temptations of evil spirits, now indeed tempting us excessively, and now undermining us with the flatteries of adulation. Whence I have also set this law for myself, that I flee both the sight, and the words, and even the very memory of all those who wish to speak to me. Which I have undertaken not from my own judgment, but instructed by the divine Scriptures. For the Lord did not answer the perverse when He was judged; but *as a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer he was without voice*. For they do not seek to confer speech and conversation with us so that they may say something, but so that they may catch us. We are indeed taught also in the ancient scriptures, that pious Hezekiah, after the voices of Rabshakeh, the adversary of God, commanded the masters of the soldiers to be silent, and that nothing be answered to the adversaries of God [Isa. XXXVI, 17 seqq.]. Whence we too, repelling their conversations, who have returned in heart to Egypt, and who not only say, "Let us give the beginning, and return to Egypt"; let us be silent, and endure so great mercy from God, whatever cruel things the rivals may have been permitted to bring upon us. Let us receive all these things with joy, and let us think that, as blessed Paul says, *the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the future glory which shall be revealed in those* who carry the stigmata of Christ, of which you have been made worthy, in their own body [Rom. VIII, 18]. Whence I ask that you deign to help us through your venerable letters in the present battles. My lord, the most God-beloved and holy Acilinus, because he is crowned with you, greets and embraces your religiosity. ^C

CHAPTER CLXXIX [267]

Divine authority, through the terrible annotation, has ordered Meletius, formerly bishop of the city of Mopsuestia, to dwell in Melitina, a city of the province of Armenia. Having therefore received our precepts, and having read the divine responses which shine in the messages, you ought to observe what has been decreed by the immortal summit, using military consolation for the same journey, if you perchance see such consolation to be necessary, by warning our vicar in any case, so that a competent consolation may be deputed, to whom we have written regarding this part: although we judge that the civil orders suffice competently.

838

CHAPTER CLXXX [268]

Just as we have always loved your holiness with peculiar love, and greatly obeyed it

and we think that it clearly knows the situation from the facts themselves. Since, therefore, we are held by that same resolve now, and because we desire your excellent religiousness to exist according to Christ, deign, most holy lord, even now, upon receiving our letters, to communicate with the holy and catholic council, in accordance with the divine and adorable scriptures. For the most holy Theodoret, and the most holy Helladius, and others who for a short time wished to separate themselves from this holy council, recognizing that it is unexceptionable and that it is impossible, and that it is pleasing to God, and that it is necessary to obey the universal synod and the imperial mandates, have drawn back from discord and have communicated with the holy and catholic synod. ^B It was your holiness among all others that ought to have done this, as you know the matters clearly and are advanced in time. We entreat you, therefore, do not look down upon these our suppliant letters, nor give place to the devil, who wishes to cast discords against the holy and consubstantial Trinity; but rather trample upon his stings and accept the concord of the holy synod. For if, after these my letters, your holiness persists in delay and refuses to communicate with them, it is clear that henceforth it will not be necessary for the divine scriptures. Indeed, they openly command that those who refuse to communicate with the holy synod be driven into exile from the holy Churches.

CHAPTER CLXXXI [269]

^A Most holy father. Your religiousness must pardon me if I am compelled to do anything, following the divine formula, if you are unwilling to consent to this epistle.

CHAPTER CLXXXII [270]

840

CHAPTER CLXXXIII [271]

^A Our most divine princes, in order that those who do not agree with the God-beloved bishop John, and who disturb the holy Churches while refusing peace to the world, should be removed from their own places, have commanded by their own law, just as the veneration of the adorable and most glorious letters will more clearly instruct. Since, therefore, Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis, has made himself an alien from the lot 10 of the most reverend bishops (for he does not suffer himself to communicate in divine mysteries with the aforementioned archbishop), may your charity take care, having accepted this authority, to remove the same Alexander, if he persists in this purpose, from his own place, and to receive in his place the one whom the synod of holy bishops has approved to be ordained. If, however, this exceeds your virtue—which we do not suppose—since most devout soldiers are stationed in that city, you will use their support. For we have directed to them also what is fitting, so that with common deliberation you may hasten to fulfill our commands. If indeed there is need of an even greater force, or if this matter should demand our presence, you will be sufficient to inform us immediately. For while it is clearly established, we will come immediately, ministering to the divine commands with sufficient support. But that you may soon go to the aforementioned city and hasten to fulfill our commands, we have ordered Hypatius to be specifically deputed, to whom we have also given instructions, so that he may not only compel you to obey our commands, but also inform us of your presumption, if it should happen. For fitting retribution against your neglect will follow.

CHAPTER CLXXXIV [272]

The command of your magnificence was returned to our humility on the seventeenth of the Kalends of May 12 through Hypatius, who is from the order of the master of soldiers, to which the divine and adorable letters stood preeminent 13, commanding the most reverend and God-beloved Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis, either to become a communicator of the holy synod, or to rest from his bishopric. I intimate, therefore, that the aforementioned person has declared his will by the work that is in him, and has abandoned Hierapolis, not being pleased to hold the bishopric, most magnificent and in all things most holy 15 lords.

CHAPTER CLXXXV [275]

Hierapolis, both serving devotion and stimulated by pious desire, yielded indeed to the divine movement and the command ^B of the magnificent one, groaning. But now it seeks for mercy, by which its desire might be loved, poured out over the elder Alexander, and truly stirring up mourning through the streets; and flooding the ground with tears, and almost daring to presume something before the divinity itself. For it does not show the customary actions of thanksgiving. And it has withdrawn, closing the holy churches, and doing such a thing, to which it belongs to grant pardon. Since, however, they do not know what they are doing while conscience strikes them, panting from failure, lest they lose him whom they greatly embrace. This, indeed, has reached an end through my smallness. For the sacred places have been unlocked, and the customary rites are fulfilled. But as to what remained, I inspected the petitions deposited under oath of all who seem good, and who pray for the father and supplicate that they may be pastured by him who educated them as a most gentle teacher from childhood. For they do not think they can even live their lives, unless the God-beloved Alexander holds the bishopric over them, whose life they indeed admire, being struck with awe at the piety of the priesthood, and loving the weight of piety, and carrying the doctrines of justice on their own tongues, and gathering everything, which is much, for the strengthening of the ardor of their love, and adding to the aforementioned [petitions] that, if it is not brought to pass that they obtain what they insistently seek, they will before their time depart from this life, and will do some evil to themselves, children together with old men, women and virgins, and everyone of mature and old age, if there is still lacking for the presidency of the holy Church the one who has been allotted to have it, while he has not yet rested by the law of nature. Since it pertains to your magnitude, whose work it is to discuss whatever of that evil there is from the subjects, and to drive away those things which are full of sadness and difficulty, and to bring peace and joy to the cities, I have indicated the things which followed, so that whatever stands [firm], might be done. Furthermore, while they had formerly intended to do such things, the most reverend Alexander did not permit the report to be made, most admirable and most magnificent lord. I pray to God that you, my lord, may endure in safety and through all things happy for long times, 842 the common savior and provider of benefits.

CHAPTER CLXXXVI [274]

The report of that judge of the province does indeed manifest that great lamentation of the city, nay rather even the confusion, which the flock loving Christ sustained for the restoration of that God-beloved pastor 16. But much more do the things that were acclaimed by the whole multitude show with what affection they were bound to him, the fairness of their desire, and the bitterness of bereavement, and the reason for their distress. Although we considered it superfluous to transcribe the same voices, inasmuch as they are too many, and contain quite manifold blasphemies against some.

^A And so the good John, fearing altogether, and dreading those who used them, brought forth these voices, and offered them in this written allocution as a consolation, or rather as a deception.

CHAPTER CLXXXVII [276].

A memorial to the God-beloved clergy of Hierapolis, and to the Christ-loving laity, from John.

I have heard your supplication, which you made to us and to the most magnificent and glorious Count, the Lord Titus, through your acclamations in the church. And I myself pray that these same things may come to pass for you in deed. For you have known without doubt our intention, nevertheless to entreat that gentle man for whom you yourselves asked, that he might prefer ecclesiastical peace, which the whole world embraces with piety, to his own vain fantasy. But he suffers, because he is so averse to all remedy that he would not sustain a conversation with the priests of God, nor would he in any way come to the address of those men by whose prayers the world itself is saved. Choosing, therefore, the best of the God-beloved bishops, I sent them repeatedly, that they might be able to move him, not to infest the ecclesiastical peace which God has unexpectedly bestowed upon the world; but he, out of the arrogance and that obstinacy by which he is held, deafening his ears, remained inexorable. Nay, he persisted in heaping evils upon himself, while we are innocent of this man's malevolence; and now, for your satisfaction, and so that your Church, which loves Christ, might be able to see that I have not removed him from his Church by grasping at an occasion, as if he were someone grieving against us and inflicting such great contumelies upon us, how many it was fitting for him to inflict—while we, by the grace of God, harmed him not at all—but because he became disobedient to us, even while we wished that he might become our member, and that your Church might be shown to communicate with the whole Church. Hence we have maintained everything concerning him that pertained to a remedy. And even now, performing what is worthy to satisfy us, we promise that if it should be possible that, repenting through correction, he might lay aside his former pride, we are prepared to receive him, and to send him back to you with our celebration, and his own. But if he has once and for all settled on precipitating himself to the harm of communion, but to the perdition of his own soul: we have satisfied both God and men; but you, I beseech you, seek what is expedient for yourselves.

^B From the aforementioned letters under the name of Theodoret, they wish to incriminate him as a supporter of the Nestorian impiety, to whom John the archbishop—who is excessively inimical to all supporters of the Nestorian error—bears such testimony; as they themselves also clamor most openly, while he truly says against the obstinacy and pertinacity of Alexander: That he would not sustain a conversation with the priests of God, nor would he in any way come to the address of those men by whose prayers the world itself is saved. Choosing, therefore, the best of the God-beloved bishops, I sent them repeatedly to him, that they might be able to move him, not to infest or violate the ecclesiastical peace which God has unexpectedly bestowed upon the world. Which, through none of the bishops except Theodoret and Andrew, as is clear from what is superior, can it be found to have been done. From these things, however, that truth is also reinforced, that the intention of Theodoret has been most thoroughly understood by us.

CHAPTER CLXXXVIII [277].

THE EMPEROR'S SACRA.

The interpretation, he says, of the Sacra which was promulgated to the most magnificent and glorious prefects concerning the exile to Petra of the most magnificent Count Irenaeus.

Nestorius, the author of a monstrous cultivation, having been condemned, it is just that the participants in his impious cultivation should feel a most powerful punishment. For this reason we have decreed that Irenaeus, who not only followed the cursed cultivation of Nestorius, but also instituted it, and studied to overturn many provinces with him, for the reason that he himself presided over such a cultivation, having been stripped of all dignities, and moreover of his own property; and Photinus, indeed, involved in the same impieties, and equally stripped of his property, which also will proceed to the public account, be exiled to Petra, so that they may be tormented by perpetual poverty and the solitude of the places, most honorable Father Isidore. Therefore, your glorious and magnificent authority will competently obey this our pragmatic decree, having assigned sufficient maintenance, so that the aforementioned violators of our religion may be driven to the aforementioned path of exile.

CHAPTER CLXXXIX [278].

The interpretation, he says, of the aforementioned precept.

The shining tenor of the divine letters shows what things have been sanctioned by the divine and immortal heights concerning Irenaeus and Photinus. Your Magnificence, therefore, obeying without delay these things which have been decreed divinely, to the places to which they have been ordered to be led, with ^D competent maintenance, prepare two post-horses with two...

mules, and he did not acquiesce in condemning, along with the others, him who had not transgressed.

XII. Julianus, metropolitan of Sardica, who even himself, keeping his conscience free from brotherly punishment, preferred to reach many thousands of dangers.

XIII. Theosebius, bishop of Cius, who died in his own church because those who had the power were ashamed to cast him out. Yet he did not consent to the deposition of Nestorius. Nor did he endure in any way to communicate with those who were joined to Cyril.

XIV. Acilinus of Barbalissus, in Euphratensis. This man was indeed driven from the fortress, while he did not acquiesce in communicating with the Antiochene; but after these things he did communicate, though he did not assent to the homicide.

XV. Maximinus of Demetrias, in Thessaly, who soon after the iniquity committed against Nestorius separated himself from the Church.

CHAPTER CXCI [280]. The law which was proposed against Nestorius.

The Emperors Caesars Theodosius and Valentinianus, victors, triumphers, greatest, ever Augusti. Because of the worship due from us to the most holy religion, and other things which were set down before; by which it is commanded that those who are defenders of Nestorius be called Simonians, that his books be burned, that it be permitted nowhere for such to assemble; that anyone who shall provide them a place to assemble anywhere shall be proscribed; which is placed here by Irenaeus.

846 CHAPTER CXCII [281].

The Synodical letter, he says, of Helladius and the other bishops of Cilicia, who, writing afterwards, had directed it to the prince, when the most admirable tribune and notary, Aristolaus, arrived with this imperial decree.

To our most religious and most pious emperors, worthily honored by God, Theodosius and Valentinianus Augusti, Helladius, Cyrillus, Valentinus, Menodorus, Tatianus, bishops of your First Cilicia.

Knowing, O friends of God and friends of Christ, emperors, your zeal concerning piety, which from the beginning you have had towards the churches of the Lord Christ, and your study and providence, and the master Christ

^A glorifying, we persist, in that He made us worthy of such a pious empire, and we do not cease to pray for your longevity and victory. Possessing this willingness to give thanks, this very thanksgiving has received greater increase at the present time. For since the most illustrious Aristolaus, tribune and notary, has arrived at the province of your Cilicia, and as he himself also declares to us your ardent fervor toward the pious religion of the orthodox, and that you study nothing more than ecclesiastical union, we also show our ready will and the obedience which we have concerning the pious sanctions of your God-belovedness. For according to your divine precepts, we embrace communion with the holy synod which was held at Ephesus, and Nestorius, who was formerly the bishop of most happy Constantinople, we hold as deposed and have subjected to anathema for all things which he taught impiously before the Church, or set forth in writings, or spoke in private, following the holy bishops Sixtus of Rome, and Proclus ^A of great name of Constantinople, and Cyril of Alexandria, and John of Antioch, and all the rest of the most religious bishops, in all things which are piously defined by them, co-anathematizing Nestorius himself and those who impiously assert the same things as he, that is, the Nestorians, whom your empire has justly so named.

CHAPTER CXCIII [282]

Irenæus, impelling these letters with many words, added thus: The epistle, he says, of Helladius, which he had written before, when the Sacred [decree] was promulgated against them, by necessity they were joined in communion with the communicants of Egypt.

*To my lord, the most God-beloved and most holy bishop Nestorius, Helladius, greeting in the Lord.*

Even if from the beginning unto the end a multitude of sins has prevailed, so that all things have turned for us into the contrary of what we prayed for; nevertheless we persist in an equal willingness concerning your holiness, ^B most religious one, and we know your holiness struggles for piety. And on account of this, we believe those things which are sustained by your holiness with festive joy. Whence, beatifying your soul, which has shone forth proven by such and so many temptations, most God-beloved one, we pray to be found partakers of the divine love for you on the day of judgment. Concerning others, indeed, you have heard, most holy one. Those who are around the God-beloved Theodoret, count us also among them; therefore we choose the more what we prefer, lest it ^C turn out better: especially because these letters, which were directed, carry in themselves all the acrimony of apostolic tradition. But pray for us, lord.

They who accuse Theodoret as if of hypocrisy on account of those things which Irenæus placed in his name, ought to be terrified enough, lest they themselves rather, as true hypocrites, be condemned in their judgment on the last day. For while they have complained gravely concerning those prescribed things, they have remained silent until now concerning these things placed in the name of Helladius, nor do they claim them to be condemned. Whence God is to be blessed, who in this age also does not hide the truth, which is to be proclaimed more clearly on the day of judgment. For behold, they succumb to their own condemnation; behold, they are revealed to be enemies of God. Look more attentively, we beseech you. Did they not, through Emperor Justinian, with all the power of the whole age conspiring, for almost the whole thirty years, labor that the writings of Theodore and Ibas and Theodoret 848 be most bitterly condemned? Why, then, have they been altogether silent concerning this epistle of Helladius, unless it be because Helladius, being received by name in the Council of Chalcedon, is not read at all, nor was anything done there concerning him, through which, if it be condemned, the authority of the aforementioned synod—by which the accomplices of the Nestorian error are built up—might be subverted? For if Irenæus, who also placed those things in the name of Theodoret, is believed, behold the epistle of Helladius, containing those things which are accused with great clamor in others, and until now has been attacked by no one specially. But they alone merit this from rivals, through whom it is thought the authority of those can be destroyed, who taught in the synodical definitions that our Lord Jesus Christ is to be known in two perpetual substances, but in one person and the same subsistence. But will their frauds, which are manifest even to sinners and the simple and slow of heart, and indeed to the whole world, be occult to the same Lord Jesus Christ, who knows all things and is about to judge all? In what, I ask, can they now be pure, who are most fraudulent, in what do they think themselves to be helpers of God and avengers of truth? Truth and falsity are two opposites, just as deceit and purity. If deceit helps the truth, purity can help falsity, and through this, virtue and vice can harmonize, and virtue be ^D contrary to (virtue). Which, since they are impossible, I think it follows necessarily that there is no truth which is defended and spread by deceit.

CHAPTER CXCIV [283]

The epistle, he says, of Cyril to Aristolaus the tribune, which he wrote, at the request of Beronicianus the bishop of Tyre, giving the forms of the anathema which ought to have been made by them.

My lord, the most religious bishop Beronicianus, has written to me that the pious decree, God-ordained...

GARNERIUS, DISSERTATION V. ON THE CAUSE OF THEODORET AND THE ORIENTALS.

^A ...handed over to the admirable kindness of your princely friends, by which it is enjoined that all the most religious bishops of the Orient should anathematize the impious Nestorius, and call all his blasphemies against Christ a Simonian, or rather a Nestorian, heresy. This is, I suppose, and nothing else. But he indicated that they are fully prepared to free their own estimations or opinions from such a suspicion, because they are in all ways free from his blasphemies. Wishing the peace, which has been granted to the churches through Christ, to be confirmed, I pray indeed that all may have this intention, and be pure from the novelties of the words of Nestorius.

Since, however, they say that we ought to expect nothing further beyond those things which the imperial and pious letters contain, and they seek this from your virtue, deign, while helping the opinion of all, 849 to prepare them to anathematize Nestorius and his polluted dogmas, and to hold him deposed, believing one to be our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, his only-begotten Word, made human and incarnate, not to be fallen into two sons, but the same one ineffably begotten of God before all time, and in the last times of the age the same begotten according to the flesh of a woman, so that his person is one. For thus we understand the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, because it is the same one who is God and man at once; since the Only-Begotten is indeed ^B incarnate and made human inconvertibly and inconfusesly: but that he is indeed passible to the nature of his humanity; but that he is impassible to the nature of his divinity; that he suffers with his own flesh according to the Scriptures.

For with these joined to the anathema against Nestorius, all accusation, as I suppose, will cease henceforth, and the conscience of men will be pure, so that neither will the peoples who are throughout the cities fight further against one another, nor will anyone at all be scandalized by those who confess before their teachers that we all hold among us a right and inaccusable faith. For I have written these things to my lord, Bishop Beronicianus. But I believe that the force of the imperial decrees looks to the same end, and we have added nothing to those things which have been commanded.

CHAPTER CXCV [284].

Epistle of Cyril to John of Antioch, by which it is caused that even though the Orientals had indeed anathematized Nestorius, yet they preached the same things as he did. He formats, moreover, how the anathema from now on ought to be requested.

To desire peace is a supreme and primary good, and I say that those who wish to think the things pleasing to Christ ought to constrain their zeal concerning this, not remissly, but strongly. Nevertheless, one ought not for this reason to despise the virtue of piety in Christ. We can indeed love peace in another way, and be too dazed by the goods which come from it, but if we do not lead to the medium those things by which it is strengthened and becomes unshakable, ^C but rather [lead] those things which dissolve and overturn it, and which do not allow one to remain around that which is composite. I write these things being very sorrowful. For it is said that some of the most religious bishops there do indeed anathematize the impious Nestorius and his most demented dogmas; but that they attempt again, as if by permutation, to think and speak those things which are his, and to dissolve the conscience of the brothers for whom Christ has died.

850 But I wonder how, while they are wise, it escapes them that if they think the dogmas which they cast out, they anathematize themselves. For it is said, and this for the truth, even if it seems onerous, and [of] those who I know not how dare to speak the things of Nestorius, I say clearly: I have not presumed. For I wish, in such matters, to be slow to believe on account of the magnitude of the evil. But your holiness, if there are indeed any such persons at all, deign to warn and confound them, and may you stop the wise [from] the novelties of the words of Nestorius, and those who speak them. For how do they anathematize them, or how do they desire peace to remain, while they are repugnant to it and overturn it as unjust?

It sufficed indeed to anathematize only the impious Nestorius and his dogmas, or his blasphemies against Christ, to those not suspected. But since it is likely that some mock this matter, and say: "He was cast out only for this, because he did not clearly confess the Mother of God, and nothing else"; therefore...

[VARIOUS NOTES: index: entries preserved]

I judge it must be said that ^A this phrase was not the only cause of his deposition, but rather many others as well, which sharpened their sting against the dogmas of the truth. It is necessary, therefore, to profess that they anathematize Nestorius and his polluted and insane dogmas, and consider him deposed, believing that there is one Lord of ours, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, truly the only-begotten.

And the rest follows, attached to these words as in the epistle to Beronicianus, up to the place where it has: "And an irreproachable faith." Where it also ends.

And after these things, Irenæus says much against the bishops of the East; and, calling back the testimonies of the adversaries to his purpose, he finally adds:

It has indeed been clearly shown by the aforementioned letters that those who have renounced the Nestorian doctrine have declared themselves to be strangers to the ecclesiastical doctrines. For by the things which they appeared to decree against him, they openly abjured the truth itself. John, however—certainly knowing nothing of these things—having received the aforementioned letters of Cyril, went through every way and artifice until he impelled his own priests to that precipice of destruction. ^B But not even this could satisfy the Egyptian, or at least cause him to desist from barking against the truth. For he desired with his own homicide to cause everyone throughout the East to depart from the apostolic dogmas, and also from those things which he himself had written in the confession through Paul, but clearly to preach "one nature" and things of that sort, and to no longer resort to the madness of the chapters previously set forth by him. Not caring therefore at all about this, or about those things which were done by him shamelessly and impiously to acquire his favor, he sends to the royal city, and gathers those for his consolation whom he is accustomed to, by whose patronage, relying from the beginning, he had joined the war against Nestorius, and he takes even now those who are participants in his purpose. These, therefore, knowing what had been done a little before by the Orientals, and because they had disgracefully carried out everything previously proposed to them, he immediately built up another faction, by the counsel of Cyril, far worse than the previous one. For they send a certain Maximus, clad in a monk's habit and fervently languishing with the error of Apollinaris, with imperial letters and prefectural precepts, and with the greatest possible force, to the East, so that, as if showing his zeal already through the concord of John, they might disseminate the languor of the heresy through the Churches of the East; but might prepare for the excommunication of those who were the clearest luminaries of the orthodoxy of the excellent preachers, and who exposed the ravings of Apollinaris, and especially the poisons of this new heresy. ^C But these very ones, who were sent for these things, greatly disturbed the East; and if they were able to accomplish nothing more for the health of the peoples, they at least gained their own safety by flight. John, however, gathering the bishops of the East, made use of the synodical letters which follow.

CHAPTER CXCVI [285].

Having said these things, he places two epistles of John, the pontiff of Antioch, and of the whole Council of the East under him, on behalf of Diodorus and Theodore, the bishops of pious memory, and that of John alone in the middle, saying:

CHAPTER CXCVII [286].

Both before and now, we who are receiving the sanction of the most pious and Christ-loving prince concerning ecclesiastical peace through the conspicuous and most faithful tribune and notary Aristolaus, have acknowledged both now and before what the sect of Nestorius is, which he newly devised against the straight faith of the Fathers; and that he himself was cast out by them. But those things which he poorly thought or said, whether in writings or in expositions, all these we have rejected and anathematized, and those who receive him, and those who think the same things as he does, alien to the pious confession. Which all the most religious bishops of the East did, as also those who are everywhere, that is, both us and all the God-beloved bishops who from every side have gathered in Ephesus, to whom we have assented, deposing and casting out Nestorius.

And we are pleased and we feel that nothing should be added to nor taken away from the exposition made in Nicæa by the holy Fathers; but that it should be remained in. And that this very venerable confession of the faith of the holy Fathers, who were gathered in Nicæa, which we also have strengthened, and confirming it by the grace of God we will remain, may shine forth to all, in which we were also born, and nourished, and baptized, for the reason that it draws its strength and credibility from within itself, existing in the divinely inspired Scriptures, and those things which the prophets, and evangelists, and apostles have preached, as also all the glorious Fathers, who after them shone with every spiritual charisma up to the Nicene Council, and who were also after them even up to our own selves.

But we judge it impious and dangerous to add anything to it, or to take away from it, or to divert from it. For it is not safe to remove the boundaries which our Fathers have set. We therefore anathematize those who interpret anything alien to it before the Church, or who poorly interpret this very thing, or who studiously corrupt it. And those who are not by chance suffering such a thing out of ignorance concerning it, as the heretics have suffered. That is, Arius, and Sabellius, and Photinus; and before them Valentinus, and Marcion, and Manichæus, and Paul of Samosata, or Simon, and whoever are of a sect similar to these. Truly, as we wish and commend to everyone, we do so with those words and with that sense which is contained in the aforementioned symbol; and not— ^D If they wish to act soberly, those who now—I know not from what power they have taken it—use [it] against the common body of the Church with tumors and youthful levities, and indeed leaving their own homelands; but coming to the city of the empire, and with slander [acting] against their own bishops, of those who are there, defiling [themselves]... it would not have been necessary now.

^A withdraws secretly behind him. But he who corrupts this, we hold to be alien from all Christian confession and communion. We hold, however, that which has been handed down regarding the understanding, and the Word, and the discourse, even as those who were before us, the God-beloved bishops: in the West indeed Damasus, Innocent, Ambrose, and other Fathers; in Hellas and Illyricum, Methodius and other Fathers who shone with piety; and in Africa, Cyprian; in Alexandria, Alexander, Athanasius, Theophilus; in Constantinople, Nectarius, John, Atticus; in Pontus, those around Basil and Gregory; in Asia, Amphilochius, Optimus; in the East, Eustathius, Meletius, Flavian. And all, whosoever likewise shone with such piety.

853 The exposition of the faith is as follows: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, ^B both those in heaven and those in earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down, was incarnate and made man. He suffered, and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.

Those, however, who say: "There was when He was not," and that He was made out of things that were not, or from another substance, saying that the Son of God is changeable or mutable, these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

These things, for the satisfaction of those who require satisfaction, we have directed to your holiness. For we have performed and done and said everything that was necessary to be done four years ago, as soon as the thrice-blessed Paul 51 came from Egypt. But I do not know whence this evil circuit has been instigated against us and the Churches of old, which revolves around biting not only us, as it seems, but also those who are everywhere, unless now God, through your God-loving [self], extinguishes the conflagration.

The bishops who are from Paralia 52, being most beloved of God, have directed [their letter] components and subscribing to these things. Those who come from the Second Phoenicia on account of the ordination of the most religious bishop Theodore 53, who is worthy of your holiness, and whom I believe you know—I mean him who is of the second chair 54, that is, the assembly—these also have subscribed. Both Cilicians have completed the things consistent and consonant with these through the distinguished tribune Aristolaus since the previous year. The Arabs, through their metropolitan who was present here, the most religious bishop of Antioch, have acceded to these. Mesopotamia and Osrhoene, and Euphratesia, and Second Syria, have all unanimously defended the things ^C which we have done. What was done of old by the Isaurians, your God-loving [self] long ago received. All of First Syria likewise both think and have subscribed to these things with us. How, moreover, the God-beloved clergy who are with us both have heard these things and have praised your religiosity on account of these your blessed cares, it remains for your holiness to learn from the most renowned and most faithful tribune and notary Aristolaus, whom 854 we have regarded as a son of our own, and through him have made all things known.

May these things cease, therefore, I pray, henceforth until the end, through you, and your wisdom, and the toils, and the daily labors which are ever profitable to the Churches, for which may God appoint you for us as a defender of the Church in long and peaceful times, so that, breathing a little from these unexpected evils which the world endured on account of the cursed Nestorius, we may be able to withstand the pagans of Phoenicia, and Palestine, and Arabia, and against all Judaic [matters], and especially those which are in Laodicea. For suddenly the impious Jews, bringing the archdeacon—a wonderful man—into the theater, punished him. Moreover, [we must also act] against those who in Cilicia resist brazenly. For there are still some of those rebelling out of the conspiracy of Nestorius against your venerator, Lord Chonius, whom deign to assist. May God grant His mercy and aid to the most magnificent and most glorious prefect, Lord Felix, who is clothed in a bright crown, for the reason that with such an operation he had calmed a great winter and tempest.

CHAPTER CXCVIII [287]

After much long-windedness, having particularly cursed John of holy memory and his co-bishops, this very Irenæus [says]:

The epistle, he says, of Cyril to the emperor, accusing those around John of Antioch, on the ground that, as he says, they seem to anathematize Nestorius, but realize the same things that he does, in that they admire the writings of Theodore and Diodorus.

To provide eternal life from the earth is an unfailing path to God, and the Father, who is in heaven, saying: *This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.* ^D But I do not know how some indeed pretend to walk with straight feet concerning this, while they limp, and abandoning the way of truth, they turn to the other, which leads to extermination and perdition. For they adhere to the forbidden writings of certain men. And that I may speak the nature of the matter clearly, since it is written: *I spoke of thy testimonies also before kings, and was not ashamed;* Theodorus was one, and before him Diodorus.

^A These fathers were the originators of the Nestorian blasphemy. For in the books which they composed, they used a rustic madness against our Savior Christ, being ignorant of His mystery. Therefore, the impious Nestorius wished to bring those things which are theirs into the open, and he was deprived of the divine sacred hall. But when some bishops of the East had anathematized those things which are his, they again introduce these same things in another way, while marveling at the things which are Theodore’s, and saying that he thought rightly, 855 and in consonance with our Fathers—I mean Athanasius and Gregory, and Basil. But they lie against these holy men. For they wrote things which were contrary to the evils of Theodore and Nestorius. Since, therefore, I have learned that they bring certain things of this kind to your pious ears, I ask that you keep your souls entirely intact and undefiled by the impieties of Theodore and Diodorus.

For just as I have already said above, Nestorius spoke the things that are theirs, and for this reason he was condemned as an impious man by the universal synod gathered at Ephesus according to the will of God. Because they indeed pretend to confess the symbol which was set forth in the great and ancient Nicene synod, but decline its power through false interpretation, the orthodox archimandrites of the East asked me to interpret this same symbol, which has also been interpreted. And it was necessary that this work should reach your pious and Christ-loving ears. For it is among other goods in your tranquility that you wish to be delighted without ceasing in discourses about the right faith.

^B Furthermore, they claim that none of the aforementioned was an inventor of novelty. Or do they perhaps assert that others are named as discoverers of novelty because they lie about the names and writings of preceding Fathers? But against this, that antiquity and the consonance of the codices is a witness to us, 856 and he who does not believe this, will not find any truth against the Manichaeans concerning the books of the New Testament to maintain. If, therefore, they truly execrate the blasphemies of Manes, how will they be able to harmonize with him in the greatest and highest confirmation of a new heresy? Why, therefore, do they themselves accuse our Fathers as inventors of novelty, when there are teachers much older than the Ephesian, and others from the Nicene council itself, [who are] truly and properly illustrious, that is, [who are] calling the blessed Virgin the Mother of the highest and eternal God, who bore the Son substantial to the Father; and [who] define what He Himself assumed into our nature as being said through union into one person and subsistence, which Nestorius was the first to entirely abjure and was condemned? And not even now has he been corrected, as his own words, as we have placed them above, and as Irenaeus himself says, bear witness to the letters written to Theodoret, which he wrote against the peaceful epistle of the Alexandrian pontiff. We have said these things briefly for this reason alone, that Nestorius should not be denied as the inventor of novelty because Theodore and Diodorus are read to have thought the same things by Cyril.

^C Irenaeus brought forward the holy epistle on behalf of his Fathers principally for this reason, that he might prove that Nestorius was not the author of a novelty, while it is established that many heresies bring forward the readings of the Fathers for themselves, and yet for this reason their leaders are not rendered not to be authors of novelty. For to be silent about others for the time being, Eusebius, in his apologetic work for Origen and his dogmas—that is, composed for pre-existence and restitution—which is prefixed with the names of the martyr and of Eusebius of Caesarea himself, used many testimonies of preceding Fathers for the aforementioned errors. Yet, not for this reason is Origen absolved by the Church of God, as if he were not an inventor of novelty, but rather they are equally condemned with him. Similarly, the Arians and Macedonians abuse the testimonies of Dionysius, the pontiff of Alexandria, and with them also the Donatists [abuse the testimonies] of the holy martyr Cyprian and of the council held by his eighty-six co-bishops. ^D And the Church observes the same thing in regard to all of these that I have said. And Pelagius, the author of a diabolical error, even [abused the authority] of the blessed John, prelate of Constantinople, and of Ambrose of Milan and others, and of Augustine himself, whose praiseworthy, such great expurgation...

CHAPTER CXCIX [288].

CHAPTER CC [289].

books at the beginning was composing an anathema while reading ^A it, so that he might not hand the writings over to others. He was the first to explain that the holy Mary is not in truth the Mother of God, as though he did not receive the birth that took place according to us from God the Word. This, having been hidden until now, so that it might not be thought more firmly strengthened by the passage of time, Nestorius, having forgotten the dispensation of God and being the author of a new schism, brought forth into the open.

The same Irenaeus also makes use of these witnesses for this purpose, so as to formulate a syllogism such as this. Behold, these three witnesses are to be believed, that Nestorius followed Theodore in his preaching. Again, that Theodore taught those very things which all the most illustrious Fathers taught, the Synod of the East is the witness. Therefore, he says, Nestorius preached the same things that all the most illustrious Fathers did. ^B In these things he erred for this reason, because he did not attend to the temperance of the Church of God, which the Synod of the East used in its letter to the Emperor Theodosius on behalf of the bishops Theodore and Diodore, which Irenaeus himself also cited, and among other things says: "If anyone, however, holy Emperor, says that something manifest is found in his or other people's writings of such a kind, nor is it now necessary to retract this anymore. For those whose life reached a best end in the priesthood and sacred works, to them we dedicate our pristine glory, and we do not judge them to be [condemned] by those by whom certain people boldly wish to reproach them." Openly the Synod of the East, having praised the aforementioned Theodore under a sound exception, so also showed him to harmonize with the most illustrious doctors, saying: "From those things indeed may the Church’s temperance praise the deceased masters, and from those things it ought not to judge—that is, from those things which are common to all, not from those things, if any, that are not found to be common." But since the aforementioned Irenaeus says that John and his fellow bishops, while feeling the same things as Nestorius, consented under hypocrisy to his deposition, I have foreseen that it is necessary to transcribe here ^C certain testimonies from the book of Eutherius, his co-heretic, against the union-letter of blessed Cyril, where he also makes use of the testimonies of Nestorius himself, by which even now the difference between catholics and heretics may be discerned, and especially concerning the faith, about which the discourse is now specifically.

Chapter CCI [290]. Epistolary work of Eutherius, formerly bishop of Tyana, to Alexander of Hierapolis, written against the peace of the Church of God which was established between Cyril and Bishop John.

It prompts me to write, as usual, the struggle against piety arising from the God-Passionists, 858 while 859 now two things compel me to move my silent discourse against those who have assented to the impious. One, because the East, living well in peace before, is now being disturbed just like the other provinces. And because he, ^D who is the cause of this disturbance, praises his own crime through a letter, as if it were some admirable thing. For thus he writes to the Cilician Fathers: "If anyone indeed, which God forbid, is turned away from this good, he is manifest, that he has sought not those things which are the Lord's, but those things which are his own, from long ago and from the beginning. From whom it is good to seek. But in the meantime, we will seek the things which are from the Lord, which you lost at Ephesus, not coming at the defined time, and now directing your path into Egypt, you have acted perversely against the faith." I pass over in the meantime those things which you have plotted against the person who is held in envy, knowing that the jurisdiction which was moved for the sake of piety would profit his own defense. For often piety uses a powerful person for its own sake against impiety, whenever it sees itself being attacked. As once the bishop of Antioch, Meletius of holy memory, and before him Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, of immortal memory. Tell us therefore, when did you seek those things which are the Lord's—in past times, or in the present? But lest you think that we are examiners of your life, you have been defeated without shame against the impieties of the Egyptian. From your own and his recent business, show us how no judgment is made concerning past things. And whether the correction of anyone is to be considered, let us judge. His, who sinned and was corrected, or yours, who judged and corrected? Tell me, which of you has gained the other? Who is a corrector of sin without his own confusion? Who has imitated Peter, and has been received readily for repentance? Let us examine, if you please, even the virtue of those things which were written to you from Egypt.

^A to receive his impiety, which is contrary to those blessed ones. Hence he weaves crowns again for him who runs to him, and increases his pride against the faith. For he himself interprets the rattling of the words of the letter as the raw tumor of his soul. It is good to recount this. For in what way the Churches are divided, it is superfluous to say. O audacity! He considers himself blameless, and contented with the threat or menace alone, by which he speaks against others, he wishes the proof of the other’s fault to be thought of, because he is prone to accusing. Where are they now, who sound on the trumpet this man’s repentance? Where are the shameless heralds of this illusion? Why are you speaking against one who is openly ^B made a spectacle by him? See what pageantry he exhibits regarding you, and with the most joyful laughter, he mocks those who formerly fought against him, but now have become his confederates. For what did he say? "Since, however, the discord of the Churches has become altogether superfluous and inopportune. Now we have been especially satisfied." O inconsistency! He calls the reproof of his own discord the uncovering of his own impious way of life. But he also announces the satisfaction of this superfluity. Tell me, O best friend, the nature of this satisfaction, the sort of mockery of hypocrites, the triumph over those who handed the truth down to you. Write the confession of your suppliants. Write the now secret bargainings of Judas against the Divinity. Tell also the manner of the betrayal.

"To my lord," he says, "the most religious bishop Paul, who offers us a chart containing an irreprehensible confession of faith, and confirming that this was composed by your holiness and by those most religious bishops who are there. Attend, I pray, to the conjunction of the confession. For he says: 'Containing an irreprehensible confession of ^C faith.' A judge of faith becomes one who was condemned. He judges judges, he who was added. And he demands testimony as if more truthful. For he says: 'And confirming that this was composed by your holiness and by those most religious bishops who are there.' How much deception did he demonstrate as hidden! 'Confirming,' he says, the correction of their error, the repentance for the acts 860 against me by them, the incongruity of the preceding confession of error, the utility of my teaching, the preservation of my chapters. For I seek," he says, "their testimony of this faith, so that their calumny against my exposition may be made public. I also speak of their irreprehensible confession, so that I may convince those who oppose me that those recently accused have believed." But what holds me back? The impenitent elation of the Egyptian, while the perpetration of fratricide already drags me away. For I see them ^D of his inheritance, who has suffered the iniquity itself, to adore him, and to flourish with his flowers. Tell me, whose doctrines are you setting forth, which you have confessed before while he was preaching? And if indeed such things escape many, pretend that you alone are learning your own things; but if they are clear to all, why do you kill the inheritance which you are plundering? Nevertheless, let us read, and let us see the demonstration of these things.

"We confess," he says, "our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, from a rational soul and body, begotten of the Father before the ages according to his divinity, but in these last days, this same one for us, and for our salvation, from Mary the holy Virgin according to his humanity: consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity, and consubstantial with us according to his humanity." You have now written these things. Listen also to the words of him who is assaulted by you, how clearly he said the same things. For following the holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea, and speaking before the Church concerning their exposition, he says thus: "A word signifying both divinity and humanity, that is, that name which is Christ, makes the Fathers truly speak both things. Christ is consubstantial with the Father; it is true. For according to his divinity he subsists. He is consubstantial with us according to human nature; it is true. For he is also man." You see how the preachings are of one tongue. Why, therefore, do you deny the preacher of truth? Why do you, who assented to him, fight furiously against him with whom you agree? Why do you reject him with whom you yourself have the same sentiment, and join yourselves in communion with others who blaspheme? Do not be orthodox to me in words, and blasphemers in deeds. Show works of piety, and you will be truly writing about piety.

But tell me, they say, about the identity of the remaining confession, and especially concerning the holy Virgin. "We confess," they say, "the holy Virgin as Theotokos, for the reason that the Word of God was incarnate and made man, and by the conception from her united to himself the temple taken from her." I will show you the similarity of this confession: even if you have retreated from accuracy. For you have shared with heretics, 861 and with the orthodox, what you hold concerning the Virgin. And hear how even this the preacher of truth did not omit. For making a discourse concerning the incarnation before the Church, and condescending to weaker ears, he says thus: "It is necessary to say this even more clearly, so that the understanding of what is said may be plain to everyone: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ. He does not say: The book of the generation of the Word of God. Nor, The book of the generation of a man. For if he said: The book of the generation of a man, Christ would be a mere... [original-script column: see facsimile]

divinity. He comprehends, therefore, both natures in the appellation of ^A Christ, so that one is not understood without the other. Hence it is fitting for the holy Virgin, both from the fact that she became the mother of Christ, that she be called by a double name. Since, however, it is necessary both for the sake of those who demand a clearer understanding of this appellation, and especially for those who are sons of the Church, and to use a more manifest statement to them, therefore we now also confess what was previously preached by the shorter appellation concerning that blessed and holy Virgin, with more manifest appellations: since the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, and the mother of man. The Mother of God, indeed, because that temple which was created in her by the Holy Spirit is united to the Godhead; the mother of man, however, because the divine nature assumed the first fruits of our nature. Who, therefore, has followed the exposition of the aforementioned confession? Was it you, who only said Mother of God; or was it he, who joined to the Mother of God the mother of man? You destroy the confession of faith which you had previously set forth. For you said that Christ was born of her according to the humanity. Do not, therefore, destroy the former things by fleeing from what follows. ^B But that you have not followed the orthodox Fathers, and especially the bishop of Tarsus, Diodore, of blessed and holy memory, you shall hear from the blessed one, who condescendingly says that he grants the term Mother of God, but does not dogmatize that the mother of man is to be cut off from it. For he says: "Nevertheless, let Mary be called the Mother of God because of the union. For the strong God is the seed of Abraham through the union with God the Word. But Maria must also be confessed as the mother of man. But the Mother of God, not as if it is a birth of nature, but because He who is from God, man by nature, is united to God the Word." You have seen the exposition of the subtlety. Why, therefore, have you not followed the holy Fathers? For that accusation is greater. Because even when you had promised all alike to add nothing to the faith of the holy Fathers who were gathered at Nicaea, you added a word which was not said by them, following the many who are in agreement with them; but now you have also mocked the Fathers, and you have not followed the footsteps of the disciples. You have done all things, hastening only to please the Egyptian. Whence also you alone received his feigned flatteries, while he called the holy words to deceive you. ^C He says, coming to these holy words. O multiform error, most impious and enemy of the truth! Now the words of piety are holy, now you have spoken the words of faith, now the confession of right glorification is preached to you. At last, cover the face of your impudence. Was not the teacher who was attacked by you the one who instructed you in these things before? Read, unhappy man, the missives inscribed to you. See, full of impudence, these holy words explained more clearly to you, and either rebuke yourself as an adversary of the faith, or—

Were not these things written to you before? But compare these with those which were recently praised above. We confess, he says, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, perfect God and perfect man. Understand here, that you were taught long ago, that the names of divinity and humanity are like foundations. But say also the rest: The one begotten of the Father before the ages according to the divinity; but in the last of the days for us, and for our salvation, from Mary the virgin according to the humanity: the same consubstantial with the Father according to the divinity, and consubstantial with us according to the humanity. For the union of the two natures has taken place, by reason of which we confess one Christ, one Lord, one Son. According to this understanding of the inconfused union, discuss here again the power of the consonance. So that, he says, when certain common names significant of both natures are placed first, neither should those things which belong to the sonship and lordship be cut off; nor should those things which belong to the natures be endangered in the singularity of the sonship by the annihilation of confusion. You see how he wrote more clearly to you concerning the one and undivided and singular ^D 863 sonship. Where shall we receive your praise made to these things? For you both hate these very things, and you admire them; and you anathematize them, and you say they are sacred. But, he says: Now I admire, since I received the term Mother of God. For at that time it was not only passed over in silence, but on the contrary it was also cast out. For it was said, Mother of Christ, and not Mother of God. These same things, it has indeed been shown to you also from the force of the aforementioned word. Or rather, the refutable reason of the words. But because, intending these letters, you cut off the reasons of the consequence, I will set forth the words of the epistle to you, and I will show that that man by no means rejected this word. For he says these very things. Everywhere, he says, Divine Scripture, as often as it makes mention of the Lord’s dispensation, delivers the generation and passion not of the divinity of Christ, but of the humanity: so that it is called—

[VARIORUM NOTÆ.] si. Additum a Baluzio, qui observat, hoc esse fragmentum ex epistola Nestorii ad Cyrillum.

according to the more scrupulous appellation, the holy Virgin is the Mother of Christ, and not the Mother of God. ^A According to the more scrupulous appellation, he says. But where that which is more scrupulous is sought, that which is simpler is not entirely destroyed. For the hearing of the recipients is commensurate with both. For so it was said to them afterwards: Because it is on account of those who seek a clearer appellation of this intellect. And that which is: Nevertheless, let it be said on account of the union also as Mother of God, if not according to a heretical sense. Let this conviction of fraud, therefore, which has been made against those letters, be sufficient. For it is incongruous that we, leaving aside your unbearable blasphemy against the Savior, should contend over the simpler appellation of the Virgin. For that which you seemed to praise by admiring, you have soon overturned by an effort of peace. For if you had only called upon those sacred voices, and had immediately kept silent, you would have crept into the hearing of many. But whither does the vengeance of truth drive you? You have cast off the darkness of simulation.

Come, therefore, and let us again use swords against you. And first, let us show the insanity of your rashness to be self-contradictory. For you who, in the earlier parts of the letter, promised to be both wise and to speak in a manner becoming to a time of peace, soon from ambush stir up battle, and call those who have written for the conviction of your blasphemies, wild wasps. But where are they even now, those who trumpet this peace; who proclaim him to be a penitent who heaps up insults? Why do you err, or rather why do you attempt to deceive? These are not the words of a penitent. Nor is it, again, to say: "So we too, finding [the truth], think thus." Instead of saying: "Not now do we think these things out of repentance, but we have always thought so, and have been vainly deposed." Say also something else suitable for this demonstration. For it was necessary to understand clearly that almost the entire struggle for us has been concerning the faith. You put forward contests, O man, and you speak of peace ^B while naming battle. One is stripped for the struggle, and you bring forth laws of peace. But if you do not believe me saying these things, see even the sweats of his struggle. See the fomentations of impiety. Fix your mind upon his blasphemous fallacies.

For behold, following his impious chapters, he again defends and confirms them among us. For in the interim, again using the appellation of Emmanuel in the generation according to the flesh, he commemorates the carnal and not God-speakable generation of the Virgin. Then, proceeding to the rest, as if by a certain consequence to the publication of the chapters, he introduces, writing, a union of commixture and confusion. For hear what he has placed after these words: "He who," he says, "descending from above and from heaven, God the Word, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and was called the Son of man, remaining what he was ^C, that is, God: for he is inconvertible and immutable by nature, so that he is now to be understood as one with his own flesh, and is said to have descended from heaven. But he is also named man from heaven, existing as perfect in his divinity, and the same one perfect in his humanity." Attend to the subtlety of the words: see the intellect of the length of the discourses. For he says: "The God Word descending from above and from heaven." And what after a few words? "So that," he says, "he is now to be understood as one." O excellent man, and how is he now with flesh? Now not only the Word is understood, but flesh and Word. To be contemplated indeed inseparably as one person, but not to be understood as one Word, or one Discourse. Why do you work at the credibility of a conversion? Why do you corrupt the Scripture, which is not subject to theft? Why, fleeing the name of Christ, do you revolve about this in order that you may subject the divine nature to the passions of the dispensation? Follow the apostle Paul, and do not mock Christ, who spoke in him. He does not say: "He himself, the God Word descending from heaven, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." But what does he say? "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, thought it not a robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant ^D." Which words the faith of the holy Fathers, who gathered at Nicaea, has followed.

But your instructor, Apollinarius, alone, has fraudulently introduced a change of names against the confession of those same holy Fathers of Nicaea, and against the divine Scripture itself, expounding only the God Word for Lord, and Jesus Christ, and Son, which are names signifying the two natures. So that, while he signifies only the divine nature of the person, as if it surpassed the other, he proclaims it for the person, and blends both into one well-sounding nature. For your multiloquous words follow this intention. God, you say, the Word is now to be understood as one with his own flesh. 865 Say also the rest. "He is said," he says, "to have descended from heaven. But he is named man from* heaven, existing as perfect in his divinity, and the same one perfect in his humanity." And what is that which is known to be perfect in divinity and in humanity? What is the other that is introduced besides the natures that are united? What is it, besides them, that is to be looked at in them? For that which is perfect in something, is another besides that same thing in which it is shown to be perfect. How have you divided into three the two natures for us? Say what is the other thing, besides divinity and humanity, that ought to be looked at as perfect in them? Do not pass over what is yours. Do not flee from conviction. You have the demonstration at hand. Bring forth the exposition of the chapters. Show

^A what that means which you say: "From which we say an ineffable union was made." Or is it perhaps that point again, that filiation is full from the natures? For even though you may pretend not to be calling it a natural union now, wishing to use the word ineffable, yet you have composed the same thing with another word. For by this very thing you have said, "From which," you signify again something else besides the natures, which is from them. Do you see how you wish to be in the same state? And you do not escape mocking us. For we, O marvelous one, do not say that the union was made from themselves, but we confess the union of the natures themselves. For thus do we proclaim without contradiction the perfection of the filiation which is before the ages: and we preserve the grace which was given to us from the inhumanation in the glorification. For the Lord himself did not require our first-fruits for the fullness of filiation; but we, being in need, were deemed worthy to receive adoption from his flesh.

^C Let us see also that point just as well, that this epistle not only agrees with the impiety of the chapters, but also, as we said before, overturns those voices which it called sacred. For hear "perfect God and perfect man." On the contrary, he preached "perfect," changing it in a specious seduction, and saying: "perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity." And again, saying these things, he taught the opposite of the natures while hiding the confusion, and calls the union ineffable. "From which," he says, "we say an ineffable union was made"—tempering his blasphemy by the addition of syllables up and down. For this contentious demon, this most shameless beast, this impudent dragon, was brought here from the teaching of Arius and Eunomius. And as if the preceding impiety were not enough, he further nourishes with other additions what is terrible.

And again, by transforming his words and coloring his impiety, the divinity 867 that is passible according to him recurs to his intention. For what did he say to these things: "We all confess that the impassible Word of God subsists"? Even if he himself seems, while dispensing the mystery with all wisdom, to impart to himself the passions that happened to his own flesh, you confess that the Word of God subsists impassible. And why do you dogmatize him to be passible just before? Tell us what you mean by saying, "to impart to himself the passions," unless it is that he suffered voluntarily? For we know the custom of your words. But it is possible that someone, together with the blasphemer, might contend against us, mocking that this impious man said "to impart" as if it meant "to make one's own." To whom we say that you should not think that the word by which it is said "to impart" signifies only that which pertains to making things one's own, but it is also a matter of sharing. For "to impart," as if one were to share some things between oneself and another, is named by a word corrupted by the composition of speech. If, therefore, he imparts to himself, it is evident that it is said in such a way, just as he voluntarily or spontaneously participates in the passion. He confirms, indeed, that God the Word even now has suffered.

^A For if this adversary of the laws dogmatizes, let those positions established by him concerning this be read as Scripture testimony. What is it, he says, that is proclaimed by the voice of the prophet, as if from him? "I gave my back to the scourging, and my cheeks to buffets; and I did not turn away my face from the shame of spitting." The incongruity of his meaning stuns me. For if the Word makes the passions of the flesh his own (for let it be granted that since he imparts that which he is, he so posits it as if to say he makes the passions his own), how does he use this testimony for that purpose, as if it were said that he sustains these carnal passions? It is indeed one thing to make the scourgings of the flesh one's own, and another thing for him to have borne the scourgings, and for him to have been buffeted, and for him to have been spat upon. For by the testimony of Scripture he proclaims that God the Word has borne these things by himself. For how could anyone of those who are wise suspect that he who exists as impassible, and simple, and free from forms, and the creator of forms, is composed as if from parts and consists of members—unless it is his inseparable temple, which consists of back, and cheeks, and face, which was spat upon, as you have predicted? But this man, figuring the unfigurable, imparts all passions to him. For if, as I have said, from the fact that he imparts the passion of the flesh to himself, it was proclaimed beforehand, "I gave my back to the scourging," etc., he will be convicted of having other figurative shapes besides the flesh, which receive the passions of the flesh in participation.

O insuperable insanity! O innumerable contamination! O ineffable temerity! The impious one figures the Divinity, and scourges it. I am stunned by his contaminated temerity, fearing and trembling while I speak. But I spare myself now, casting aside the alienation of the rest, and the abomination of desolation, which again ^B regarding the madness of Apollinaris mockingly boasts that it has in no way corrupted the faith of the holy Fathers, and similarly follows the blasphemies of that man against the Holy Spirit. But I mourn for those alone who have stretched out their hands against the divinity with him. Who calls upon Christ, and bears his enemy? What jurisdiction does he have among you? What excuse is there for you who have become refugees from this impiety, having surrendered to the impious for peace? Casting away the fruits, you have fostered the root. Nay rather, you have both received the fruits and embrace the root. Which of your frauds should we bring to memory? Those by which you arrived late at Ephesus? The deceits which you perpetrated in Ephesus itself? Or the betrayal that took place at Constantinople? Or concerning the mocking of Tarsus, composed? Or concerning the insidious representation of Antioch that took place? Will you not punish him whom you were enticing with festive gifts? Have you not subjected the orthodox Fathers by writings, introducing swearing by your own lead? Have you not been fostering the Constantinopolitan and Antiochene peoples? The things which have been perpetrated by you are worthy of Egyptian impiety. Your bargainings harmonize with each other. For whatever you have ceased to blaspheme by your tongue, these you strive to confirm by simulation. But you who have not participated in the pestilence of these men, preserve inviolate the good deposit, which you also received, in which you were also baptized, through which you are also saved, declining every college of impiety: and especially do not communicate harmfully with those who are already polluted. For when these men pretend to be defenders of the right faith, they minister to impiety. Against them the divine Scripture rightly testifies, crying out: "You cannot serve two masters." For there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. For there is one God over all, and through all, and in all, who will render to each according to his works. To him be glory forever. Amen.

CHAPTER CCII [291].

Chapter CCIII [292].

To my most holy lord, and most God-beloved bishop, father of fathers, and archbishop Maximianus, your Epiphanius.

The things which have been written to me by your holiness were not so full of perturbation, as those which have now been transmitted to my most holy lord and brother in all things, your ^D holiness’s Cyril, which have caused him to fall into a recurring sickness; and the most admirable tribune Aristolaus, and those things which were directed to my humility. And I reply to both, having asked for pardon, both as to the things which were done of old, and those which were newly defined, and in which your most holy and God-beloved brother Cyril has been grieved: the insinuation...

^A of that most illustrious tribune Aristolaus. For while at first the Orientals were demanding that the chapters which my most holy brother Cyril set forth—the same ones which he anathematized—be declared outside the Catholic Church, my most holy master Father Cyril resisted this, and kept saying that the holy and great synod, recognizing the truth of these chapters, had sanctioned them as being of the right and sound faith, and that it had subjected John and the others to excommunication. And how, he said, can I make peace with them, and overturn the synodal judgment? But the most admirable tribune Aristolaus insisted ^B that he should carry out what was divinely sanctioned. And my most holy master Cyril arranged this out of necessity in all things, so that your holiness might—with an anathema interposed—declare that he did not set forth these things according to a heretical interpretation, but that whatever seems reprehensible was said with zeal and fervor for our Lord Jesus Christ, who has been denied by Nestorius; but that all the Orientals should anathematize Nestorius and his opinion, and thus be received into peace. Now when the most illustrious Aristolaus commanded this to those who were around John and lord Acacius, in that lord Acacius ought to compel John, they directed Paul—avoiding this, so that nothing of it might remain in memory, but that he might rest. So, since my most holy master, father Cyril, was detained by a great illness, it was decided to defer these things. But after some days, Bishop Paul showed the most illustrious tribune a letter from the most pious John, stating that the bishops of the Orient, and those who are further away, ^C do not allow these things to take place: which also contained certain pages of that impious man, namely, Nestorius. When the most illustrious Aristolaus again made these things known through letters, he wrote to them rebuking them. But there was a rescript to his magnificence that certain decrees had recently been made by the bishops who met at Antioch, and that Alexander, a bishop, with a certain formula that had been brought forward, was to be sent to his magnificence. My most holy master Cyril, learning these things, is greatly saddened concerning your holiness, because he did not lay down his life for your sanctity, who labors often. And furthermore, that he does not care, with lord Philip and lord Claudian, how you might cause Aristolaus, that most illustrious man, to depart from here; but that you did nothing except by their counsel. And he fell into a relapse again. ^D Now therefore, my most holy lord, apply to yourself every effort in this cause. It was written also by my most holy master your brother, and to the lady, the most reverend handmaid of God Pulcheria, and to the provost Paul, and to the cubicularius Romanus, and to the lady cubicularia Marcella, and to the lady Droseria. And blessings worthy of them were directed to them. And to him who is against the Church, Chrysoretes, the most illustrious Aristolaus is prepared to write regarding some things which your angel [envoy] ought to obtain. And indeed, worthy eulogiae have been transmitted to them. My most holy master your brother also wrote to the scholasticus Domnus and to the most illustrious Arthebas, so that they might come together and persuade Chrysoretes finally to desist from attacking the Church. And indeed, worthy blessings have been directed to them. Hasten, therefore, you yourself, most holy one, to supplicate the lady, the handmaid of God, Pulcheria Augusta, that she may again lay down her soul for the Lord Christ. For I think that now she does not care enough for your most holy brother Cyril, as do all those who are in the palace of the king; and whatever is lacking in their avarice—though there is no lack of diverse blessings for them themselves—that he should write rebukingly to John, so that no memory of that impious man may exist; and let it be written also to the most illustrious Aristolaus, that he may urge him speedily. And ask the lady Olympias to help us as well; and that she may moreover ask Marcella and Droseria, because they listen to her quite patiently. For it is the ambition of some of the Orientals that they might receive the impious Nestorius. Even if he did not want it, taking care for yourself night and day, you have many among the saints to disturb. And ask my most holy master Dalmatius the abbot, that he also may command the emperor, binding him with a terrible adjuration; [C(871)] and that he may so constrain all the cubicularii, that no memory of him may exist any longer; and the holy Eutyches, that he may contend for us, and for my lord your most holy and most reverend brother. May your sanctity keep our clerics inseparable. For regarding this also, some here are saddened, because against the promises which your angel made, you act toward Eulogius the Alexandrian presbyter. The short subjoined text shows to whom eulogiae have been directed from here, so that you also may know how much the Alexandrian Church labors for your sanctity, which provides so much for those who are there. For the clerics who are here are saddened because the Alexandrian Church has been stripped on account of this disturbance. And beyond those things which have been transmitted from here, it owes Ammonius the comes one thousand five hundred pounds of gold. And now it is written again that he should stand. But as to your Church, provide against the avarice of those whom you know, lest they sadden the Alexandrian Church: which may your sanctity manage beyond what was mentioned. As you know, speak to Ammonius the comes, and let him be persuaded by those things which your religiosity knows. And cause him to write here, so that there may not be sadness about this also. The most illustrious Aristolaus, who labors for your sanctity, is saddened.

CHAPTER CCIV [293].

It is altogether especially suitable for your religiosity ^B that I make known to you the things that have followed regarding the peace of the Churches. My lord, the most illustrious tribune and notary Aristolaus, went to Antioch, carrying imperial letters which ordered the most reverend John, bishop of the Church of Antioch, to anathematize indeed the polluted dogmas of Nestorius, but also to acquiesce in his deposition in accordance with the synod, and then to seek that there might be one communion for him with us. Such was the force of what was written. But some of the eastern bishops—not yet, I think, judging the same, or even offering support to him who saddens our right faith 872—offended not a little the glory of Christ, the Savior of us all. They prepared the most religious Acacius, bishop of Beroea, to write to me certain foolish things, as if he were demanding that all things which were written by us against Nestorius should be dissolved and cast aside as invalid, and that we should consent only to the Creed which was defined by our holy Fathers in the city of Nicaea. ^C But your sanctity knows that such proposals of theirs were also in the city of Ephesus. I, however, wrote in response to these things that they were seeking a thing which could not be done. For we wrote rightly what we wrote, asserting the right and immaculate faith, and we deny nothing at all of our own. For, as they say, nothing was stated excessively, but all things are everywhere in accordance with rectitude and compatible with the power of the truth. But [I told them] that they ought rather to cease from unnecessary things, and instead acquiesce in that which, being correct, has pleased both the most pious and God-beloved emperor and the holy synod: that they should anathematize the verbosities of Nestorius and the blasphemies committed against Christ, that they should acknowledge that they hold him to be deposed, and that they should consent to the ordination ^D of the most holy and religious bishop Maximianus. These letters, therefore, having been sent by me to them, observing that communion would not be returned to them at all unless they brought to completion those things which it was necessary for them to do, they sent to Alexandria the most reverend Paul, bishop of Emesa, bringing letters to me, which were indeed letters of communion, yet not written very appropriately. For they also pretended to bring forth reproaches, as if certain things said and done in the holy synod were not right. And these letters indeed I did not pay attention to, but I said that they, who ought to have sought forgiveness for those things which were done, were instead bringing secondary injuries. However, the aforementioned most religious bishop offering an excuse, and affirming with an oath that they had no such intention, but rather had come to these letters out of simplicity, we overlooked this also out of charity. But I did not allow him to celebrate the mysteries with us before, in a document given in 873 writing, he had anathematized the dogmas of Nestorius, and had confessed that he considered him to be deposed, and that he consented to the ordination of the most reverend and religious bishop Maximianus. He indeed asked, as if on behalf of all the most religious bishops who are in the East, by giving such documents, that we should ask for nothing else beyond these. But I did not agree at all; rather, I sent two of our clerics to Antioch along with my lord, the most ^B admirable tribune and notary Aristolaus, handing them a charter and saying: "If the most religious bishop of the Antiochians, John, has subscribed, and has accepted it, then give him the letters of communion." For the aforementioned most admirable tribune Aristolaus was anxious on account of the delay. Therefore, the most religious bishop John and those who are with him, who are distinguished, subscribing and anathematizing the dogmas of Nestorius, and confessing that they held him to be deposed, and also consenting to the ordination of the most religious bishop Maximianus, we returned communion. For these things were proposed to them also in the metropolis of Ephesus by the holy council. Your sanctity should know also this, that the most reverend bishop Paul ^C insisted much from the beginning, asking on behalf of those who were deposed, I mean Helladius, Eutherius, Himerius, and Dorotheus. And he asked that those things which were decreed should be waived for them in the same way, pretending that the peace of the Churches could not be defined otherwise unless these also were added. I, however, said that he was attempting an impossible thing and that it was impossible for this to be ever obtained from us. They remained, therefore, in the state in which they now are, and no mention of them was made in the compositions regarding the peace of the Churches. But they wrote the same letter, which they had directed to me, also to the most religious and holy bishops, ^D as much to Xystus of great Rome, as to Maximianus of the holy Church of Constantinople. And it was necessary that your perfection should be taught minutely about these things; lest perhaps, being accustomed to long-winded talk, sowing one thing for another, they might perturb some of the brethren, as if we were denying those things which we wrote against the blasphemies of Nestorius. I have directed copies of the letters, both that written by me to the most reverend bishop of Antioch, John, and also of his, which was sent by him to me.

^A

CHAPTER CCV [294]. Letter of the same to Acacius, bishop of Melitene.

The most reverend and religious deacon and archimandrite, Maximus, has come to me. And being such a man, I saw him as one ought to see a person who has been long desired. I was indeed marveling at his zeal, his uprightness, and the sting of piety which is in Christ. For he thinks in this way and has a mind full of concerns, and is willing to sustain every labor smoothly, so that the evil doctrine of Nestorius might be extirpated by the roots from the regions of the East. He read to me also the letter of your holiness 874 written to the most reverend and religious bishop of the Antiochians, John, filled with much confidence and love of God. I also wrote such letters to him. But, as it seems, worse things have prevailed. For those who pretend to hate the things of Nestorius, once again hold fast to them in another way, admiring the things of Theodore, who certainly languished in an impiety equal to, nay, much worse than his. For Theodore was not the disciple of Nestorius, but rather the latter was his, and because both speak as if from one mouth, they spit forth poison from their heart as an evil meaning. The Orientals therefore wrote to me that one must not accuse the things of Theodore, so that, they say, the things of the blessed Athanasius and Theophilus and Basil and Gregory might not also be accused. For the words that Theodore spoke, these they also spoke. I, however, did not endure those writing these things, but said confidently that Theodore indeed had both a blasphemous tongue and a pen serving it, but those others were masters of all orthodoxy and shone in these matters. So indeed they have affected those who are from the East, such that exclamations were even made by the people in the churches: "May the faith of Theodore grow! We believe thus, as also Theodore." And those who once pelted him with stones in the church which is among them, when he presumed to mutter briefly something—but as the master wills, so does the flock. I for my part have neither ceased to rebuke the things written by them, nor shall I cease. Since, however, it was necessary, as if there were contradictions in the writing among them, intending toward the codices of Theodore and Diodorus ^B of those who have written not about the incarnation, but rather against the incarnation, [alt-version omitted] I have chosen certain chapters, and in the way that was possible, I have acted against them, everywhere pronouncing their opinion to be full of abomination. With the aforementioned most reverend deacon and archimandrite Maximus urging me, I interpreted the symbol of faith which was set forth by the holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea, and I prepared myself for this. For he asserts that some craftily pretend that they say it and follow it, but do not use right senses, but rather divert them to those things which are rightly and immovably directed toward that which they themselves think. But so that your holiness may not be unaware, I have directed the codex and the tome; reading which, may you deign to offer your accustomed prayers for me.

875 Those who are accustomed to bring forth such things for themselves are shown to be themselves alien to the Church of Christ; provided first that they be truly Cyril's, and that such writings and deeds of his are to be approved. They see that after the condemnation of Nestorius and his heresy, he himself, the leader of their entire exclusion, saying that Theodore wrote worse things than Nestorius, did not, however, separate himself in the least from the communion of those who judged him, when indeed it is read that these very men, that is, the Oriental bishops, and the council itself, divided the whole cause, not only by judging Theodore, but also by praising his writings which were being accused, so that in the churches it was shouted by the people of the East: "May the faith of Theodore grow! We believe as he does." But these who exalt themselves as if they were followers of Cyril have separated themselves from the communion of his judges up to such a point that they not only anathematized the writings and the name of Theodore in writing, but also those who did not judge and anathematize them. And this then began to happen when they were defending him, not as of old, as of the East alone, but as of the whole globe of the Church. If this, then, be said to have been done soundly for the sake of the ancient tolerance of such communion, which is now judged most intolerable, would not Cyril himself quite consistently be proposed as justly condemned? We act, therefore, by far more rightly, we who defend both from them, neither harshly condemning one nor reasonably sparing the other. This, their authors, that is, the more famous followers of Dioscorus, bury. For if blessed Cyril then, even while crying out against such things, nevertheless tolerated the council of the East alone, how did your authors presume to anathematize the council of Chalcedon of the whole world, and to separate themselves from the communion of the Church diffused everywhere? Now, if these things are not sufficient to show to both parties that, from fear of divine judgment ^{C D}

and the longing for eternal life, one can commend [this] to human souls, what can ever be said? We beseech you through Christ, all who read this, be diligent to remember what we have said, and [be aware] that for this very reason we are also translating the rest of the similar writings in this Synodicon into Latin.

CHAPTER CCVI [295]

A certain letter to Lampon the presbyter and the clergy.

While I was residing in Aelia, a certain man, one of the most prominent of those serving in the palace, offered me a letter of many lines, lengthy and sealed, as if he had received it from the orthodox in Antioch. The subscriptions in it were indeed those of very many [people], both clergy, ^B monks, and laymen. It attacked the bishops of the East, as if they had long since kept silent about the name of Nestorius, and [those who wrote it] feigned themselves to be his adversaries, yet they had crossed over to the books of Theodore regarding the "inhumanation," in which many [things] lie that are worse than the blasphemies of Nestorius. For Theodore was the father of the wicked sect of Nestorius, who, by speaking things that were of that man, appears to me in all likelihood to have arrived at these [views] in which he now is. And we have written to the most glorious of the bishops of Antioch, that no one should speak the impious dogmas of Theodore in the Church. Now the most reverend (deacon) and archimandrite Maximus, arriving in Alexandria, cried out much against those who are in the East, saying that the orthodox have no place there, nor any confidence to speak what things are of the right faith. Moreover, he said that they feign to the Church that they confess the symbol which was edited by the Fathers at Nicaea, but they interpret it wrongly. And he exhorted me to interpret the entire exposition of those who gathered at Nicaea, so that one thing should not steal in instead of another, by expounding it. Which I also did. He is therefore carrying away the tomes, so that they may be brought to the most pious ladies and to the Christ-loving and most pious lord. For I have had the tome made on parchment. Therefore, handle it, and when you see that it is in good order, bring it forth at an opportune time. For it behooves us everywhere to contend for the right faith, and to attempt, as much as is possible, to remove from the midst the impiety that has been stirred up against Christ.

CHAPTER CCVII [296]

A letter from the same to John, Bishop of Antioch.

I have now received, with much festivity and also most sweetly, the letters sent by your perfection. For what is good, or what is pleasant, except that brothers dwell in unity? By unanimity and the same will concerning Christ, joined to one another in charity, with the scandals—which I know not how have been surreptitiously introduced—broken up from the midst, which grace ^C of the Savior has indeed destroyed through your holiness in times past, and will indeed destroy in the rest. And this is, I think, what was said by God with the prophetic voice: *Walk through my gates, and cast out the stones from this way* (Isa. L, 11). It may happen, therefore, that all, honoring the things that are better, may even now at last cease to contend against the truth, and, [having cast off] the addicted verbosity of Nestorius, may resume the right and immaculate word of the faith. And those indeed who were long ago called to this, have, as I said, filled us with very great festivity. May God of all, however, grant to the prayers and education of your perfection, that having been led to meekness, they may know how to grasp what is useful. But if some contend fiercely, they will not blame the meekness of the Church; but, drawing upon themselves that which they are about to suffer, they will hear from you: *Walk in the light of your fire, and the flame that you have kindled.* For it behooves one now not to contend with the distorted in a meek manner.

Chapter CCVIII [297]

A letter from the same to Maximus, John, and Thalassius, presbyters and archimandrites.

The zeal of your religiousness is indeed excellent, and full of all praise. For being zealous for God, you are zealous, as it is written, so that you are not even now dishonored by those who relish the things that are of Nestorius, [of whom] he says: *I looked for one who would grieve together with me, and there was none; and for one to comfort me, and I found none* (Psal. LXVIII, 21). And these indeed, who stand against the dogmas of religion, or rather the worship of God, kick against the goads, and harm their own souls, offending against Christ, and delighting themselves in calumnies against him. But it is foreign to the soul of a priest, and one who has been allotted to preside over the people, to anathematize with the tongue the polluted and contaminating dogmas of Nestorius; yet in fact to keep a mind filled with them, and to overturn the souls of the brothers, for whom Christ has died. I have therefore written also to my lord, the most admirable tribune and notary Aristolaus, which writing is indeed your religiousness. I have written also to certain others. Recognizing this, moreover, from the most reverend presbyter and archimandrite Adamantius, whose mores, and conversation, and discipline I have admired, along with his intellect and rectitude concerning the faith, it is as if I saw everyone present in one. Since, however, many of the orthodox and most religious bishops have written to me about the things opposed to themselves, or to the peoples who are under their hand, being obtruded by the senseless Nestorians, gathering these [matters], I have written a short book concerning the incarnation of the Only-begotten, so as to reduce the entire discourse of the faith into three chapters. And the first, indeed, is that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God. The second, that there is one Christ, and not two.

The third, that while remaining impassible, the Word of God bore his own flesh for our sake. Therefore, may your devoutness prepare him to be read by the orthodox. For, as I think, it will satisfy everyone, having removed almost all their excuse. As for me, do not be weary of offering prayers. For the gathering of matters, pouring out from all sides like waves, possesses an unbearable conflict; but I believe that through the prayers of your devoutness there will again be tranquility and peace.

This is followed by that which Irenaeus also included, written by the same Cyril to Aristolaus.

Chapter CCIX [298].

The virtue of the pious sanctions which were recently transmitted to your admirability has been learned by all, as much by those who are zealots in great Alexandria, as by the most religious bishops throughout all Egypt; and in turn, we have offered most intense prayers to God for the gifts, for the victory and persistence of the friends of Christ, and of our most religious princes, whose lot it is to be magnified against the enemy and to be strengthened against every hand of those who resist, so that we may all be in peace and joy. And this is truly worthy of the zeal of your admirability. For it was fitting that this should be entrusted to you, who are such a person, and who strive much for what is pious, and possess a fervent zeal—I mean for piety and the immaculate faith. And I was praying that all the most religious bishops throughout the East might not be suspected from the beginning of the evil mindset of Nestorius, but that they might have had a sincere opinion, free from every stain, and the heart itself. For thus, those rightly handling the word of truth would have assumed the care becoming of the most approved. But, as I am learning, some by tongue, and as far as speech is concerned, anathematize the madness of Nestorius; yet they dare again both to think and to speak those things which are his. And it is indeed incredible if there be any such persons at all among those who have been allotted the priesthood.

Since, however, there is much whispering, and [the persons] are not to be despised—nay, rather, the persons testifying these things are worthy of all reverence—may your virtue deign to apply itself to the care of commending [these matters] to God with closer attention, so that, especially those who are under suspicion of such evil may anathematize the contaminated Nestorius because of his many blasphemies. For he did not say only that the holy Virgin was not the Mother of God; but he also added above these things other justifications of falsehood against the right and apostolic tradition. For he named two Christs, two Sons: one, indeed, separately, the Word from God the Father; and another, besides him, separately, that one from the seed of David, and ^A whom he used to call an organ. And everywhere he divides, and as it were ^B forgets the blessed Paul saying: *One Lord, one faith, one baptism*. For we have not been baptized into a God and a man, so as to be into two sons by difference, but into one Christ, that is, the only-begotten Word of God inhumanated and incarnate: so that the same one may be at once God and man; so that he may be born of God the Father, and same one of the holy Virgin according to the flesh.

Do not, therefore, let your admirability suffer those who think otherwise, and who babble in vain there. For there is one, as I said, Jesus Christ the Lord, and his one person: of him who is inhumanated, who by nature is truly the Son. But we say the same one is impassible indeed according to the divinity; but that he suffers in his own flesh according to the Scriptures. For that which belongs to the body, of that one it is said that the passions which happened to his flesh also belong. Living then ^C as impassible according to the divinity, he endured in his own flesh for us and on our behalf. Thus, all things are said, as God the lifegiver made the flesh united to himself and his own, and we in him are made superior to both death and corruption. But if they anathematize indeed by voice and tongue, but think otherwise, let them see the danger impending upon them from God, and the term proposed by the universal council which was gathered at Ephesus. For it decreed that those who speak or think the things which are of Nestorius, whether they be bishops or clergy, be repelled from the priesthood. Let them not say that they are ignorant of the synod which was gathered at Ephesus: lest we too disavow them as not knowing them to be bishops.

CHAPTER CCX [299].

For my part, I suspected that the most reverend bishop Theodoret had wiped away from himself the stain of the novelties of Nestorius, along with other most religious bishops. For I believed that after he once wrote and embraced peace, and received from me the peace of salutation, he had also himself done away with those things which seemed to hinder the pacification. But the most reverend presbyter Daniel has conveyed to me that he still persists up to now. For, receding from many, he perhaps remains in his blasphemies. And it is clear, if he has not even anathematized them, that he has not even deigned to subscribe to his deposition. And may your holiness grant me confidence, since I speak out of charity: For what reason are some so pertinacious that they do not follow the reasonable intention of your religiosity, nor in those things which you have done with the world? But, as if indeed ^D disgracing the congregation, they confirm it in such a way as seems to themselves. And if these things which I have learned...

^A are true, I must put your religiousness to the test. Presbyter Daniel, who is sailing to Alexandria, is a most religious man and is acquainted with every single matter that has been stirred up.

CHAPTER CCXI [300].

I have never failed to write to your religiousness, nor to receive the letters sent by you. But as for what has been stirred up in the meantime, it has been done through my fault and yours—for the sake of silence, which I pray God may be rooted out and removed from our midst. There are some who wish to raise up thorns ^B between us, along with a hedge and a rift, so that our affections may not be able to come together. For they have troubled me entirely, writing things related to the height of blasphemy, and saying that those things were spoken to them by your religiousness. 880 But it behooves us, just as we approach God, who knows all things, so purely, not to confess with the tongue the contradiction of the polluted dogmas of Nestorius while having something else in our soul. And I write this, not truly believing the things that have been said, but wishing to protect the opinion of your religiousness. I was indeed very delighted to examine those things which were written by your religiousness, and sent through my lord, your most beloved son Thomas.

CHAPTER CCXII [301].

Your holiness should not have been unaware, for perhaps you have learned, that all the religious bishops of the East have come to Antioch, as my most holy bishop Proclus directed to them a *tome* ^C filled with good sense and right dogmas. For there was much and long discourse concerning the dispensation of our Lord Jesus Christ. He also appended certain chapters excerpted from the books of Theodore and Nestorius, containing an understanding consistent with their evil meanings, and urged that they be anathematized by them. They, however, did not suffer it. Then they wrote to me, saying that if it happens that the writings of Theodore are to be anathematized, then one must by all means traverse this stain and consult our holy Fathers—I speak of Athanasius, and Basil, and Gregory, and Theophilus, and the rest. For, they say, even they wrote certain things consonant with Theodore. It was necessary to write, and not in any manner whatsoever, to them: which I will make known to your reverence ^D through the most reverend presbyter Daniel, who is sailing to Alexandria. And he is familiar with every single point of what has been stirred up.

CHAPTER CCXIII [302].

Since I have learned that by God’s grace you have prevailed through your prayers, and in the absence of your bodily presence, in what you were striving 881 to obtain for the Churches, and that the letters of the most pious and Christ-loving Emperor have been directed to the man illustrious in all virtues, the tribune Aristolaus, commanding him to compel each of the bishops in his own Church to anathematize the polluted dogmas of the impiety of Nestorius and Theodore, I give thanks, worshipping the Lord God, and praying much for your zeal. I write to you, first greeting your reverence, and I beseech your zeal, which is toward God, that you would take care equally for all the Churches, and that you would not despise any Church whatsoever; but either by the presence of their own words, or by sending certain faithful and zealous men from among your own associates along with the most admirable and illustrious tribune, force each one to anathematize publicly the dogmata of Nestorius and Theodore, and especially those who speak of "two natures after the union," each operating separately. For, having put those who are in Germanicia to the test, I found them indeed to be speaking of two sons, not at all avoiding, of old, the speaking of two natures. Whence it should not be permitted to be said or taught by them that each nature operates according to itself; and that one receives the passions, while the other remains impassible. For it is nothing else but to confess two sons again, and to introduce two persons. I beseech, therefore, your compassionate and God-devoted soul to keep watch over this cause, having received time from the Lord Christ, and to obtain for the holy Churches unity without scandal and blemish.

CHAPTER CCXIV [305].

I have indeed read through the *commonitorium* which was transmitted by your holiness, and I have exceedingly rejoiced that, even while you are able to benefit us and others out of your great love of doctrine, you deign to exhort us to write down these same things which we hold and which we perceive to be altogether good. We think, therefore, concerning the Savior…

^A our Savior, regarding the economy, that which the holy Fathers who were before us also held. For, reading their labors, we align our own now so that we may follow them, and we bring in nothing new to the rectitude of their dogmas. Since, therefore, your perfection inquires whether it is fitting to speak of two natures in Christ or not, I have thought to respond to these things. Diodorus, a certain Pneumatomachian—that is, one who is opposed to the Holy Spirit—existed. He, as they say, communicated with the Church around the time of the orthodox, laying aside, as he thought, the stain of the Macedonian heresy, but he fell into the languor of another. For he thought and wrote 882 that one is the Son separately, who was born of the seed of David from the holy Virgin, but another, properly the Son, is the Word who is from God the Father. But, like a sheep covering a wolf with its skin, he pretends indeed to say that Christ is one, referring the name only to the Word of God the Father begotten; [the one] begotten from God. But in the order of grace, he considers this, as he himself says, to also be the one who is from the seed of David, calling him the Son. Yet he does not glorify [him] as united as we do, but only regarding dignity, and regarding authority, and according to equality of honor. Nestorius was a disciple of his, and, darkened by his books, he likewise pretends to confess one Christ and Son and Lord, yet he himself divides the indivisible one into two, saying that the human is joined to God by an equivocal designation, by equal honor [and] dignity. Since he also defines the terms which are set in the evangelical preachings concerning Christ, and says that these must be adapted to the human, it is indeed manifest that they are human, but that those which are fitting to God belong singularly to the Word of God, it is indeed manifest that they are fitting for God. And since he separates [them] in many ways, and as if from a part places separately the one who was born of the holy Virgin as man, and separately in like manner and from a part the Son as the Word who is from God the Father, for this reason he says the holy Virgin is not the Mother of God, but rather the mother of the man. But we are not so disposed to have these things, but we have been taught by the divine Scripture and the holy Fathers to confess one Son, one Christ and Lord, that is, the Word from God the Father, begotten indeed from Him before the ages fittingly and ineffably as God, but in the last times of the age the same [was] born for us according to the flesh from the holy Virgin. And because she brought forth the God made man and incarnate, for this reason we name her Mother of God. Therefore there is one Son, one Lord Jesus Christ, both before the incarnation and after the incarnation. For the Son who is the Word from God the Father is not one, and this [one] from the holy Virgin another again, but he himself who is believed to have been born from the woman before the ages and according to the flesh, not as if the beginning of his divinity ^B or principle of subsistence was called through the holy Virgin, but rather because, as I said, the Word existing before the ages is said to have been born from her according to the flesh. For his flesh was his own, just as the rest of each of us, and his body was his own. But since some object to us with the sects of Apollinaris, and say, "If you say that the Son is one through an entire and tight union—the Word from God the Father made man and incarnate—perhaps you also dream and know that as wisdom, that a confusion or tempering or fermentation of the Word into the body, or certainly a translation of the body into the nature of the divinity, has occurred." 883 For this reason, then, and very wisely, repelling the calumny, we say that the Word, who is from God the Father, inestimably and ineffably united to himself a body animated by an intellect-capable soul, and proceeded as man from the Virgin, not having become [so] by a change of nature according to us, but rather by an economic benevolence. For he willed to become man, and did not lose being God according to nature. But even if he was deposited among those things that are according to us, by measures, and bore the form of a servant, yet he remained in the excellencies of divinity and in natural domination. Uniting, therefore, the Word from God the Father to the holy flesh having an intellectual soul, ineffably and sublimely, we confess one Son and Christ and Lord, inconfusedly and inconvertibly, the same God and man; not one and another, but one and the same, existing and to be understood as this and that. Therefore, sometimes indeed he speaks as man in a human way, according to the economy, but sometimes he performs works with power fitting to God, as God. We say also that other thing, inquiring with good art into the mode of the economy in the flesh, and subtly calculating the mystery: we see that he who is the Word from God the Father is made man and incarnate, and did not fashion that holy body for himself out of his divine nature, but rather received it from the Virgin. Otherwise, how was he made man, if not because he bore a human body? Noting, therefore, as I said, the mode of the incarnation, we see that two natures have come together, in an indissoluble union, inconfusedly and inconvertibly. For flesh is flesh, and not divinity, even if the flesh has been made God's. But similarly, the Word is God, and not flesh, even if he made the flesh his own according to the economy. When, therefore, we understand this, we do no harm to the concurrence that is in the union. And saying that he was made from two natures, nevertheless after the union we do not divide the natures from each other, nor do we fall into two Christs (but we assert one Son), and as the Fathers said, one nature of the Word incarnate. Therefore, as pertains to the intellect and to the sole ^{C D}

sight of the eyes, how he was made man ^A (if he be the Only-begotten), we say that there are two natures, but one Christ and Son and Lord, the Word of God made man and incarnate. And if it seems good, let us take as an example human composition, after the manner of ourselves who are men. For we are composed of soul and body. And we see two natures, the one of the body, the other of the soul; but one man consists of both in union. And it is not that, because man is composed of two natures, two men are made one, but one man, as I have said 884, consists by composition of soul and body. For if we take away that Christ is one and alone, existing undivided from two diverse natures, they call the union contrary to the orthodox faith.

If there is but one nature in the whole, how was he made man, or what kind of flesh did he make his own? Since, however, I have found in this very memorandum such an opinion of the discourse, that after the resurrection the holy body of the Savior of us all, Christ, is entirely only divinity, I have thought it right to answer this as well. Blessed Paul writes, explaining to us the causes of the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, at one time saying: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." At another time: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren." We say, therefore, that since human nature suffered corruption from the transgression in Adam, and our mind sustains a tyranny, as it were, from the pleasures or movements of the flesh implanted in the nature (it was necessary for our salvation, we who dwell on earth, that the Word of God should become man), in order that he might make his own the human flesh subject to corruption and languishing with the love of pleasure, and, since he is life and vivifying, might destroy the corruption ^D that is in it, and might rebuke the movements implanted in the nature, namely those which provoke to the love of incongruous pleasure. But it was suitable for sin to be mortified in it. We remember also the blessed Paul speaking of the law of sin, which is implanted in us. Therefore, since human flesh became the property of the Word, it ceased indeed to suffer corruption. And because he knows no sin, as God, he himself making it his own and languishing with love, not for himself—for he who is, is always—but certainly for us. For if we are subject to these evils which come from the transgression of Adam, those things which are in Christ, that is, incorruptibility 19 and the mortification of sin, will come to us in every way. Therefore he was made man, he did not take a man, as Nestorius seems to think. And that he might be believed to be made 885 man, while he certainly remained what he was, namely God by nature, on this account he is said to hunger and to labor and to sustain both sleep and agitation and sadness and other irreprehensible passions. But in order that he might again satisfy those who looked on him, that he was at once man and true God, he worked divine signs, rebuking the sea, raising the dead, and performing other things unexpectedly. Yet he endured the cross, so that, suffering death in the flesh and not in the nature of his divinity, he might become the firstborn from the dead, and might open a way for human nature to attain to incorruptibility, and, despoiling hell, might have mercy on the souls which were held confined there. But after the resurrection, the body was indeed the same in which he had suffered a little before, yet it did not have in itself human infirmities. For we do not say that it is henceforth susceptible to hunger, or to any of the labors or any such things, but henceforth it is incorruptible, and not only this, but also vivifying. For the body of the Only-begotten is the body of life. And there shone forth also from God a most decent glory, and it is understood as the body of God. Therefore, even if someone were to say it is divine, just as it is human, being of man, he does not deviate from the truth. Whence I think most wise Paul also said: "Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." For the body, existing as I have said as his own, transcends all human things. But the transference or passing of the body from the earth into the divine nature is not possible, but is impossible. Otherwise, the divinity would be derogated, as if it were made and as if receiving into itself what is not its own by nature. For it is right to say that flesh is changed into the nature of the divinity, and it is right to say that the Word is changed into human nature. For just as this ^D (for he is unchangeable and immutable) is impossible, so too is the other. For it cannot be said that any of the creatures can pass into the substance or nature of the divinity. But that flesh is a creature. Therefore, we assert that the body of Christ is indeed divine, because it is the body of God and is illuminated by ineffable glory, and is incorruptible, holy, and vivifying; but that it has been changed into the nature of the divinity, neither did any of the holy Fathers think, nor...

do we so believe. Moreover, your holiness should not be ^A unaware that our Father of blessed memory, Athanasius, who was then bishop of Alexandria, at the instigation of certain persons at that time, wrote an epistle to Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, filled with the rectitude of the true faith. But because Nestorius was convicted by this very epistle, and the defenders of the right faith, by reading it, overcame those who wished to hold similar views, having no answer to make from it for their own defense, they devised something bitter and worthy of heretical impiety. For they corrupted that same epistle, and while removing some things, they added 886 others, and published it so that that man of memorable proclamation might seem to have held views consonant with Nestorius and his like. It was therefore necessary, lest it be carried elsewhere—since corrupt copies are everywhere among us—to send to your religiosity ones taken from the accurate exemplars we possess. For the most reverend and religious Paul, bishop of Emesa, arriving at Alexandria, raised discussions about these things and was found to possess a copy of that epistle, but one corrupted and defiled by the heretics, so that he begged that a copy be sent ^B to those who are at Antioch from our own exemplars, which we have indeed done. Following, therefore, in all things the sentiments of the holy Fathers, we have written a codex against the dogmas of Nestorius, and a refutation of the chapters of certain others which are to be criticized. And these I have transmitted to your religiosity; so that, if there are other fellow-believers and our unanimous brethren, who have been led astray by the rambling talk of certain men, and think that we have repented of those things which we wrote against Nestorius, they may learn from the reading that we have rightly and properly rebuked and censured him as one erring, and that we still nonetheless resist him everywhere, fighting against his blasphemies. May your perfection—which is superior [to us] (it is able to understand, as well as to write and to pray, and will also help us)—^C of other chapters which are to be criticized, the value can be interpreted in two ways, so that it may even be said [to be] against certain others who were accused by the force of those chapters, so that it may be understood that they spoke concerning their own chapters. ^D Everywhere, however, concerning all such writings, where [the doctrine of] "one nature out of two" sounds forth, I say this generally: that I could have shown many things—though not with the most perfect precision—written in opposition to those who attack opinions and the memories of the Fathers as if by the authority of this man, except that this is not [our] purpose now; we have written only a *Henoticon*, not an apology. And these, as they are found to be diverse among diverse people, we set forth without prejudice to a more thorough investigation.

CHAPTER CCXV [304].

Truth constitutes itself clear to those who love it, but hides itself, as I expect, and attempts to remain latent to the intellects of the crafty. For they do not render themselves worthy to gaze upon it with clear eyes. And indeed the lovers of the immaculate faith 887 seek the Lord in the simplicity of the heart, as it is written. But those who travel by twisted and rough paths, and have a sinister or vain heart, as it is written in the Psalms, by perverse intellects pile up for themselves manifold occasions (that they may pervert the straight ways of the Lord), and turn away the souls of the simpler folk to sentiments, regarding things which are not permitted as if they were permitted. And these things, I say, [you have recognized] by the reminders of your holiness, and finding in them certain things heedlessly proposed by those who, I know not how, love the diverse things of a false science. And these were the things.

If, they say, Emmanuel is composed out of two natures, but after the union there is one incarnate nature of the Word, it will follow that it must be said that he suffers in his own nature. The blessed Fathers, who defined for us the holy symbol of the right faith, say that he himself is from God the Word, who is the Only-Begotten from His own substance, through whom all things were made, incarnate and made man; and how shall we say that those holy men did not know that the body united to the Word was animated by an intellectual soul? It follows from this that he who says the Word became incarnate must confess that the flesh united to him is not without an intellectual soul. For so, as I indeed judge, or rather as I say with confidence, the most wise evangelist John said that the Word was made flesh, not as if—God forbid!—he were united to inanimate flesh, but as though he underwent a conversion or mutation; but he remained what he was, that is, nature as God. But assuming that he was man, whether from a woman according to the flesh, as we are, again he remained one Son, yet not now without flesh, as once, or before the time of the incarnation, but rather as one clothed even in our nature. But even if the body which is united to him, and in which there is an intellectual soul, is not consubstantial with the Word, yet the phantasy of the mind indeed discerns that the things which are united are of a different nature, but we confess one Son and Christ and Lord, as flesh made Word. When, however, we say flesh, we mean man. What necessity is there, therefore, for him to suffer in his own nature, if after the union it is said that there is one incarnate nature of the Son? For if it were not in the discourses concerning the dispensation...

with flesh that the whole Word has been brought in (for he was incarnate in no other way than by taking hold of the seed of Abraham and being made like unto his brethren in all things, and taking the form of a servant), ^A those who say that it must necessarily follow that he suffered in his own nature are using empty babble, while the flesh remains that, concerning which the passion is most logically understood to have happened, while the Word remains impassible. But we do not for this reason exclude him from the passions. For just as his own body was fashioned, so all things that belong to the body, with the exception of sin alone, are nonetheless said to be his own through the dispensational assumption. (But the adversaries will say:) If there is one incarnate nature of the Word, it follows with all necessity, they say, that one must speak of a fermentation taking place and a commingling, as if our nature were diminished and subtracted within it. ^B Those who pervert what is right have again ignored that, according to the truth, there is one incarnate nature of the Word. For if there is one Son, who is in nature and truth the Word, who was ineffably begotten of God the Father, then concerning the assumption of flesh—not inanimate, but rather intellectualized and animate—the man proceeded from the woman, the Son is not divided into two persons but has remained one; yet he is not without flesh, nor outside the body, but has his own [flesh] in an inseparable union. But he who says this does not, by these means, signify a fermentation, or a confusion, or anything else of that sort, nor indeed does it ever follow as a necessary reason. For if the only-begotten Son of God is even said by us to be incarnate and made man, it does not follow from this, as it seems to them, that he was mixed like leaven, nor has the nature of the Word been translated into the nature of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into his; but with both remaining in the property that belongs to their nature, and understanding according to this reason which has just been rendered by us, the ineffable and unspeakable union shows us the one nature of the Son, ^C yet, as I have said, an incarnate one. For it is not only in simple things that one is truly said according to nature, but also in those things which are gathered together by composition. Such a thing is man, composed of soul and body; these are indeed of different species, and are not consubstantial with one another, but having been united, they have perfected the nature of man; even if, according to the reasons of composition, there is a difference concerning those things which have been brought to the union of natures. They speak superfluously, therefore, those who say that if there is one incarnate nature of the Word, it follows in every way that a fermentation and commingling must occur, as if the human nature were diminished and subtracted from him. ^D For it is neither diminished nor, as they said, is it subtracted. The solution to the aforementioned chapter is sufficient for this manifestation, or at least its excuse. For if, by saying "one nature of the Word," we had been silent and not added "incarnate," but had put the dispensation as if it were external, there would perhaps be a plausible reason for them to ask: Where is the perfection in his humanity, or how does our substance subsist? But since both the perfection in humanity and the manifestation of our substance is introduced by this very term "incarnate," let them cease leaning upon a broken reed. For this was to refute the dispensation, and to deny the incarnation, and on that account to clamor justly (as if perfect humanity were being taken away from the Son). But if, as I said, in that which is said, "he was incarnate," there is a clear and indubitable satisfaction that he became man, nothing now prevents us from understanding that since there is one and only one Son, Christ, he is the same God and man, just as he is perfect in divinity, so also he is perfect in humanity. Most rightly, therefore, and most wisely, your perfection explains the reason of the saving passion, asserting that it is not the only-begotten Son of God himself, who is understood to be and is God, who suffers in his own nature the things that are of the body, but rather that he endured them in his earthly nature. For it is necessary that both should serve the one and true Son: not to suffer divinely, but to be said to suffer humanly. For it is his flesh that suffered. But they imagine again that we are introducing that which they call the suffering of God through these things we have said, and they do not understand the dispensation; but most fraudulently they attempt to transfer the passion to the man separately, providing for themselves a loss of piety through their own wisdom, so that we might not be said to be saved by God the Word, as one who gave his own blood for us, but rather by a man who is to be understood as the Son separately and apart. Whoever thinks this way reduces the whole argument of the dispensation with the flesh and our divine mystery not vaguely to the cult of man, and does not think that he who is from the Jews according to the flesh—that is, from the seed of Abraham and Jesse and David—the blessed Paul said is Christ the Lord of glory and God blessed for ever and above all, proclaiming that the body of the Word which was nailed to the wood was his own, and through it he ascribed the cross to him. I also learn that beyond these things there is another point which

^A comes into question: that anyone should say that the Lord suffered "in the flesh" nakedly; for the one who says such a thing terms him irrational (and asserts that his passion was not voluntary). And he who says that he suffered with an intellectual soul, so that the passion might be voluntary, nothing prevents him from saying that he underwent it by the nature of humanity. But if so, how shall we not allow two natures to subsist after the union without division? Wherefore, whoever shall say, "Christ therefore suffered for us in the flesh," will say nothing else than, "Christ therefore suffered in our nature."

^B 890 This proposal, however, nonetheless conflicts with those who say there is one incarnate nature of the Son, and wishing to pronounce this superfluous or vain, they contend everywhere against the existence of two natures. But they have ignored that whatever things refuse to be divided only in contemplation, these very things, by every means, lapse into an alterity of parts and a complete separation from one another. But let us take, by way of example, a man according to our own nature. For we understand two natures in him: one indeed of the soul, and the other of the body. But while in pure intellects splitting these things, as if in subtle contemplations, or certainly catching at a difference in the phantasms of the soul, we do not posit these natures as parts, nor do we leave the power of incision abruptly through all things between them; rather, we deem them to be of one (man), so that the two are no longer two, but through both one living thing is perfected. Therefore, even if humanity and divinity are said to be upon Emmanuel or in Emmanuel, yet the humanity itself has been made proper to the Word, and One Son is understood with it. But when divine Scripture says that he suffered in the flesh, it is better for us to say it in this way than "by the nature of humanity." Although if this also be said by some without evil intent, it harms nothing in the arguments of so great a mystery. For what is the nature of humanity other than flesh intellectually animated, and (in which) we say the Lord suffered in the flesh? They argue, therefore, most curiously that he suffered by the nature of humanity, in a certain way separating it from the Word, and removing it outwardly and sequestering it, so that two are understood, and no longer the one incarnated and in-humanated who is the Word from God the Father. But the addition put forth by them, "indivisibly," appears indeed to be in a certain manner a signifier of right worship among us. But they do not understand it in this way. For among them, according to the novelties of the words of Nestorius, it is received in another manner. For they say that by equality of honor, by the same will, and by one authority, that man in whom he dwelt exists indivisibly from God the Word. Therefore, they do not simply put forth a word ^C but with a certain guile and malignant snares.

CHAPTER CCXVI [305]

891 Legens (Reading) the histories of the times, I found that the presence of Christ occurred four hundred and forty years ago. There were indeed his disciples, who were afterwards named apostles: who also, after his assumption into the heavens, preached the Christian doctrine: who taught, indeed, more simply and without any superfluous curiosity, so that they found a place for most of the Gentiles—who ill-understand and are wise—to accuse this doctrine and call it unstable. For what said the evangelist, *No man hath seen God at any time*? How then, they say, do you say that God was crucified? And they say: "He who has not been seen, how was he fastened to a cross? How did he die and was he buried?" Nestorius, therefore, who has just now been placed in exile, explained the preachings of the apostles. For saying, "I, a long time ago, that he himself confessed Christ to exist as two natures," I say to him who said these things: "The questions of the Gentiles are solved." I say, therefore, that your Holiness acted wrongly in thinking contrary to him, in gathering a synod, and in preparing for a deposition to happen without conflict. But I, for a few days still inspecting the expositions of the same man, and comparing them with the preachings of the apostles, and thinking within myself that it is good for me to become a Christian, I hope to be rendered worthy of the Lord's baptismal generation. (Received the exemplar from Epiphanius, an Alexandrian monk, almost a year before the Christian emperor.)

CHAPTER CCXVII [306]

I do not accept "contemperation" (mixture). For it is alien to the apostolic faith and the right tradition of God. For contemperation works the destruction of natures. But the ineffable union, which those who think rightly confess, preserves both natures without confusion. For if the natures are tempered into one, they are of a substance that is mutually diverse by mixture. ^D And finally he says: *Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.* For it is the temple alone in the time of the three-day burial, he himself willing it, and he again raised it, and he was united to it by an ineffable reason after the three days, not tempered in it. Nor was he made outside the flesh, but preserving in himself the inconfused property of the two natures, which are diverse from one another in substance. Nor indeed

were those two natures mixed or tempered in any way, that is, the ineffable divine nature and the inconfused human; but they are united 892 in an inexplicable and ineffable manner, which transcends all reason.

By the same. Has he then ceased from his own deity, even if he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant for our sake, losing the form of divinity, so that according to you he might be prepared as a human to be deified? Far be it! But fashioning for himself an ensouled temple, and being perfected in the holy Virgin’s womb, and being clothed in it, and united to it by an ineffable reason, he proceeded not tempered in both the same natures, but appearing as a man, yet to be understood as God, Jesus Christ.

CHAPTER CCXVIII [307]

By the same, from the interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

But the law of sin would not have been mortified in us, nor would death itself, most inimical to all things, have been destroyed, had not that become truly the very own of the Word in which that was to be condemned through his own power. For it was not of a common man, and of him who is understood as being like us, to be able to destroy the empire of death. But it was destroyed through Christ. It is therefore confessed that whatever concerns us was much. Therefore he was God, since he was man, very far beyond us as God. And the temple was holy, which received the fullness of divinity. Nevertheless, through the dispensational union, he is believed to be and is called one with him who inhabited it. For just as the Holy Spirit is in us, showing us or making us a temple of God, in the same manner we say that the Word of God dwelt in Christ himself in the flesh as in a temple, having sanctified it as one dwelling in it. We say indeed that, although he is called a temple, nevertheless that which was assumed was his very own, so that he might be reckoned as one with him; not because he passes over to the nature of the deity, but rather because of the composition concerning the dispensational union. For God was in the flesh for our sake.

CHAPTER CCXIX [308]

The Epistle of Emperor Theodosius to the aforementioned.

Emperors Caesars Theodosius and Valentinian, victors, triumphers, greatest, ever-divine, Augusti, to the most God-beloved and most blessed Archbishop John, and to the holy synod which has gathered with him.

Our empire has learned of the perturbation and tumult which has occurred in the East from our most religious Father and Bishop Proclus. And because we concern ourselves with the quiet and peace of all, but especially for the sake of the right faith 893 which guards us and our empire, we have written to your holiness through this epistle, that you might patronize peace, and deem of no moment those who wish to disturb the most salutary religion against their own salvation. For it is the intent of our dignity that all men live in quiet. But especially the holy Church of God, through which we too are saved, and our empire grows. Therefore, by this voice, provide for the quiet of the Church. For we expect something more useful from you. May God preserve you for many years, most venerable Fathers.

CHAPTER CCXX [309]

Translated from the codex of the Acoemetae monastery. The Epistle, it says, is tractory or general, from the most holy and universal council.

The holy and universal synod, which was gathered in Ephesus by decree of the most pious princes, to each holy synod which is in every part of the world, greeting in the Lord.

Having gathered in the Ephesian city according to the pious letters, some of us, in number a little more than thirty, withdrew, having as the prince of their apostasy John, the Bishop of Antioch: whose names are these. That is, John of Antioch of Syria, Macarius, Julian, Alexander, Diogenes, Apringius, Placus, Alexander, Theodorus, Heliades, Meletius, John, Paul, Matthew, Marcellinus, Helladius, Maximianus, Helladius, Dexianus, Gerontius, Asterius, Antiochus, Dorotheus, Jacob, Zebinus, Peter, Fritilas, Himerius, Theodoxius, Eutherius, Anastasius, Tranquillinus, Basil, Pausianus, Maximus, Daniel, Eustachius: who, having with them certain deposed ones, before all things indeed defending the sentences of Nestorius and Caelestius, were most manifestly shown to be such in that they do not at all acquiesce with us against Nestorius; whom also the holy synod, by common sentence, has made alien from all ecclesiastical communion, and has deprived of all priestly operation, by which they could either harm or help.

Since, however, it was fitting that those who were absent from the synod, and have persisted in each province, should not be ignorant of what has been decreed concerning these, we make it known to your holiness that, whether any metropolitan of any religion, withdrawing from this holy and universal conventicle, has been added to that council of apostasy, or if after these things he commits himself to it, or if he has thought or shall think those things which are of Caelestius, after these things he shall be able to prevail nothing against the bishops of his own region, having been made an exile from this present synod from all ecclesiastical communion, and deprived of effect. But even to the bishops themselves of his own region, and to the neighboring metropolitans from everywhere, who 894 feel in an orthodox way, under...

the threat of being utterly deprived of the episcopal rank.

If, however, any parochial bishops, having abandoned this holy council, have joined themselves to the same schism, or have attempted to be joined, or if any of those who signed the deposition of Nestorius have returned to the conventicle of his schism, we decree that these, according to what has pleased this holy synod, are totally alien from the priesthood and fall from the same rank.

But if any of the clergy in each city have been suspended from office by Nestorius or by those who are with him, because they thought correctly, we have decreed that these be restored to their own rank.

And in general, we order that those clergy who think the same as this orthodox and universal synod be in no way subject to those who have departed or are about to depart, and let them not be subject to them in any way.

But if any of the clergy have departed and have presumed, either secretly or openly, to favor the things that are Nestorius's or the things that are Cœlestius's, them also we decree to be deposed by the holy synod.

Whosoever, however, have been deposed by this holy conventicle for improper acts, or by their own bishops, and have irregularly, without discernment, attempted to recover communion or rank in all their matters, Nestorius, or those who think the things that are his, we have decreed that they be without any solace and that they nonetheless remain deposed. ^A

^B Likewise also the Holy Spirit. 895 For I speak of the Son as begotten without time and without beginning, coeternal with the Father; and the Wisdom, which ever exists from God and the Father.

I believe also in the procession of the Holy Spirit, which I do not call generation. And the generation of the Son I do not call procession.

When, however, the logic of those things that are said demands it, I confess one God: not denying the subsistences; but, by the name, designating that which is common to the consubstantiality. When I speak of consubstantiality, I do not speak of the consubstantiality of one person, but of three; that is, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For one person is not called consubstantial to itself, but this belongs to the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the Father. The difference, therefore, is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Likewise, even if any should wish in any way to stir up the things that were enacted regarding each matter in this holy synod of Ephesus, this same holy synod has defined that, if they be bishops or clergy, they shall by all means fall from their own rank; if, however, they be laics, they shall be deprived of communion. ^C

CHAPTER CCXXI.

Likewise I have translated from an ancient Acœmetan codex, that which is thus entitled, Profession of faith of Acacius, bishop of Beroea.

I believe in one God, who is acknowledged in three persons, the cause and maker of all: one substance, eternal, without beginning, unbegotten, incomprehensible, unviewable, uncircumscriptible, immutable, immortal, impassible; that is, which I say is not susceptible of passion, either in itself or in any other; for the divine nature exists impassible on all sides.

I speak of one God, because He truly exists as God. But I flee polytheism, by which a plurality of gods is introduced. Yet to acknowledge Him in three persons is the subversion of Judaism. For I confess the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, and the Holy Spirit in God the Son and the Father.

I confess Christ coeternal with the Father according to divinity, being in no way inferior to the Father in the mode of substance or subsistence regarding the deity.

Thus I confess Christ, God and man, the Son of God, one Son from two natures: from passible and impassible, from mortal and immortal, from visible and invisible, and not having a beginning, from uncircumscriptible and circumscriptible: who, indeed, was born without beginning and eternally from the Father according to deity; yet the same one was born in the last days from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary according to flesh.

But I do not say that the flesh was begotten from God and the Father.

The mode of subsistence or the name is a habit; but it is not a signification simply of substance. The being, therefore, of the Father is God, whose however the Father is. And the being of the Son is God, whose however the Son is. So also the Holy Spirit. Those, however, whose being is the same, according to my faith regarding the consubstantial Trinity, these things have been said.

I will speak also of the inhumanation of the Word of God for our sake, concerning which there is for us a very great question, not only against all heretics, but also against those who are considered domestic to the faith.

Thus, therefore, I believe, according to Cyril of holy memory. On account of His own clemency and great benignity toward the human race, it pleased the Word of God in the end of days to build for Himself from the holy Virgin Mary a temple, which was in His foreknowledge.

God the Word took this temple, immaculate and without any sin, for our salvation, for the manifestation of His divinity. And through it, in it, He sent forth our salvation. On account of His own benignity, as I have said, and regarding the dispensation toward us, inarrably and ineffably uniting this to Himself from the very beginning of the formation in the womb. And He deigned that it should be the same Son with Him by union to Him, and of all dominion, and honor, and glory, and power, which as God the Word He has otherwise: so that the form of God and the form of a servant belong to one person, one Son, one Lord, Christ. ^D

I confess Christ, the Son of God, God and man, 896 one Son from two natures: from passible and impassible, from mortal and immortal, from visible and invisible, and not having a beginning, from uncircumscriptible and circumscriptible: who indeed was born without beginning and eternally from the Father according to deity; the same one, however, was born in the last days from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary according to the flesh.

But I do not say that the flesh was begotten from God and the Father.

^A nor that the divine nature itself [was born] from the holy Virgin; but [I say] that according to the divinity He is begotten without beginning from God the Father, whereas according to the flesh, he was brought forth in the last days from the birth of the Virgin Mary. Thus I confess one Son of God: impassible regarding his divinity, but passible regarding [his] humanity. Yet I do not say that in the passions, nor in the womb, that temple was separated from the in-dwelling divinity, but was united from the very moment of conception. Nor, however, would I say that the Word of God was circumscribed with it. For the divine nature is uncircumscribed.

The birth, therefore, from the holy Mary, as I have said, is *Christ the Son of God, not that uncircumscribed nature, but that circumscribed [nature]. For I have said above that Christ the Son of God is both uncircumscribed and characterized by circumscription. According to the divine nature, he is uncircumscribed, but according to the human [nature], he is circumscribed. According to this [human nature], Christ the Son of God is circumscribed in the manger, in the swaddling clothes, on the cross, and in the tomb; but according to that other [divine nature], he is infinite and uncircumscribed, and he held and holds all things.

I speak, therefore, of one from two natures. Christ the Son of God suffers, therefore, not by his divinity, but by his humanity; that is, Christ suffered in the flesh. The assumed nature suffers; yet that which assumed it remains impassible. But the God Word considers the passions of his own human temple as his own. I say "concerning" both death and other things, whatever seem to belong to the dispensation. He makes them his own, even while he himself suffers nothing. But because those natures pertain to one person, he makes the ^C properties of the passible [nature] his own, as being the impassible one. Yet that impassible Word of God does not suffer by making these passions his own; but, as I have said, he adopts the passions of his own flesh.

Truly, it is one thing to suffer by virtue of being that which makes the passions its own, and another thing just to make the passions its own. I say they are not the passions of another Son, but the passions of another nature. For he suffers by no reasoning, he who is naturally incapable of suffering. Nor did the Word, having become flesh, undergo change. For he is said to have become, in such a way as it is said, "He took." And, "He who was in the form of God, took the form of a servant." For this [word "took"] signifies ^A that which follows: "And he dwelt among us." For neither is the distance of the natures destroyed by the unity of the Son. But just as there is one corruptible body, and another immortal soul, yet from both one human being consists: so from the mortal and the immortal and beginningless nature of the God Word, I confess one person of the Son: and although the impassible Word was united to the passible [nature], he did not endure the experience of passion. Indeed, the Son of God is both passible and impassible, but passible, indeed, in the flesh, and impassible in the divinity, having a temporal beginning according to the flesh, but ^B without beginning according to the deity. These things I have written down, just as I hold them myself.

CHAPTER CCXXII. EUTYCHIS HERETICI EPISTOLA,

Confiding in my hope in the Lord and God of all, Christ, before all things, the God Word is my witness, discerning in my sentiments the proof of the truth of this matter: I call upon your holiness to be a witness to my heart, and to the reasoning of my sentiments and words. But the most wicked devil has bewitched this study and purpose of ours, from which his powers ought to have been destroyed. By these [means], he stirred up all the force domestic to him, by moving against me Eusebius, bishop of the town of Dorylaeum, who gave a petition to the holy bishop of the Church of Constantinople, Flavian, and to certain others ^C who happened to be in the same city for their own various causes, [claiming] how he accused me as a heretic, not moving the accusation with truth, but plotting my destruction, and the perturbation of the Churches of God. I was called by your holinesses to answer the accusation, but, held back by a grave sickness upon my very old age, I came to [seek] purification, not ignorant of the faction composed against my welfare. And, indeed, I immediately presented the writings, having added my signature to the petitions, showing my profession concerning the holy faith. But the holy archbishop Flavian neither accepting the petition, nor ordering that it be read, yet listening, and responding that I [should hold] the faith in the very words which were set forth at Nicaea...

but was being requested to confess two natures and to anathematize those who would deny this. I, however, fearing to add to or subtract a word from the faith set forth by the holy Nicene synod, and knowing that our holy and blessed Fathers Julius, Felix, Athanasius, and Gregory—holy bishops—refuted the term "two natures," and not daring to speculate concerning the nature of the Word of God, who in the last days came in flesh into the womb of the holy Virgin Mary immutably, in the way He willed and knows, having become man in truth and not in phantasm, I begged that I might not be forced to anathematize the aforementioned Fathers, but that these things might be made known ^A to your holiness, and that you might judge as seems right to you, professing in every way that I would follow what you have approved. But with none of my words being heard, they abruptly published a sentence of deposition against me, which they were constructing by a faction of calumny, so that even my safety was placed in jeopardy, had not the works of God, through the prayers of your holiness, quickly snatched me from their incursion through the arm of the military. Then the leaders of other monasteries began to compel me to subscribe to my deposition, which was never done even to those who have professed themselves heretics, or against Nestorius himself. To such an extent that when I proposed my confessions of faith to satisfy the people, they not only prevented them from being heard, but those who were plotting against me by the aforementioned faction even seized them, so that I might thereafter be held among all as a heretic.

To you, therefore, defenders of religion and those who detest such factions, I take refuge, bringing nothing new now against the faith handed down to us from the beginning, but anathematizing Apollinarius, Valentinus, Manes, and Nestorius, and those who say that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ the Savior descended from heaven, and was not from the Holy Spirit and the holy Virgin Mary; and all heresies up to Simon Magus. And nevertheless, I am in danger of my life as a heretic. I beseech you, let no prejudice be done to me from those things which have been carried out against me by treachery, that you may see fit to deliver judgment concerning the faith, and that you may allow no further calumny from these factious men to proceed against me; and that he who has lived his life for seventy years in continence and all chastity should not be struck down and removed from the number of the orthodox, so that in the very conclusion of his life he should suffer shipwreck. I have subjoined to these letters of mine both documents: both the one which was presented to the synod by my accuser, and the one which was indeed prepared by me but was not accepted; and the edition of my faith, ^B as well as that which was decreed by the holy fathers concerning the two natures.

CAPUT CCXXIII [312]. Item, the words of Eutyches.

I testify before God, who makes all things alive, and Christ Jesus, who testified that good confession under Pontius Pilate, that you should do nothing out of partiality. For I have felt this way from my ancestors, and from my childhood I have been enlightened in the same way as the holy synod of the three hundred and eighteen most blessed bishops held at Nicaea constituted the faith, and which the holy synod gathered at Ephesus preserved and newly defined. And I have never felt otherwise than as the straight and only true orthodox faith has commanded. And I assent to all things, whatsoever have been constituted concerning that same faith by the same holy synod at Ephesus: of which synod the leader and prince was Cyril, bishop of blessed and holy memory, of the Alexandrians, and I am a companion and participant of the preaching and faith of those holy and elect of God, Gregory the Great, and likewise Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Atticus, and Proclus. I have held him and all those as orthodox and faithful, and have honored them as saints, and have considered them my teachers. But I say anathema to Nestorius, and Apollinarius, and all heretics up to Simon, ^C and to those who say that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ descended from heaven. For He himself, who is the Word of God, descended from heaven without flesh, and became flesh in the womb of the holy Virgin, from that same flesh of the Virgin, immutably and inconvertibly, as He himself knew and willed. And He who is ever perfect God before the ages, the same became also perfect man in the end of days for us and for our salvation. This, therefore, is my full profession, may your holiness, etc.

I, Eutyches, presbyter and archimandrite, have subscribed to this libellus with my own hand.

CAPUT CCXXIV [313]. Exemplar of Julius bishop of the city of Rome, as Eutyches' writings claim, to Dionysius the bishop, by whose sense Eutyches himself was led into error.

I marvel to hear some indeed confessing the Lord in the flesh, but truly incurring the division badly introduced by the Paulianists. For they, following Paul of Samosata, understand one, he who descended from heaven, confessing him to be God; ^D but they say that the other is a man of the earth; and the one indeed they call un-inhabitable: the other Lord, the other a servant. Impious...

are they who worship him whom they call a servant and a creature, or do not worship him who redeemed us with his own blood. But they who confess that God descended from heaven, and that flesh was made from the Virgin, and that one exists with the flesh, are troubled in vain, exceeding into words of impiety themselves. For they too say, as I hear, two natures. To which 900 Saint John clearly proves our one Lord, when he says, *The Word was made flesh* [John 1, 14]. And the apostle Paul, when he says: *One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things* [1 Cor. 8, 6]. For if he who is born of the Virgin is called Jesus, and he himself is the one through whom all things were made, there is clearly one nature composed, since there is also one person, not divided into two; since neither is the ^B proper nature of the body, nor is the proper nature of the Godhead according to the flesh. But just as man is one nature, so also is he who was made the Christ in the likeness of man. But if they do not acknowledge that which is one through union, they can also divide the one into many parts, and say there are very many natures: since a complex body, which consists of bones, nerves, and veins, flesh and skin, blood and spirit, which are all distinct among themselves, yet is their nature one. Whence also the nature of the Deity with the body is one. And it is not ^C divided into two natures. For the Son of Man, who had descended from the heavens, could not be called whole, and again the Son of God, who is born of a woman, if he admitted the division of two natures: but indeed that which had descended from the heavens would be called the Son of Man, not the Son of God. And this is of the Paulian division. But the divine Scriptures teach us to think as of one Lord, both when he had descended from the heavens, and when he was born on earth. Whoever therefore thinks thus, does not deviate from those who think the opposite things, that while they consent to the divine precepts in mind, they differ in expressions. For it is ^D necessary that they, when they understand two natures, worship the one and not worship the other: and truly be baptized into the divine, but not baptized into the human. But if we are baptized into the Lord’s death, we profess one nature, both of the impassible Godhead and of the passible flesh, that through this our baptism may be received both into God and into the death of the Lord. Nor do we fear the calumniators who divide the Lord into two persons: lest while we preach the evangelical and apostolic unity, they tear us apart as though saying the flesh is heavenly; while we, on the contrary, read the divine Scriptures, saying the Son is not from heaven. Nor when we say the Son of God is created from a woman can we be reproached, as though saying the Word is from the earth, and not from heaven. For we say both: and the whole from heaven because of the Deity; and the whole from the woman because of the Deity, ignorant of the division of one person.

901 CHAPTER CCXXV [314]

Your nobility sent me a copy of the little book concerning the exposition of the new faith of Eutyches, which he set forth by writing to the most blessed pope of the apostolic see, Leo. You also deigned to write, that if I felt anything about it, I should indicate it in the letters of my humility. Which indeed you yourself, out of the zeal of your holy mind, deigned to affectionately enjoin, but to me having a trembling mind, and a heart filled with fear in this question, it seems dangerous to approach, when the doctor and illuminator of the Gentiles, the apostle Paul, ^B generally warns and says: *But avoid foolish and unlearned questions, and contentions, and fights of the law. They are unprofitable and vain* [Tit. 3, 9]. Nevertheless, by the prayers of the same most blessed apostle Paul, with the Lord and God Jesus Christ assisting, what my rustic language and my meager sense can do, I shall approach: not as the magnitude and majesty of the faith requires, but as the thin powers of my humility allow. Since, therefore, I ran through the aforementioned copy of the letter or booklet of Eutyches’ faith, among other things of his textual words I found [a place] where he complains that he is asked by the holy council of bishops to confess two natures in Christ. Which, if he had wished to confess, consulting his own continence and the labors of chastity in himself, he never would have felt the danger ^C to his own faith. But because he did not wish to confess two natures in Christ into one person of Christ, according to the tradition of the apostles, or prophets, or Gospels, in the very harbor of his departure he not only suffered the shipwreck of the labors of his own continence, but also already long ago disturbed the well-founded faith of the Churches throughout the world, and to the heap of his own perfidy, he killed the worshipper of Christ and faithful preacher of the good faith, the blessed bishop Flavian. And he indeed, in times of quiet, with no public persecution existing, receiving the crown of martyrdom, now glories with his blessed teacher the apostle Paul, and says: *I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord will render to me in that day, the just judge: and not only to me, but to all those who love his manifestation* [II Tim. 4, 7-8].

*And he indeed glorying with all the saints in the Lord, it is necessary for us, if we deserve it, to follow in his 902 footsteps, and to hold the tradition of the faith, through which he deserved a glorious exit, with all the strengths of faith and even unto death, and to confess two natures into the one person of Christ: of divinity and of humanity, of the creator and of the created, of the assumer and of the assumed.

These substances or natures, however, are not confused, but are united, and in one and the same person inseparably, and they always remain in their own proper condition. ^A Wherefore, the properties belonging to each substance or nature must be applied to it—that is, the weaknesses to the humanity which was created, but those things worthy of the divinity to the divinity which created. For these two natures are so united and joined together in the one person of Christ, that the same Jesus Christ the Son of God, being God and man, sometimes does or speaks human things, and at other times divine things. Indeed, to demonstrate in Himself the substances of the two natures, that is, of divinity and humanity, He sleeps in the boat as man, and as God He commands the storm, the powerful wind, or the sea, saying: "Peace, be still." And after a fast of forty days and forty nights, He hungers as man, and in the wilderness, He feeds five thousand men, besides women and children, with five loaves and two fish as God. And what more? By the Jews He is crucified, and pierced in the side with a spear, and He dies as man; and as God He raises from the tomb Lazarus, who had been dead four days, by divine authority saying: "Lazarus, come forth." The tradition, therefore, O lord, of these two natures in Christ is to be firmly guarded, lest along with Eutyches or others who share his views, by confusing them into one, we should follow a new path of uncertain faith. For you most correctly disdain them, since everything that is confused is known to be obscure and uncertain. For as far as can be understood, they seem with an unwise mind to confuse the proper natures of divinity and humanity into one, so that by not separating the substance of humanity from the nature of the divinity of Christ, they declare by their very voice that God is passible.

For indeed, the letter which Eutyches asserts was written by Julius, formerly bishop of the city of Rome, and which he has brought forward, I know not why, perhaps falsely, for the comfort of his own perfidy, and by the erroneous sense of which he is known to be led, professes in the very last part of its text, saying: "Whoever, therefore, thinks in this way, do not depart from those who think things that are discordant and contrary, so that while they agree in mind with divine precepts, they differ in their words. For it is necessary that they, when they understand two natures, should worship the one and not worship the other, and be baptized into the divine, but not in the human." ^B You see, therefore, how those who assault and confuse the substance of the two natures attempt in a perfidious sense to declare God passible. But we, who hold the right path of the Catholic faith, omitting this confusion of the two natures, have been baptized into the Lord’s flesh, and we worship it for this reason: because it was assumed by the divinity and so united to it, that we do not confess another and another, but one and the same God and man, the Son of God. For if Eutyches, or others who agree with him, separate man from Christ God, them we never worship or serve. Or if any one of us should find the royal purple or a crown lying on the ground, would he dare to worship them? But as soon as the king is clothed in them, he incurs the danger of death if someone refuses to worship them together with the king. So, if any one refuses to worship the perfect humanity of Christ our Lord—not alone and naked, but united to His divinity—as one and the same Son of God, true God and true man, he shall suffer eternal death.

There follows also Julius, by whose opinion Eutyches is led, and who says: "If we are baptized into the death of the Lord, we profess one nature, both of the impassible deity and of the passible flesh." I wish to know more fully, how do they speak of "flesh"? If this flesh is without a soul, what is this flesh but earth without sense, which could neither give thanks nor feel the sufferings of the cross? That flesh without a soul cannot feel is manifest to all. But if, as they think, the divinity was in that Lordly flesh in place of a soul, then they subject the divinity to passions; but if, as the most faithful reason of the Scriptures holds true, He assumed along with the flesh the human nature of man, so as to show that He had assumed along with the human flesh a human soul also, that is, a perfect man. For He says: "The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep." And, "I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again." And in the very article of His passion He says: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death." And, "Now is my soul troubled." For God is not at any time troubled; but that man, assuredly, who hungered, who thirsted, who slept, who became weary and wept: all of which things the flesh alone could not feel without the affections of the soul; unless it were that perfect man whom perfect God assumed, as says the prophet Jeremiah: "This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted in comparison of Him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved." And he added: "Afterward He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men." But in what form He was seen upon earth and conversed, the most holy of the prophets Isaiah most fully ^D and clearly sets forth: "Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have announced before Him as children, as a root in a thirsty ground. He hath no form, nor glory. We have seen Him, and He had no form, nor comeliness; but His appearance was without honor, and rejected before all men. A man placed in a plague, knowing how to bear infirmities. Because His appearance was turned away, and He was dishonored, and esteemed as nothing. This man bears our sins, and grieves for us. We esteemed Him in...

^A grief, and in wound, and in vexation; but He was wounded for our sins, and became infirm for our iniquities. The correction of our peace was upon Him, and we are healed by His stripes. We have all wandered like sheep, and all men have strayed from their own way, and the Lord has handed Him over for our faults. Yet He, being wretchedly vexed, restrained His lips, and was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is voiceless, so He did not open His mouth. In humility His judgment was taken away; and who shall declare His generation? Because His life shall be taken from the earth, and for the iniquities of my people He is led to death. And I will give the empty for His burial, and the rich for His death. Because He did no iniquity, nor was deceit found in His mouth. And the Lord desires to cleanse Him from the wound. If you give your souls for sin, you shall see a seed of long life, and the Lord wishes to comfort His soul, to show Him the light, to form Him through prudence, to justify the just one who well serves many. And He Himself bore their sins. Therefore He shall possess the many as an inheritance, and shall divide the spoils of the strong. Because of this His soul was delivered unto death, and He was reckoned among the iniquitous. And He Himself takes away the sins of many. And for our iniquities He was delivered up.

Observe therefore, my lord, according to the zeal of your holy mind, how the aforementioned prophets, Jeremiah and Isaiah, agree with one another in asserting how the perfect God, descending from heaven for the salvation of the human race, took on man, and how [each] assigns the above-mentioned passions of Isaiah to that nature of the man assumed in Christ. For could God, who is invisible, indeed be comprehended, or delivered to enemies, or reckoned among the impious, or die, or have His life taken from the earth? But He certainly, who, as we have already said above, hungered, thirsted, was wearied, slept, and wept, who even hanging 905 on the cross of passion, when He saw the God who dwelt within Him departing from His body, cried out with a tearful voice after Him, saying in the Hebrew tongue: *Heli, Heli, lamma sabachthani?* which is, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" although He was to resurrect Him on the third day. Yet it was necessary that that which Jesus had already foretold in the Gospel to His disciples should be fulfilled, saying: "I proceeded from God, I came forth from the Father, and I came into this world, and again I leave this world, and I go to the Father." Indeed, even in the passion itself, although He, the perfect man, assumed by the perfect God, suffers the impious penalty while dying on the cross, yet the impassible God Himself in that same perfect man whom He assumed—although He did not sustain the passion—nevertheless suffered the injury. For just as he who tears a garment offers injury to the one clothed, so also those who crucified His flesh brought injury to His divinity. Therefore, all the elements, seeing this injury of the divinity, trembled. ^B For then the earth shook, the rocks were cleft, the sun fled into night, the moon was darkened with a blood-red color, and as if the world were already oppressed by eternal damnation, the stars were torn from their celestial places and fell, and the law of the elements being confused, the graves were opened, and bodies long ago buried received back their souls.

Therefore, the most faithful Catholic doctors of the churches throughout the world, according to the authority of the Scriptures, preach two natures in Christ, of divinity and of humanity. Would that Eutyches had considered this, and had not, through the labors of so many years of abstinence, blinded his open eyes, nor brought forth an impious perturbation for the Churches of the East by proclaiming God passible through the confused substances of the two natures. But since the Apostle Paul completes his argument on this matter, saying: "Because in the last times some shall depart from the faith," yet he solicitously warns us saying: "Attend to seducing spirits and doctrines of liars, having ^C a seared conscience." For unless he had had, according to the Apostle's word, a conscience seared and unstable in its faith, he would never have excited such great confusion for the Churches of God, nor would he have made the holy three hundred and eighteen Fathers of the Nicene Council, and also Cyril, and Athanasius, Felix, Gregory, and Proclus, those holy bishops, partners in his perfidy—men who were enrolled among the saints and elect of God in the number and book of the living, not by following his perfidy, but by teaching the faith explained above by my humility. But in order to deceive the simple and the unlearned, and lead them to join their minds to him, he feigns that those aforementioned holy men, authors and preachers of the Catholic faith, are partners in his new and most novel perfidy. Truly in this Eutyches the sentence of the Apostle is fulfilled 906, saying: "Such pseudo-apostles are deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder. For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as ministers of justice, whose end shall be according to their works." According to this sentence of the Apostle, therefore, since he is a minister of perfidy, he feigns himself to be a partner to the ministers of justice, from whom he did not hold the aforementioned reason of our faith, but set forth one learned by himself: among whose disciples, and most sweet faithful sons of the faith, I desire your nobility to be inscribed equally with me, so that, following the footsteps of their faith, if we deserve it, we may merit to obtain mercy in the future judgment by the prayers of the triple and united majesty of piety, that is, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

^A to judge by their opinions, not to undergo a contest. But if you see that the synod has finished its work and all the bishops have returned, it must be inquired how the matters were concluded. If they were conducted for the sake of the ancient Catholic faith, and you learn that my holy brother Cyril has set out for Constantinople, it is necessary for you to go there, so that you may present our letters to the Emperor. But if matters have acted out otherwise, and the situation is one of dissension, you will be able to infer from the actual state of affairs what you ought to do with the counsel of our aforementioned brother. Given on the eighth day before the Ides of May, in the consulship of Bassus and Antiochus.

VARIOUS NOTES. In place of that commonitorium, Mansi substitutes in Vol. V, p. 1023 et seq., the epistle of Theodoret to the monks of Euphratesia, which see above, Vol. IV, p. 1291 et seq.

SEVEN DIALOGUES ON THE TRINITY

SERMONS OF EUTHERIUS OF TYANA