Confession of the Right Faith against the Three Chapters

will at the same time render an account of both: some, exalted by judgment to a certain heavenly place, enjoy felicity according to the merits of their life. But it is easy to perceive the absurdity of this opinion; for who taught him those millennial revolutions of years, and that after the lapse of a thousand years each soul arrives at its own place? What he inserts here is not proper to be said even by the shameless themselves, however lustful, much less by such and so great a philosopher: since he joined those who have led a life full of purity even to the end with the intemperate and those who love boys, and said that both enjoy the same goods. Pythagoras, therefore, and Plato, and Plotinus, and others of their sect, who with one consent confess that souls are immortal, affirm that they are prior to bodies, and that there is a certain multitude of souls, and that those which transgress are sent down into bodies, as I said: and that the sluggish souls go into asses, the rapacious into wolves, the deceitful into foxes, and those who are mad with lust for women into horses. ^B But the Church, following the divine Scriptures, says that the soul was created together with the body, and not one before and the other after, according to the madness of Origen. For this reason, then, we exhort you, most holy Fathers, gathered together, to read carefully the following exposition of these wicked and pernicious opinions—or rather, trifles—and to condemn each of its points, and to anathematize, along with Origen, all who think or shall think these things to the end.

CONFESSION OF THE TRUE FAITH OF JUSTINIAN THE EMPEROR AGAINST THE THREE CHAPTERS

^C In the name of God and the Father, and of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. The Emperor Caesar, Christ-loving Justinian, Alemannicus, Gothicus, Francicus, Germanicus, Anticus, Alanicus, Vandalicus, Africanus, pious, fortunate, renowned, victor, triumpher, ever-venerable, Augustus, to all the fullness of the catholic and apostolic Church. ^D Knowing that nothing else so propitiates the merciful God as that all Christians should think one and the same thing concerning the right and immaculate faith, and that there should be no schisms in the holy Church of God, we have thought it necessary, removing every occasion for those who are scandalized or who cause scandal, to make manifest by the present edict the confession of the right faith which is preached in the holy Church of God; so that both those who confess the right faith may firmly keep it, and those who contend against it, learning the truth, may hasten to unite themselves to the holy Church of God. We confess, therefore, that we believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead, that is...

one nature, one power, and one authority in three subsistences, or persons, in whom we have been baptized, in whom we have believed, and to whom we have been joined ^A, distinguishing the properties, but uniting the Godhead. For we adore the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, a mystery having both division and union: Unity according to the reason of the substance, that is, the Godhead; but Trinity according to the properties, or subsistences, that is, the persons. For it is divided without division (as we might say) and conjoined in a divided way. For the Godhead is one in three, and the three are one, in which the Godhead consists; or, to speak more precisely, that which is the Godhead is each God, if it is viewed solely by the mind separating the inseparable. The three are God, existing together by the sameness of power, movement, and nature; since it is necessary both to confess one God and to preach three subsistences, that is, three persons, each with its own property. And in confessing the union, we do not ^B create a confusion after the manner of Sabellius, who calls the Trinity one person with three names, the same being Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit; nor, by dividing the properties, do we alienate the Son and the Holy Spirit from the substance of God the Father, cutting the Godhead into three diverse natures according to the madness of Arius. There is, therefore, one God the Father, of whom are all things; and one begotten Son, through whom are all things; and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things.

Confession of the True Faith against the Three Chapters

^C We confess also that he, the only-begotten Son of God, God the Word, born of the Father before the ages and without time, not made, in the last days for us and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the holy, glorious Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, and was born of her; who is Lord Jesus Christ, one of the holy Trinity, consubstantial with God the Father according to the Godhead, and the same consubstantial with us according to the humanity, passible in the flesh, the same impassible in his Godhead. For it is not some other person beside God the Word who has undergone the passion and death; but the impassible and eternal God the Word himself, having deigned to undergo the generation of human flesh, has filled all things. Therefore we do not understand God the Word, who performed the miracles, to be one, and Christ, who suffered, ^D to be another; but we confess one and the same Lord of ours, Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate and made man, and his very own miracles and passions, which he voluntarily endured in the flesh. For it was not some man who gave himself for us, but God the Word himself gave his own body for us, so that our faith and hope might not be in a man, but that we might have our faith in God the Word himself. And thus, confessing him to be God, we do not deny that he is also man; and calling him man, we do not deny him to be God. For if he were God only, how would he suffer, how would he be crucified and die? For these things are alien to God. But if he were man only, how did he conquer through his passion? How did he save? How did he give life? For these things were above a man. Now, however, the same [one] suffers, and saves, and through the passion conquers; the same God, the same man, the con-

^A both as one, and both as it were alone. Whence, saying that there is one composite Christ from both natures, that is, from divinity and humanity, we do not introduce confusion into the union. And knowing the one Lord of us, Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate and made man, in both natures—that is, in divinity and humanity—we do not introduce a division by parts, or an incision into his one subsistence; but we signify the difference of the natures from which he was composed, which is not destroyed because of the union, since both natures are in him. For composition being confessed, it is necessary that parts exist in the whole, and the whole be known in the parts. For neither was the divine nature changed into the human, nor was the human nature turned into the divine; but rather, with each nature understood and existing in the limit and definition of its own nature, we believe the union to have been effected according to subsistence.

The union according to subsistence signifies that the Word of God, that is, the one subsistence from the three subsistences of the Godhead, was not united to a man pre-existing, but in the womb of the holy Virgin he created for himself, out of her, in his own subsistence, flesh ensouled with a rational and intellectual soul, which is human nature. And teaching us this union of the Word of God to the flesh according to subsistence, the divine Apostle also says: ^B "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil. II). For by saying, "Who, being in the form of God," he showed the subsistence of the Word to exist in the nature of God. By saying, "He took the form of a servant," he signified that the Word of God was united to the nature of man, and not to a subsistence or person. For he did not say that he took him who existed in the form of a servant, lest he should show that the Word of God was united to a man pre-existing, as Theodore and Nestorius, being impious, blasphemed, saying the union was relative. But we, following the divine Scriptures and the holy Fathers, confess that the Word of God became flesh, which is to unite to himself human nature according to subsistence. Whence also our Lord Jesus Christ is one, having in himself the perfection of the divine nature and the perfection of the human nature. And he is the only-begotten and Word, as born of God the Father, and ^C the firstborn among many brethren, the same, when he became man; for the Son of God became the Son of man. And remaining what he was, he did not change what he became.

Whence we also confess two births of the same only-begotten Word of God: the one before the ages from the Father, immaterially; the other, in the last days, of the same, incarnate and made man from the holy, glorious Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary. For he who shone forth from the Father beyond intellect, rose from the mother beyond speech. And being true God, he truly became man. On account of this we confess the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary to be the Theotokos, properly and in truth. Not as though the Word of God took his beginning from her, but because in the last days the only-begotten Word of God, who is before the ages, having been made flesh from her, changelessly became man; and being invisible in his own, he became visible in those things that are ours; and being ^D impassible as God, he did not disdain to be passible as man.

and ^A being immortal, to be subject to the laws of death. This one, born in Bethlehem of the seed of David according to the flesh, and who was made like unto men, and was crucified for us men under Pontius Pilate, the holy apostles proclaimed to be God, and him to be man, and him the Son of man, and him from heaven, and him from earth, and him impassible, and him passible. For the Word, born from above of the Father ineffably, inexpressibly, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is himself born in time from below of the Virgin Mary, that those who were born from below first might be born from above a second time, that is, from God. He, therefore, possesses a mother only upon the earth, and we possess a Father only in heaven. For having taken the mortal father of men, Adam, he gave to men his own immortal Father, according to that which is said: "He gave them power to become the sons of God" (John 1). Whence also the Son of God tastes death according to the flesh because of his carnal father, that the sons of man might partake of his life because of their Father according to the spirit, who is God. He, therefore, is by nature the Son of God, ^B while we are such by grace. And again, he, by economy and for our sake, became the son of Adam, while we are by nature sons of Adam. For God is his Father by nature, while he is ours by grace. And God was to him by economy, because he became man, while he is our Lord and God by nature. And for this reason, the Word, who is the Son of God the Father, being united to flesh, became flesh, that men, being united to the Spirit, might become one spirit. He, therefore, the true Son of God, clothes us all, that we all might put on the one God; and even after the incarnation, the Only-Begotten Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, is one of the holy Trinity, composite from each nature. We confess Christ to be composite, following the teaching of the holy fathers. For in the mystery of Christ, the union according to composition rejects confusion and division; and it preserves ^C the property of each nature, but shows one subsistence, or person, of God the Word even with the flesh; and he is one and the same, perfect in deity and perfect in humanity, not known as if in two subsistences or persons, but in the divine nature and the human, so that the one in both is perfect God and perfect man, the same Lord Jesus Christ, one of the holy Trinity to be glorified together with the Father and the holy Spirit. For the holy Trinity did not receive the addition of a fourth person, even when the one of the holy Trinity, God the Word, became incarnate. This good deposit, which we have received from the holy fathers, we keep, in which we live and spend our lives, and which we pray to have with us as we depart from this life, which is the confession of the Father, and of Christ the Son of the living God, and of the holy Spirit.

^D Confessing these things thus, along with the other doctrines concerning the right faith of the one among the saints, Cyril, and this which was said by him,

^A one nature of the Word of God incarnate, we receive and confess that from the divine nature and the human one Christ was effected, and not in one nature, as some, wrongly understanding the expression, attempt to say. Indeed, the Father himself, as often as he spoke of one nature of the Word incarnate, in this instance used the name of "nature" in place of "subsistence." And in the books where he used this expression, he frequently added in the following parts, sometimes "Son," sometimes "Word," or "Only-begotten," which are indicative not of nature, but of subsistence or person. Therefore, the subsistence of the Word, having become incarnate, did not effect one nature, but one composite Christ, the same himself being God and man. But for those who confess Christ as God and man to say there is one nature or substance in him is impious; ^B for it is impossible that our Lord Jesus Christ, according to one and the same nature or substance, should both be before the ages and in time, or impassible and passible, which we rightly confess in his one subsistence or person.

From the very words of the same Cyril among the saints, we will show his most manifest teaching concerning the aforementioned expression. For in the first epistle to Successus, having said "one nature of the Word of God incarnate," he immediately added: "Therefore, so far as pertains to the intellect and to seeing only with the eyes of the soul, in what manner the Only-begotten has been made man, we say that there are two natures united, but one Son and Christ and Lord, the Word of God the Father made man and incarnate." By these words the Father, wishing to set forth the manner of the incarnation, and keeping the union undivided and unconfused, ^C pointed out the number of the natures that came together and proclaimed one Christ, but not one nature of divinity and flesh.

And in the second epistle to the same Successus, teaching similar things, he writes thus: "For if, when we said 'the one nature of the Word,' we had stayed silent, not bringing in 'incarnate,' but as it were placing the dispensation outside, there would perhaps have been to them a plausible reason to ask, while conjuring things up, 'Where is the perfection in humanity, or how does our human substance subsist?' But since both the perfection in humanity and the manifestation of our substance have been introduced by saying 'incarnate,' let them cease setting up for themselves a reed staff. For it was right that he who casts out the dispensation and denies the incarnation should be accused, as he takes away from the Son the complete humanity. But if, as I said, by saying that he was incarnate, an evident and indubitable confession is made that he has become man, nothing any longer prevents us from understanding that since Christ is one and the only Son, the same is both God and man, just as he is perfect in divinity, so also is he perfect in humanity. Most rightly and very prudently, your perfection sets forth the account concerning the saving passion, not asserting that the Only-begotten Son of God himself, as he is understood and is God, suffered in his own nature the things of the body, but rather that he suffered in his earthy nature. For it is necessary that both things be preserved in the one and true Son—both that he does not suffer divinely, and that he is said to have suffered humanly. For it is his flesh that has suffered." And in the thirteenth chapter of the scholia, the same Cyril among the saints ^D

likewise rejecting those who introduce two sons, and those who say there is one nature of the deity and flesh of Christ, writes as follows: "We must not, therefore, distinguish the one Lord Jesus Christ into man separately and into God separately, but we declare one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, knowing the difference of the natures and preserving them unconfused with one another." If, therefore, as the saintly Cyril teaches us, our Lord Jesus Christ is one, perfect in divinity and the same one perfect in humanity, and he did not suffer in his divine nature, but in his earthly nature, and yet he knows the difference of the natures, and that they are preserved unconfused with one another in one subsistence, it is certain that the Father says he is to be recognized in the divine nature and in the human, and that both natures are in him, out of which he is also composed. ^B And let no one be so insane as to think that those who say there is one nature or essence of the flesh and divinity of Christ—the same being both divine and earthly, passible and impassible—think rightly.

Since, however, some also endeavor to demonstrate in another way that there is one nature of the divinity and humanity of Christ, putting forward the example of man, and saying that just as man, consisting of diverse natures, soul and body, is called one nature, so too, saying ^C that Christ is of two natures, divinity and humanity, we ought to say he has one nature: we will say this to them, that man, although he consists of diverse things, that is, soul and body, is nevertheless called one nature for this reason, because it is predicated commonly of all subsistences, or persons, that are referred under the same species. For although every subsistence, or person, such as Peter and Paul, is separated from others by properties, yet they are not divided in nature; for both are men; and again, neither soul without body, nor body without soul is a human being, but from that which was not, he was created into that which is, from soul and body. Every creature, ^D even if it consists of diverse things, is nevertheless said to have that one nature, according to which it was created by God. But Christ is not so; for he does not signify one nature, or essence, which is commonly predicated of many subsistences, or persons, as man is. For if this were so, many Christs would be found in whom the community of one nature would be predicated, which is impious even to say. But neither was Christ created from the beginning out of divinity and humanity, as man is from soul and body, so that this might be the nature of Christ; but since he was God the Word before the ages, and was of the same nature or essence as the Father, and the Creator of all things, in the last days, uniting to himself the human nature according to subsistence, he became man, remaining God.

Christ is therefore one subsistence, or person, and has in himself the perfection of the divine and uncreated nature, and the perfection of the human and created nature. How, therefore, in him in whom two natures are recognized—the uncreated and the created—can one nature or essence be said to be—

For although Christ is one subsistence or person, he is consubstantial with God the Father, and the same Christ is consubstantial with us, yet not according to one and the same nature or substance. But if Christ were one nature or substance, he would either be (if he were without flesh) consubstantial with God and the Father alone, since there is one substance or nature of the Godhead; or, being a mere man, he would be consubstantial with us alone, since there is one nature of humanity. But if each nature were changed into the other, it would be a nature ^A different from those that came together, and according to them, Christ would neither have remained God nor have become a man; and for this reason, he would not be consubstantial either with the Father or with us. But to think in this way is filled with every impiety. And we say these things not being ignorant that some of the holy Fathers have also used the example of man in the mystery concerning Christ; but they did so, indeed, to show that just as a man is made one out of soul and body, and not two men, so also Christ is one, composed of Godhead and humanity, and is not divided into two Christs or two sons. ^B These others, however, use the example of man in order to introduce one nature or substance of the Godhead and humanity of Christ, which we have shown to be alien to piety. But when they are refuted by these things, because they fabricate for themselves a single nature or substance of the Godhead and flesh contrary to the correct teaching of the Fathers, they pass on to other things, saying that one ought not to speak of a number of natures in Christ, as if number introduces division. Let them know, therefore, that number, when it is spoken of in regard to different persons or subsistences, implies a division of the things themselves ^C as parts, as in the case of two or more men; but when it is spoken of in regard to united things, then it has to do only with the word and contemplation, and not with a division of the things themselves, just as in the case of a single subsistence of a man consisting of soul and body. For two natures are also considered here, one of the soul and one of the body; and yet not for this reason is he divided into two men, but we know one man and one subsistence of him. And so, in the mystery of Christ, the union having taken place, even if the things that were united are considered to be different, still they are not, in reality, separated from one another ^D as parts—those things from which our Lord Jesus Christ was composed; nevertheless, perceiving the difference, and wishing to signify this, we take up the number, and we say that there are two natures in Christ, and not for this reason is the one Christ divided into two Christs or two sons. And the holy Gregory the Theologian testifies to the things said by us, writing in his first letter to Cledonius thus: "If anyone introduces two sons, one indeed from God and the Father, but the second from the mother, but does not introduce one and the same, let him fall from the adoption which has been promised to those who believe rightly. For the natures are two, God and man, just as are soul and body; but the sons are not two, nor are the gods two. For not even here are there two men, although Paul has referred to the inward and the outward man; and if one must speak briefly, the things of which the Savior is composed are one thing and another, if the invisible [is not the same as]

that which is subject to time; but he is not one and another: God forbid. ^A Behold, through these things, Saint Gregory clearly teaches that, in the mystery concerning Christ, he who speaks of number in terms of persons is condemned as impious; but he who accepts number in terms of the natures from which the one Christ is composed, confesses rightly, as he thereby signifies the difference of the natures that have come together, while in no way making a division that is according to parts. For just as there is one nature of the soul, and another of the body, and yet one man is formed according to composition, and not two men; so too in Christ, even if two natures are considered, one being of the deity, and another of the humanity, yet not on account of this are two Christs or two sons introduced. ^B Thus, those who refuse to speak of the number of the natures in Christ according to the aforementioned mode are clearly denying the difference of these, and are introducing a confusion into the dispensation. But if they confess the difference, it is necessary by all means that they also speak of the number of the natures that have come together without confusion into one subsistence to signify it. For where difference is preserved, number also follows in every way. To confirm what we have said, we shall use the testimony of the holy fathers to show that they say that in the mystery of Christ, the reasons are indeed divided according to the difference of the natures—deity and humanity—from which he is also composed, and they accept number in this regard, ^C yet they do not in actual fact and by parts make the division of the natures into two subsistences, that is, two persons. For Saint Cyril says in his interpretation of Leviticus thus: "Survey again clearly in these things the mystery of our Savior and the cleansing that takes place through holy baptism. For he commands that two living and clean birds be taken, so that you may understand through the birds the heavenly man at once and God, to be divided into two natures, in so far as it pertains to the account appropriate to each; for the Word of God, because He is from God the Father, shone forth in the flesh which is from a woman, yet without being parted; for Christ is one from both." And again the same Saint Cyril, in the second epistle to Successus, writes thus: ^D "But they were ignorant that those things which are accustomed to be divided only by contemplation, these do not necessarily depart from each other in all-in-all and specific alterity." And Saint Basil, in the fourth book *Against Eunomius*, interpreting that which is written, *The Lord created me, and before all the hills he begat me* (Prov. VIII), writes thus: "One must understand 'begat' with regard to the Son of God, and 'created' with regard to Him who took the form of a servant. In all these, however, we do not say two, God separately and man separately; for he was one, but we consider the nature of each according to contemplation." And Saint Gregory the Theologian also, in the second discourse *On the Son*, teaching us how one ought to distinguish according to contemplation the natures that are in our Lord Jesus Christ, writes thus: "When the natures are distinguished by contemplations, the names are also divided. Listen to Paul saying, 'That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of

glory' (Ephes. 1): ^A of Christ indeed God, but of glory the Father. For although both are one, yet this is not by nature, but by gathering." And the holy Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, in his fourth book against Eunomius, teaching us the same things, writes thus: "And lest anyone should apply the passion of the cross to the incorruptible nature, he corrects such an error more clearly through other means, calling him the mediator of God and men [1 Tim. 2:5], naming him both man and God: so that when two things are said of one, what is appropriate may be understood concerning each—concerning the divinity, indeed, impassibility; concerning the humanity, the dispensation of suffering. When, therefore, the intellect divides that which has been united through loving-kindness, yet is distinguished by reason, whenever it proclaims that which is exalted and surpasses all understanding, it uses the higher names, calling him God over all, and great God, and power of God, and wisdom [Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; 1 Cor. 1:24], and such like. But when it necessarily signifies by words the experience of sufferings assumed for the sake of our infirmity, it designates the ^B compound from our own [properties], calling him man, not communicating through the word that which is signified to the remaining nature, but so that piety may be preserved concerning each."

These things having been thus demonstrated through the teaching of the Fathers, let those who make the number of the natures that are in Christ an occasion for their own error, and who attempt to introduce confusion by denying their difference through the rejection of number, cease. For how is the number not necessary, which the Fathers employed to signify the difference of the natures which were united into one subsistence, and not for the division of them into parts? Since it has therefore been demonstrated from every side that it is impious to speak of one nature or substance of the divinity and the flesh of Christ, we also say that, just as we speak of one subsistence of the divinity and ^C humanity of Christ, so it is not possible to speak of one nature of Christ; for nature and subsistence are not the same. For all the holy Fathers teach us with one accord that nature, or substance, and form are one thing, and subsistence, or person, is another; and that nature, or substance and form, signifies that which is common, whereas subsistence, or person, signifies that which is particular. But if some say that just as one composite subsistence is spoken of in Christ, so it is also necessary to speak of one composite nature, we shall demonstrate that this too is alien to piety. For when we speak of one nature or substance of the divinity, we confess three subsistences of it, recognizing the same nature or substance in each ^D subsistence; and we rightly say that out of the three subsistences, one subsistence of the Word has been compounded with the flesh. For no one has ever dared in the catholic Church to say that just as there are three subsistences, so too there are three natures of the holy Trinity, so as to be able to say that one nature is composed of three natures towards the flesh; for Arius alone, having dared to say that there are three natures in the holy Trinity, was condemned as a blasphemer. For this reason, then, according to the right doctrine, we speak of the union of two natures, and one subsistence. Since the Son of God, according to the subsistence, is distinct from the—

Father, yet having the same nature as the Father, in his own subsistence he fashioned for himself flesh animated by a rational and intellectual soul—which signifies that the Word of God was united to human nature, and not to the subsistence or person of some man. Therefore, the Word of God, even when become incarnate, is one subsistence, to be recognized in each nature: in the divine, in which he existed, according to what is said: “Who, existing in the form of God” (Philip. II, 6); and in the human, according to that which is “made in the likeness of men” (Ibid.). And for this reason one might more piously say that there is one composite subsistence of the Word of God, rather than one composite nature; since when "nature" is spoken of by itself and absolutely, without the addition of any specific person, it signifies something infinite and not subsistent; and what is infinite cannot be composed with anything. But if someone, even after such arguments, looking only to contention, attempts to object, saying that according to the definition of nature given, the human nature of Christ must also have its own subsistence or person, such a person makes it manifest that he asserts the Word to have been united to a man who pre-existed, and that the union came about in a relative way. For it is impossible for two subsistences, or persons, to come into a union according to subsistence. Wherefore he who says these things, in his haste to make void the power of God with the words of human wisdom, is ignorant of ^B the great mystery of godliness, which is believed with the heart unto righteousness, but with the mouth is confessed unto salvation. For neither is the human nature of Christ ever spoken of absolutely, nor did it have its own subsistence or person, but it received the beginning of its existence in the subsistence of the Word. Hence we confess that the Word of God himself was unchangeably made man, and did not enter into a certain man; and that the birth from the Virgin is of the same Word of God incarnate, and for this reason, that the holy, glorious, ever-virgin Mary is the Theotokos. Therefore, both before the incarnation of the Word of God and after his incarnation, we speak of three subsistences of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the holy Trinity not having admitted the addition of a fourth subsistence or person. From all these considerations, therefore, those are refuted who speak of two natures before the union, as if they say there was a man who pre-existed, and was thus united to the Word of God, according to the madness of Theodore and the impious Nestorius; and furthermore those who say that one ought not to speak of two natures in Christ after the union, but of one nature, thereby introducing confusion and fantasy, according to Apollinarius and the impious Eutyches. But as for them, so be it. The holy fathers, however, after the incarnation of the Word, having considered the elements from which Christ is, and that the natures have remained unconfused, most rightly said that the two natures, the divine and the human, are in Christ. For neither ^C were there two natures of the Lord before the incarnation, nor after the incarnation have the two become one, even if they are recognized in one subsistence. These things, being taught both from the divine Scriptures and from the teaching of the fathers, for the refutation of those who confound and ^D

divide the mystery of the divine dispensation, we have rightly written; and not by clarifying the things from which He is, and in which Christ is recognized, do we introduce confusion or division into the divine dispensation. Indeed, by putting forward the glorification and the rationale of the union, we confess and adore one Christ and Son and Lord, the Word of God incarnate and made man, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

These things being confessed by the universal Church of God, we wish all Christians to know that just as we have one God and Lord, so also we have one faith. For there is one definition of faith: to confess and rightly glorify the Father, and Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. This confession we preserve, ^B into which also we have been baptized, granted indeed by our great God and Savior Jesus Christ to His holy disciples and apostles, and preached by them in the whole world. The three hundred and eighteen holy fathers who were gathered in Nicaea against Arius, and who condemned him together with his impiety, delivered the same confession, that is, the holy rule and symbol of the faith, to the holy Church of God; and after them, the hundred and fifty holy fathers who were gathered in Constantinople against Macedonius the fighter against the Spirit, and Magnus the Apollinarist, and who condemned them together with their perfidy, following in all things the same holy symbol delivered by the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers, clarified the matters concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit (Act. 5).

Moreover, the holy fathers who were gathered ^C before in Ephesus against the impious Nestorius, and the holy fathers who gathered in Chalcedon against the impious Eutyches, following in all things the aforementioned holy symbol, that is, the rule of the faith, condemned the aforementioned heretics together with their impiety, and those who thought or who think similar things to them. And beyond these, they anathematized those who deliver another definition of faith, or symbol, or rule, to those approaching holy baptism, or to those turning from any heresy whatsoever, apart from that which has been delivered, as it is said, by the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers, and clarified by the hundred and fifty holy fathers. Since these things are thus, we have decided also to subjoin chapters, in which is contained both a compendious confession ^D of the right faith and the condemnation of the heretics.

I. If anyone does not confess the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a consubstantial Trinity, one divinity, or nature and substance, and one power and authority in three subsistences, or persons, to be adored, let such a one be anathema.

II. If anyone does not confess the God-Word who was born of the Father before the ages and without time, to have descended from the heavens in the last days, and to have been incarnate of the holy, glorious Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, and to have been made man, and born of her, and that for this reason there are two births of the same Word of God, the one before the ages immaterially, and the one in the last days according to the flesh, let such a one be anathema.

III. If anyone says that the God-Word who mi-

^Araculously operated, and [says that] there is another Christ who suffered; or says that God the Word is with Christ who was born of a woman, or is in him as one in another, but does not acknowledge one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Word incarnate and made man, and that the miracles and the passions which he voluntarily endured in the flesh are of the same person, let such a one be anathema.

IV. If anyone says that the union of the Word of God to man has been made by grace, or by operation, or by dignity, or by equality of honor, or by authority, or by relation, or by affection, or by virtue, or by homonymy, by which the Nestorians, calling God the Word Christ, and separately naming the man Christ, say that there is one Christ only by name; or if anyone says that the union has been made by good pleasure, as the heretic Theodore says in his own words, as if God the Word was pleased with the man because he was well-disposed towards him, but does not confess the union of the Word of God to the flesh animated by a rational and intellectual soul according to ^Bsubsistence, and for this reason that his subsistence is one and composite, let such a one be anathema.

V. If anyone, by relation or improperly, calls the holy, glorious, ever-virgin Mary "Theotokos," or "anthropotokos," or "Christotokos," as if Christ were not God, but does not confess her strictly and truly to be "Theotokos," because the God-Word who before the ages was born of the Father was in the last days incarnate and born of her, let such a one be anathema.

VI. If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is true God, and Lord of glory, and one of the holy Trinity, let such a one be anathema.

VII. If anyone, speaking in two natures, does not confess that one Lord our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Word incarnate, is [to be understood] as in deity and in humanity, and does not take such an expression in the mystery of Christ for the ^Csignification of the difference of the natures of which he is composed, but takes it for the division into parts, as if the natures were separate and each having its own subsistence—as Theodore and Nestorius have blasphemed—let such a one be anathema.

VIII. If anyone, in the one Lord Jesus Christ, that is, the incarnate Word of God, confessing the number of the natures, does not take the difference of them of which he is composed by contemplation—as not being destroyed by reason of the union—but uses the number in division into parts, let such a one be anathema.

IX. If anyone, saying that there is one nature of the Word of God incarnate, does not understand this as that out of the divine nature and the human one Christ is constituted, consubstantial with the Father according to the deity, and the same consubstantial with us according to the humanity, but [instead] that one nature or substance was formed out of the divinity and the flesh of Christ, ^Daccording to the perfidy of Apollinaris and Eutyches, let such a one be anathema.

^A For the Catholic Church likewise rejects and anathematizes those who divide the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ into separate parts, or who confound it.

If any one does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, and those who think or have thought similarly to them, let him be anathema.

XI. If any one defends Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that God the Word is one person and Christ is another, who is subject to the sufferings of the soul and the desires of the flesh, and who was improved by the progress of his works, and was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who received the grace of the Holy Spirit through baptism, and merited adoption, and is to be worshipped in the person of God the Word just as an imperial image, and who after the resurrection became entirely immutable in his thoughts and impeccable; and furthermore said that such an union of God the Word to Christ came about as the Apostle said of a man and a woman: "They shall be two in one flesh" (Eph. v): and who, among his other innumerous blasphemies, dared to say that after the resurrection, when the Lord breathed upon his disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John xx), he did not give them the Holy Spirit, but breathed upon them only figuratively: and who also said that the confession which Thomas made ^B when he touched the hands and side of the Lord after the resurrection, saying, "My Lord and my God" (John xx), was not said by Thomas about Christ (for Theodore denied that Christ is God), but that Thomas, stupefied by the miracle of the resurrection, glorified God who raised up Christ: and what is worse, that even in the interpretation which the same Theodore wrote on the Acts of the Apostles, he compared Christ to Plato, Manichæus, Epicurus, and Marcion, saying that just as each of them, by the doctrine he discovered, caused his disciples to be called Platonists, Manichæans, Epicureans, and Marcionists, in the same way, once Christ had discovered his doctrine, Christians were called from him. If, therefore, any one defends this Theodore, who blasphemed in such a way, and does not anathematize him, his writings, and those who think or have thought similarly to him, let such a one be anathema.

^C XII. If any one defends the writings of Theodoret which he published in favor of the heretic Nestorius, and against the right faith, and against the first holy synod of Ephesus, and against St. Cyril and his twelve chapters, in which wicked writings the same Theodoret says that the union of God the Word to a certain man is merely emotional ^D — about whom he blasphemously said that Thomas touched him who rose, and worshipped him who raised him up; and for this reason he calls those teachers of the Church impious who confess the union of God the Word to the flesh according to subsistence; and furthermore denies that the holy, glorious, ever-virgin Mary is the Theotokos: If, therefore, any one defends the aforementioned writings of Theodoret, and does not anathematize them, let him be anathema. For it was because of such blasphemies that he was cast out of the episcopate, and after that in the holy synod...

^A of Chalcedon was compelled to do everything contrary to his aforementioned writings, and to confess the orthodox faith.

XIII. If anyone defends the impious letter which Ibas is said to have written to Maris the Persian heretic, which denies that God the Word became man, and says that God the Word was not incarnate and born from the Virgin, but that a mere man was born from her, whom he calls a temple, so that God the Word is one thing and the man another; and in addition to this insults the first synod of Ephesus, as though it condemned Nestorius without inquiry or examination, and calls the holy Cyril a heretic, and terms his twelve chapters impious; and praises and defends Nestorius and Theodore together with their impious writings—if anyone, therefore, as has been stated, justifies this same letter, or calls it or any part of it orthodox, but does not anathematize it, let him be anathema.

Since this impious letter has therefore been justly anathematized on account of the blasphemies contained in it, the followers of the impious Theodore and Nestorius attempt to say that it was accepted by the holy council of Chalcedon. They say this while ^B slandering the holy synod, hastening in its name to free Theodore and Nestorius, and the impious letter, from the condemnation they deserve—for which Ibas, being frequently accused, dared not acknowledge it as his own on account of the blasphemies contained therein. And we shall demonstrate this from the matters which were variously stirred up on this account. For in the proceedings at Tyre before Photius and Eustathius, when the aforementioned Ibas was accused of insults against the holy Cyril, he openly confessed that, after the union of the Orientals with the holy Cyril, he had said nothing insulting about him. But the letter filled ^C with the aforementioned blasphemies, for which Ibas was accused, containing many insults against the holy Cyril, is shown to have been written after the union with the Orientals was made, from which it is demonstrated that Ibas denied it. Whence the aforementioned Photius and Eustathius, satisfying the accusers, determined in writing that the aforementioned Ibas acted in everything contrary to the letter, as the judgment given by them on this matter signifies. But when Ibas did not fulfill what they had judged, he was cast out of the episcopacy because of the blasphemies of the aforementioned letter, and Nonnus was ordained in his place, who even sat with the holy synod at Chalcedon. The aforementioned ^D Ibas, being accused of the same things also at Chalcedon, after the reading of the impious letter, did not dare to acknowledge it as his own, but immediately added in these very words that he was a stranger to those things which were alleged against him. Whence the holy synod, not being satisfied with the denial which Ibas made regarding the impious letter, compelled him to perform acts contrary to it, that is, to confess the orthodox faith which was rejected in it, and to accept the first holy synod of Ephesus, and to acknowledge holy Cyril as Father and doctor of those things which in that same impious letter are insulted, and to anathematize Nestorius and his impious dogma, which the impious letter defends and praises. If, therefore, even Ibas himself, after being variously accused regarding the impious letter, did not dare to acknowledge it as his own, but even

^A the Council of Chalcedon compelled him to perform all things contrary to it: how could that same holy synod have accepted the aforementioned letter, and subjected itself to the condemnation of the impiety contained therein, from which it strove to liberate Ibas? But since the heretics, passing over all the blasphemies contained in the letter, bring forward from it only this, which the writer of the letter said for the deception of the simpler-minded—to wit, "two natures, one power, one person"—we shall demonstrate that he also mixed his own impiety into this. For whose sake would he speak of two natures and one person if he denied that God the Word was incarnate from the holy, glorious Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, and was born of her? But it is certain that he assigns to each nature its own person, just as Theodorus and Nestorius set forth with blasphemy in their own discourses, whom the writer of the ^B letter defends along with their impiety. For they explicitly speak of two persons of God the Word and of Christ, whom they call a mere man, and say that through a relative conjunction, and through the same dignity and honor, one person appears. But the writer of the letter is also manifest in saying that the two natures have one power, or authority, in that he herein follows the aforementioned heretics—Theodorus, indeed, in the various discourses he impiously set forth concerning His incarnation, and Nestorius in many writings, and especially in the letter written to the heretic Alexander of Hierapolis—that of the two natures there is one authority, and one power, or authority, and one person according to one dignity and the same honor. From which it is proven that he who wrote the letter, according to their ^C wickedness, used the name of natures instead of persons. For one authority, and one power or authority, and one dignity, and the same honor, is spoken of not in relation to different natures, but in relation to different persons of the same substance, as we confess concerning the Holy Trinity. Whence also the holy Fathers anathematized those who say that God the Word is united to Christ—whom the followers of Theodorus and Nestorius call a mere man—by authority, or power (that is, authority), or dignity, or equality of honor, and who do not confess the union to have taken place according to the subsistence of the Word with the flesh, which is animated by a rational and intellectual soul.

And these things were sufficient to refute the impiety of those who defend that cursed letter. But at the end of the same ^D letter, the writer also shows his own wickedness, saying that one must believe in the temple and in Him who dwells in the temple, by which he openly introduces two persons. But even this impiety the writer of the letter was taught by Theodorus and Nestorius. The Catholic Church, however, condemning such wickedness, teaches us to confess and believe not in the temple and in Him who dwells in the temple, but in one Lord Jesus Christ, God the Word incarnate and made man. It is no wonder if the writer of that impious letter used the term "natures." For it is the habit of heretics, in order to deceive the simpler-minded, to use the very terms which are piously spoken by the orthodox, while corrupting their true meaning.

^A For it is true that sometimes the same expressions, when well-expounded and understood, are consistent with piety, but when they are poorly interpreted and set forth by heretics, they contain impiety. Indeed, the first holy synod at Ephesus, directed by Celestine and Cyril of holy memory, did not accept, but rather condemned, Nestorius, who indeed spoke of two natures and one person but did not confess their union according to subsistence. We, however, following the teaching of the holy Fathers in all things, have demonstrated more clearly above both the union of the two natures from which our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the holy Trinity, God the Word incarnate, was constituted, and that their difference was not destroyed by reason of the union. And what we have said was sufficient to satisfy those who do not wish to contend. But because those who have once turned toward impiety attempt to propose other things, we must of necessity expose such vain pretexts of theirs as well. ^B For they say that the impious epistle should not be subject to censure because it is carried in some books. But if anyone were to accept this in accordance with their foolishness, then we must also accept Nestorius and Eutyches, since many things concerning them are also contained in the proceedings which were acted out at the synod. But no wise person will set his mind upon their words. For the things concerning the heretics which are brought forward in synods and become part of the records are not introduced for their exoneration, but for the greater condemnation of them and those who hold similar views. Although the copies of the impious epistle which are circulated are indeed inserted in some books, as it has been said, yet in the authentic ones, in which the most holy bishops have subscribed, they are by no means found. But those who search out the truth must also observe that perhaps in councils some things are said by certain ones gathering there, either through favor, or through conflict, or through ignorance. ^C But no one pays attention to those things which are spoken by some in part, but only to those things which are defined by all by common consent. For if anyone wishes to pay attention to such contradictions in accordance with them, each synod will be found to be destroying itself. For these reasons, therefore, they ought, if they rightly accepted the holy synod, not to attach such censures to it, but to follow the doctors of the catholic Church, and especially him who is among the saints, Athanasius, who became bishop of the church of the Alexandrians, and who undertook many and great struggles for the orthodox faith of Christians against every heresy, and especially against the most impious Arians. For when the Arians themselves, in order to deceive the peoples, ^D joined to their own error Dionysius, who had been bishop of Alexandria many years before Athanasius, and said that Dionysius himself held the same views as they did, Athanasius, the great doctor of the Church, demonstrated in many ways in his writings that Dionysius had preached the orthodox faith from the beginning and was in no way a participant in Arian impiety. But these men, being heretical in their views, are eager to attach their own impiety to that same synod. And what kind of condemnation is this, and what kind of [burden lies]

the divine Scripture teaches us even regarding those who sin against fathers. ^A For if Cham, the son of Noe (Gen. IX), when he saw his own father naked, because he did not cover his father’s bodily nakedness, but went out and reported it to his brothers, and they covered it with a garment, Cham himself and those born of him were made subject to a curse, while those who covered it were deemed worthy of a great blessing; then much more so are those worthy of a greater and more abundant condemnation who hasten to attach to the holy synod ^B an infamy that in no way pertains to it, through the impiety of their epistle and of Theodore. But for this reason, neither the impious epistle nor those who defend it shall escape the condemnation of their own impiety: nor shall Theodore, who surpasses pagans, Jews, and all heretics in impiety. For it was not enough for the impious Theodore, besides his other blasphemies, to misinterpret for his own error the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, but, even holding it in contempt, he set forth another symbol, full of all impiety, in which he dared to anathematize those who think or teach otherwise, so that, as far as his own madness is concerned, all the holy apostles and Fathers might be condemned. This impious symbol of Theodore was produced at the first synod at Ephesus, and was read at Chalcedon; and it was condemned by both synods along with its author and those who receive it.

Since some, making a case for Theodore ^C when his impious writings are brought forward because of the blasphemy contained in them, pretend to say that they are indeed impious, but refuse to anathematize the man himself who vomited forth such impiety: we marvel at their folly, in that they dare to act in opposition to the divine Scripture, which clearly says that the impious man and his impiety are equally abominable before God (Wisdom XIV). For the deed shall be punished along with the doer. But if he who acts impiously is likewise abominable to God along with his impiety, it is manifest that such a person is separated from God, and is justly subject to anathema. For "anathema" means nothing else than separation from God, just as the judgment concerning anathema in the Old and New Testaments signifies. And that the Lord says that those who do not remain in the word of His truth are separated from the Church, the Gospel according to John, when speaking to the Jews, declares, saying: "Every one who commits sin is a slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house for ever; the son remains for ever" (John VIII). And that the divine Scripture calls the house mentioned by the Lord the Church of the living God, the Apostle testifies in the first Epistle to Timothy (Chap. III).

If, indeed, some say that Theodore ought not to be anathematized after death, let those who defend such a heretic know that every heretic who remains in his own error until the end of his life is justly subjected to perpetual anathema even after death. And this has been done in the case of many heretics, both more ancient and more recent—that is, Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, Cerinthus, Manichaeus, Eunomius, and Bonosus. This same thing was done also in the case of Theodore, having been accused in his lifetime, and after death

^A anathematized by the holy Fathers. If those who take up his defense do not wish to believe them, considering them heretics, let them at least believe the impious epistle defended by them, which, although it praises Theodore, nevertheless clearly says that he was anathematized in the Church by the holy Fathers, and that from that time there was much inquiry concerning his writings, as being clearly filled with impiety. The teachers of the Catholic Church did this at that time so that the simpler folk who read his impious writings might not be turned aside from the right faith. That the impious, even if they do not receive anathema to their own person during their lifetime, are nevertheless anathematized by the Catholic Church after death, is shown by the holy synods. For the synod at Nicaea anathematized those who held the impious opinion of Arius, without naming them. The synod gathered at Constantinople similarly condemned the most impious heresy of Macedonius; but yet the holy Church of God anathematizes both Arius and Macedonius by name even after their death. ^B But when they are convicted by many proofs that they act pointlessly and impiously who defend Theodore and his impiety, they flee to another empty excuse, saying that he ought not to be anathematized because he died in the communion of the churches. But they ought to have known that those die in the communion of the churches who have preserved to the end the common dogma of piety which is preached in the universal Church. But this man, having died in his own impiety, was cast out of every church. Indeed, the entire body of the church of Mopsuestia, in which he is said to have been bishop, because of the blasphemies for which he was numbered by the holy Fathers with the pagans, Jews, and Sodomites, themselves erased his name from the sacred diptychs of that church, as the records drawn up concerning this matter in the same city before the council ^C of bishops of that province demonstrate. We marvel, therefore, at those who defend Theodore, adopting both him and his impiety as their own, when the church in which he was bishop cast him out long ago as a heretic. And that those who defend Theodore put forward such an excuse for their own condemnation is something that can be known even from the terrible judgment that occurred in the case of Judas. For he, having thought to escape the notice of Him who knows the hidden things of men, communicated in the sacraments with the apostles; but yet his hypocritical communion profited him nothing. But neither does the fact that after his death the disciples are called twelve, as John the evangelist says, *“But Thomas, who is called Didymus, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came”* (John xx), ^D exempt Judas from condemnation, or cause him to be numbered with the apostles. Indeed, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles by their own vote condemned that same Judas even after death, and introduced another in his place (Acts i). And that they put forward an empty excuse when they say that heretics who have died ought not to be anathematized, we shall show from the very words of the Lord. For He calls the impious, even while they are still alive, dead, saying: *“Let the dead bury their own dead”* (Matt. viii); just as [He calls] the just, even after they have finished their lives,

^A dead, He names the living. For He says concerning Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matt. xxii). If, therefore, according to their words it is not permitted for heretics to be anathematized when they are dead, neither will living heretics be anathematized, whom the Lord calls dead, because they are separated from Him who said: *“I am the life”* (John xi and xiv). And according to them, henceforth neither the living nor the dead who are heretics will be anathematized; and it is in vain, according to them, that the apostolic doctrine (Gal. i) delivers that those who teach otherwise than what we have received should be anathematized; in vain have the holy synods condemned heretics; in vain also have other holy Fathers and doctors of the Church anathematized heretics. But let them also upbraid Jeremiah the prophet, saying: *“Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord negligently”* (Jer. xlviii); and David the prophet saying: *“Cursed are they who decline from Thy commandments”* (Ps. cxvii); and to speak concisely, the whole divine Scripture in many places brings such condemnations against the impious. But if those who do the works of the Lord negligently, and sin against His commandments, are subjected to such condemnations; how much more so the impious Theodore, who has blasphemed in such a way against the great God Himself and our Savior Jesus Christ, has been more justly condemned and anathematized?

And these things were indeed sufficient, in addition to the proofs mentioned ^B above and inserted in our other books, which we have brought forward, showing that it is fitting that heretics be condemned even after death, to confuse those who defend Theodore, and to restrain them from such impiety. But because they persist contentiously in these same things, we shall say even more: that some of those who gathered in the holy synod at Nicaea, and subscribed to the definition or symbol of the faith set forth by it, because thereafter they appeared ^C to think the contrary—some while alive, and others after death—were anathematized by Damasus of holy memory, Pope of the elder Rome, and by the universal synod of Sardica, as the holy Athanasius also testifies. But the holy synod at Chalcedon also condemned Domnus, who had become bishop of Antioch, after his death, because he alone dared to write that the twelve chapters of the holy Cyril ought to be passed over in silence.

Since, however, the heretics who take up the defense of Theodore, having fallen away from every proposition and ^D endeavor, have attempted to say, for the deception of the ignorant, that Cyril of holy memory praised him in some part of a letter, it is shown from many things that their attempt does not accord with the words of the holy Cyril in his various books against the impious Theodore, in which, showing him to be more impious than all other heretics, and then not enduring his very many and greatest blasphemies spoken against the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, he exclaimed, saying thus: *“The heaven was astonished at this, and shuddered exceedingly, says the Lord. O unspeakable perversity! O tongue speaking iniquity against God, and lifting up the horn!”* And again: *“Place, O man, a door and a bolt upon your own tongue. Cease lifting up your horn on high, and speaking iniquity against God. How long will you insult the patient Christ? Keep in mind the written...*

sentiment of the divine Paul: "But when you sin against the brothers and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ" (1 Cor. 8:12). And that I may also speak from the prophetic books: "Sodom has been justified by you" (Ezek. 16:52), for you have surpassed the verbosity of the pagans who acted against Christ, considering the cross to be foolishness (1 Cor. 1:23); you have shown the crimes of Jewish arrogance to be nothing.

^A These things, therefore, having been said by Saint Cyril for the condemnation of the impious Theodore, even if someone were to concede, according to the words of those men, that Saint Cyril had said something in favor of Theodore, this does not release him from condemnation. For we find that many of the holy fathers once praised certain heretics, just as the holy Damasus, and Athanasius, and Basil praised Apollinarius, and Leo, of holy memory, praised Eutyches. And yet, when their impiety became manifest, those heretics did not, on account of such endorsement, escape the condemnation and anathema that were subsequently brought against their persons and their impiety.

^B Such, however, is the madness of those defending Theodore, that they presume to lie against Gregory the Theologian and John of Constantinople, claiming that they sent letters to this same Theodore filled with praise; this is stuffed with falsehoods. For Gregory, when, after laboring for the truth in Constantinople, and having turned the peoples from the madness of the Arians to the catholic faith, he returned to his own fatherland, did not write the letters which the heretics fraudulently bring forward to Theodore of Mopsuestia, but to Theodore, Bishop of Tyana, which is the second metropolis of Cappadocia.

^C Of the same province also is the city of Nazianzus, of which the same Gregory of holy memory had been bishop, and the estate of Arianzus, from which he had originated. For the letters themselves clearly indicate this, making mention of customs, and gatherings, and of the same estate of Arianzus, and of other estates of the same province, and of a month named in the vernacular tongue of the Cappadocians, and of Bosphorius, a bishop serving under this same Theodore, who at that time was bishop of the city of Colonia in the same province, and mentioning other bishops, and chorepiscopi, and monasteries serving under this same Theodore, whose names are preserved even until now. What communion did the Cappadocians have with the Second Cilicia, whether then or now, given the divided administration of these provinces? And what bishops could the Bishop of Mopsuestia have had under him, when he himself served under the Metropolitan of the same Second Cilicia?

^D John of Constantinople, however, did indeed write a letter to Theodore of Mopsuestia, but it was not full of praises; rather, it was full of complaints and reproaches, as he had fallen from his piety. For since he had practiced the monastic life with him in one and the same monastery, he reminded him of the life lived there; and of this, Sozomen, Hesychius, Socrates, and Theodoret — who produced many speeches and praises for Theodore — bear witness. But if they bring forward the testimonies of John of Antioch and the Oriental council established under him, made in favor of Theodore and his impiety, it is necessary for them to accept those things also which, as far as they were concerned, those around John dared to do for the condemnation of Saint Cyril and the setting aside of the orthodox faith; and whatever they wrote, [they also wrote regarding] Nestorius...

and defending his perfidy for a long time. And this is shown from their various discourses and letters written to Theodosius of pious memory, and to other various persons.

And these things are so. But in order that we might not omit any detail, we deemed it necessary to mention also those things which were written by Augustine of holy memory, bishop in Africa. For since a certain inquiry was moved concerning Caecilian after his death, on the grounds that he was said to have departed from ecclesiastical tradition, and because of this some had separated themselves from the Catholic Church, the same Augustine of holy memory wrote to Boniface that some ought not on that account to separate themselves ^B from the Catholic Church. For if the things alleged against Caecilian were true, and it was made manifest that he had held opinions contrary to the ecclesiastical state, he would have subjected him to anathema even after his death. But also the canon of the holy synod of Africa directs that bishops who bequeath their own property in a testament, or intestate, to a heretic, ought to be anathematized even after death. In addition to all these, who is ignorant of what has taken place in our own times in the Church of elder Rome against Dioscorus? Who, having sinned in nothing against the faith, was nevertheless, ^C for the sake of ecclesiastical order alone, anathematized after his death by the most holy Church of Rome herself. If, therefore, bishops who have sinned nothing against the faith are subjected to anathema even after death on account of ecclesiastical order alone, and for pecuniary causes, how much more so Theodore, who sinned against God Himself? But as for the folly of those saying that it is not right that those who die in their own impiety be anathematized after death: it would follow that those Fathers who were unjustly condemned ought not to be recalled after death, as happened in the case of John, bishop of the city of Constantinople of holy memory, ^D who was recalled after death by the Catholic Church; and in the case of Flavian, also bishop of the city of Constantinople of holy memory, who was unjustly condemned while alive, but justly recalled after death, both by Pope Leo of holy memory and by the holy council of Chalcedon. From this it follows, according to their words, that heretics are indeed numbered with the holy Fathers, as though freed from the condemnation due to them, while the holy Fathers who were unjustly condemned are joined to the heretics, as though the unjust condemnation made against them remains unresolved. But the Teacher, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, is more worthy of belief than all, saying concerning Himself: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; but he who does not believe is already judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God" (John 3). And the Holy Spirit also says through the prophet David (Ps. 1), that the ungodly shall not rise in judgment. Such, therefore, being the sentence of the Lord pronounced against every ungodly person, and making no distinction

^A between living and dead heretics, how do they dare to resist such a decision, and to argue that those who have once acted impiously, and for this reason have already been condemned by the Lord, ought not to be condemned after death? The divine Apostle, too, having Christ speaking within himself, pronounced such a sentence not only against men, but even against angels, saying in the Epistle to the Galatians (Cap. 1): "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again: If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." And who is so impious as to dare to say that the impious writings of Theodore, or any part of them, were ever delivered to the holy Church of God, and that he who dared to utter any such thing was not immediately subjected to anathema by the holy Fathers?

If, therefore, after such a right confession and condemnation of heretics, anyone, while remaining sound in pious understanding, separates himself from the holy Church of God by contending about names, or syllables, or words, as if our piety were placed in mere names and words, and not in the things themselves, such a person, rejoicing in dissensions, shall render an account for himself, and for those deceived or to be deceived by him, to our great God and Savior Jesus Christ in the day of judgment. Amen.

Epistle of the Emperor Justinian to the holy synod concerning Theodore of Mopsuestia and the rest.

It has always been the endeavor of the orthodox and pious emperors, our fathers, to cut off heresies arising from time to time through the gathering of the most religious priests, and to keep the holy Church of God in peace, with the right faith sincerely preached. Wherefore ^C Constantine the Great, when Arius was blaspheming and saying that the Son is not consubstantial with God and the Father, but is a creature and was made from things that were not, gathered at Nicaea the three hundred and eighteen Fathers; and having himself been present at the council, and having condemned and anathematized Arius, he sought to confirm the right faith; through which those divine Fathers, confessing that the Son is consubstantial with God and the Father, and not a creature made from things that were not, is sung even unto this day.

Theodosius the Elder also, when Macedonius was denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and Apollinarius, his disciple, 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 was united to flesh having a rational soul, gathered the one hundred and fifty Fathers in the city of Constantinople; and being himself a participant in the council, he took care that the right faith should be preached, having condemned and struck with anathema the aforesaid heretics together with their impious dogmas and followers.

Theodosius the Junior, too, when the impious Nestorius was saying that the Word of God is one thing and Christ another, and was impiously introducing the idea that the Word is by nature the Son of God and the Father, but Christ is only by grace the Son, and was denying that the holy Mary is Theotokos, gathered the first Ephesian synod of two hundred holy Fathers, and, having sent princes who ought to be present at the council, he ordered also that

^A a careful examination be made, and they condemned and anathematized Nestorius together with his like-minded followers. After these things had proceeded in this way, the partisans of the impious Nestorius, rising up against the most holy Cyril, strove, as far as lay within them, to overturn the judgment that had been passed against Nestorius. But the Emperor Theodosius, supporting what had been truly and rightly judged against Nestorius and his impious dogmas, took care to have the judgment passed upon him firmly maintained. Moreover, since they were also foolishly leveling certain other accusations against the divine Cyril before the emperor, Cyril wrote to the emperor to the following effect: ^B "Since it has been reported to me, most pious emperor, that certain babblers, like swarms of angry wasps, are buzzing into your ears and belching forth slanders against me, foolishly asserting that I claim the divine body of Christ was brought down from heaven and not assumed from the holy Virgin; and likewise that I confess two sons in accordance with the opinion of Nestorius: I felt I ought to say a few things against them to this effect: O fools, and skilled only in slandering, how have you been led into such an opinion, and how have you fallen into such madness? You ought clearly to have understood that our entire struggle for the faith has been centered on the assertion that the holy Mary is Theotokos. But if, as they say, we claim that the divine body of Christ came from heaven and was not born of her, how could she be called Theotokos? For whom, in short, has she brought forth, if it is not true that she has given birth according to the flesh to Emmanuel? Let those, therefore, who have gossiped these and such things against me be laughed at. For the blessed Isaiah does not lie when he prophesies: 'Behold, the virgin shall have in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is, God with us' (Isa. vii). And the archangel Gabriel undoubtedly spoke the truth when addressing the Virgin: 'Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. And behold, thou shalt conceive in the womb, and shalt bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus; for he himself shall save his people from their sins' (Luke i; Matt. i). When, however, we say that our Lord Jesus Christ came down from above from heaven, we do not say these things as if his holy flesh had been brought down from above from heaven, but as following the holy Paul who states, 'The first man is of the earth, earthly; the second is the Lord from heaven' (1 Cor. xv). We also remember the Lord himself saying, 'No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, the Son of man' (John iii). Even though he was born according to the flesh, as has been said, from the holy Virgin, yet because the Word of God, who descended from above, from heaven, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and was accounted the son of man while remaining what he was—that is, God—for he is immutable and unalterable by nature; ^D as he is now understood to be one with his own flesh, he is said to have come down from heaven, and he is named man from heaven, being perfect in divinity and the same being perfect in humanity, and he is understood as one person. For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, even if the difference of the natures is not ignored, from which we say the ineffable union has been accomplished. Therefore, we confess the only-begotten Son, the Word of God, as perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and body, born of the Father before the ages according to his divinity, and in the last days, the same one, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the vir—

^Agin, according to his humanity: consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity, and consubstantial with us according to his humanity. For the union of two natures has taken place; whence we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And we confess the holy Virgin to be truly Theotokos, because God the Word was incarnate and became man, and from the moment of conception united to himself the temple taken from her. And, if you please, let us take as an example our own composition, in so far as we are human. We consist of soul and body, and we see two natures, one of the soul, and another of the body. But one human being exists from both by way of union, and the fact that they are composed of two natures does not cause us to conceive of two human beings. Rather, we conceive of one human being by way of composition, as I said, being from soul and body. For if we deny that from two different natures the one and only Christ exists, indivisible after the union, those who are of the opposite party will say: “If it is one nature in the whole of Christ, how could he put on human nature, or what flesh could he make his own?” But as for those who say that a tempering, or confusion, or blending of the natures of God the Word with the flesh ^B has occurred, may your piety deign to stop their mouths clearly.

After these things, when Cyril had died, a certain monk and archimandrite emerged, Eutyches by name, and he drew after him a not insignificant part of the people, confirming the sect of Nestorius and his impious dogma, saying that the flesh of the Lord is not consubstantial with us. And then, a little later, by a diabolical hand, another council was assembled at Ephesus, a brigandage and not at all a holy one, to which Flavian of Constantinople was also sent, while Dioscorus of Alexandria held all authority there. And the divine Flavian, defending the orthodox faith, was killed, and the first council at Ephesus was overturned, with certain bishops subscribing under lethal duress, among whom was Basil of Seleucia. And from that time, with the pernicious dogmas of Nestorius and Dioscorus and Eutyches being publicly taught, and ^C great disturbance occurring, especially in the East, Proterius the great priest was killed, and very many others. Matters being thus, Marcian was divinely raised up as Emperor, and having gathered the council of the 630 fathers at Chalcedon, with Dioscorus and Eutyches present, he himself proceeded there. And Dioscorus and Eutyches were condemned, and Nestorius was anathematized again. But Theodoret, and Ibas, and Basil of Seleucia were received, although they had previously subscribed to the brigand council, and, once the brigand synod was overturned and anathematized, the holy fathers brought all into one harmony. But these four councils having thus taken place and been confirmed, and prevailing in the Church of God, those who held the opinions of Nestorius strove to strengthen their heresy again through the pretext of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who blasphemed far worse ^D than his disciple Nestorius. We, therefore, following our fathers, and wishing the orthodox faith to be kept inviolate, exhort that his blasphemies also be examined, and that against him and those who share his opinions a pronouncement be made. For in addition to his other innumerable blasphemies uttered against Christ our God, that God the Word is one and Christ another, who is troubled by the passions of the soul and the desires of the flesh, and

and, gradually desisting from the worse, has progressed for the better and has used an irreproachable manner of an excellent life. Who, as a mere man, baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, obtained through baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit and was deemed worthy of adoption; and, to the likeness of the royal image, Christ was worshipped in the person of God the Word, and after the resurrection remained unturnable in his thoughts and without sin. And in addition to these things he said that the union of God the Word with Christ was such as the Apostle spoke concerning the man and the woman: "They shall be two into one flesh" (I Cor. VI). And furthermore, I urge you to examine also the things badly written by Theodoret and Ibas against the first holy council of Ephesus, and likewise to pronounce judgment upon them in the same way.

The holy fathers, having again accurately investigated these matters, answered: The holy council of Chalcedon, though it had censured Theodoret and Ibas severely, did not receive them back into favor on any other condition than that they should first condemn their own evil writings, and Theodore and Nestorius. We, however, besides all other heretics condemned and excommunicated by the said four holy councils, ^B do also condemn and proscribe Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious books: as also those things which Theodoret wrote ill against the true faith, and the twelve chapters of the one among the saints, Cyril, and the first holy synod of Ephesus, and whatever was written by him in defense of Theodore and Nestorius. ^C Furthermore, we also condemn the impious letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, which denies that the Word of God became man, incarnate from the holy Virgin and Theotokos Mary, and slanders the brilliant Cyril as a heretic; and which finds fault with the first holy synod of Ephesus as having deposed Nestorius without trial or investigation, and which spits upon the twelve chapters of the blessed Cyril, while defending Theodore and Nestorius, and their God-hated writings and dogmas. Therefore, since we rightly reckon these brazen tongues of heretics, and their most impious writings, and the heretics themselves who persisted to the end in their own evil doctrine and wickedness, along with the devil, the father of lies, we shall say: "Walk in the light of your fire and in the flame which you have kindled" (Isai. L). ^D

EPISTLE OF EMPEROR JUSTINIAN AGAINST SOME WHO DEFEND THE IMPIOUS THEODORE AND HIS INIQUITOUS DOGMAS, AND THE AFOREMENTIONED LETTER, AS WELL AS THE BOOKS OF THEODORE AGAINST THE CATHOLIC FAITH

Copy of the epistle written by the most pious and most Christian Emperor Justinian against some who defend the impious Theodore and his iniquitous dogmata,

^A and the so-called epistle of Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret composed against the right faith.

We have received your letters, which we read and were astonished, that you have not understood the teaching of the Lord, who says, "Learn from me, for I am meek and humble in heart" (Matt. xi, 29), but have lifted yourselves to such a height of pride as to despise all the bishops of the Church of God, and to deem yourselves alone out of all to be righteous, just like that Pharisee, who, by condemning the publican, was not justified (Luke xviii, 14). While we hoped that you were like the rest of the bishops in your wisdom, we found contrary to our expectations that you are defending those things which are contrary to God and the right faith. And yet, defending such impiety, you have presumed yourselves to be equal to the apostles, saying that no one ought to reprove you as unlearned; since God also commanded unlearned men to preach the Gospel. And we, when we called you unlearned, as is said, we said it for this reason: because, ignoring ecclesiastical order and tradition and the orthodox faith, you defend such impiety. But as for the apostles, whom you see fit to call unlearned, God chose them for Himself, and filled them with His own Spirit and grace and wisdom, and thus sent them, that they might lead the nations that were ignorant of God to the path of truth. Whence it was said to the apostles alone, "You are the light of the world" (Matt. v, 14). Be you, therefore, shining figures, just as it was commanded them by the Lord: "Do not think, nor what you shall say, nor for what you shall bear witness" (Matt. x, 19). You have dared to compare yourselves to the apostles and have not feared to insult all the ^B bishops; and further, the ecclesiastical sanctions have been so neglected by you that you have set out to achieve, through the greatest audacity, that which in no age of the Christian religion has ever been attempted by anyone. For while all the most blessed patriarchs have kept the mutual tradition inviolate at all times, no one, unless he were openly seized by heretical madness, has divided the Church with schism; which is what you at present have taken care to bring about. We burn with a vehement desire to remedy this evil which you have attempted to perpetrate; and, of course, we strive through our deeds and writings for this one thing: that you might repent. Now, indeed, since you have written in this vein—that we have taken pains for these three chapters, namely, Theodore with his own writings, the epistle which is called that of Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret alike, to be condemned, that our will might be satisfied, because we were inflamed with an incredible desire that [some] should be separated from the catholic Church—know that this was by no means done by us for their sake; but firstly, because we were gravely moved by the impiety of those chapters, and afterwards, because there were not lacking those who, while suppressing the name of Nestorius, were yet studying the cause of Nestorius and attempting to introduce his erroneous faith, not fearing to attribute the impiety of those chapters to the ^{C D} catholic Church.

^A For this reason, although the impiety of those chapters was manifest, we nonetheless asked the priests of the Church of God what they thought concerning them, since some wished to show that the catholic Church never held, nor does it hold, such impiety. They, too, condemned this ungodliness, which was condemned from the start by the holy Fathers. For even they who are separated from the catholic Church do not offer any argument concerning these chapters, knowing that no one who bears the name of Christian can defend them, but rather they oppose the definition of the holy Council of Chalcedon, which was brought forward for the condemnation of Nestorius and Eutyches and their unbelief. For those who oppose the correct dogmas of the Church desire to defend the aforementioned impious chapters rather than the holy Church of God, so that by this pretext they might deceive the simpler ones and separate the Christian people from the Church.

And since you have written two things—if indeed that impious epistle is to be included—one, that it supposedly argued correctly against Apollinarius; and another, that even if the writer of the epistle appeared to insult St. Cyril, he nevertheless removed the stain of the injury he had inflicted near the end, and for this reason it is said that the same impious epistle should be judged orthodox—you have made it clear that you have understood neither the context of the words nor the force of that impious epistle. For it does not conclude against Apollinarius, but rather numbers St. Cyril himself among the Apollinarists; and far from the same impious epistle having corrected in its conclusion what was said against the same St. Cyril, it actually said things that were worse against him in the final parts. However, as we proceed, we shall demonstrate all the impiety of the so-called epistle, and the vanity of the chapters which you sent. For when all that was written by you was read, we were grieved exceedingly that you, citizens of that city in which up to these times the correct faith was always uniquely preserved, have fallen into such error.

Wherefore, we deemed it necessary to write back against your aforementioned chapters and to exhort you to stand aloof from this impiety and from your impious teacher who authored the aforementioned chapters. For wishing to deceive you, he brought forward certain words from the divine Scriptures, which, having understood them poorly, he attempted to adapt to the words of the aforementioned impious epistle; which all heretics do, misinterpreting certain words of the divine Scriptures and transferring them to their own distorted meaning. And it appears to us that your impious teacher either has not read that anonymous epistle, or he has read it maliciously, putting forward certain words from it, while suppressing the majority and the worse ones. For when the same epistle speaks about the blessed Cyril and the impious Nestorius, saying that both wrote harmful words against one another, and that Nestorius said that the blessed Mary is not Theotokos—so that it is brought to the many that it is from the heresy of Paul of Samosata—and [that] Cyril, wishing to overturn the words of Nestorius, slipped and fell into the dogma of Apollinarius, it is manifest that the one who wrote the epistle shows himself to be mastered by the madness of Nestorius; for when he depicts Nestorius himself as denying that the holy Virgin is Theotokos, ^{B C D}

he contends that he merely provided some with a pretext for suspicion against him, but that he is in no way proved a heretic; yet he expressly relates that holy Cyril, the doctor of the Church, fell into the heresy of Apollinarius, because he said that the Word of God ^A himself was incarnate and assumed humanity. Now, as we observed above, your teacher passed over these words, clearly perceiving that he who relates that Cyril fell into heresy, and contends that he defended heretical opinions, delivers a judgment of condemnation against the entire Church, since the whole Church venerates Cyril as a Father and a doctor. How, moreover, could he not have shuddered to say that holy Cyril is a heretic, since he has said that God the Word himself became man, and that in saying this he does not acknowledge a distinction between the temple and the One who dwells within it? For by these words he censures not only holy Cyril, but also the Evangelist who says, "And the Word was made flesh" (John I, 14), and all the prophets who preached the advent of God the Word in the flesh, and especially Jeremiah, who says: "This is our God; no other shall be reckoned against him; after this he appeared on earth, and conversed with men" (Baruch III, 36-38), and again Isaiah, saying: "The child, God strong" (Isai. IX, 6). And in addition to these, the apostle Paul, saying in his Epistle to the Ephesians: "He who descended is the same as he who ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things" (Eph. IV, 10). For indeed, as that teacher of yours madly says, the prophets and evangelists and apostles are worthy of censure for saying that God the Word himself became man, as if by these words they were saying that a transmutation of the Divinity into humanity had taken place; those, however, who do not acknowledge that God the Word himself became man are clearly making Christ a mere man, and saying that he is called Son of God only by grace, just as the erroneous opinion of Nestorius and his teacher Theodore maintains.

^B For the divine Scriptures, and the holy Fathers following them, teach that God the Word himself, the invisible, the incorporeal, the light from light, he who is before the ages and begotten of the Father timelessly, he himself descended and was incarnate and became man. And holy Gregory, in his discourse on the Theophany, speaks thus: "The Word of God himself, the pre-eternal, the invisible, the incomprehensible, the incorporeal, the beginning from the beginning, the light from light, the fount of life and immortality, the impression of the archetype, the unmoved seal, the exact image, the definition and reason of the Father; he, I say, resorts to his own image and bears flesh for the sake of flesh, and is joined to an intellectual soul for the sake of my soul, that he might purify like with like, and he becomes all things, except sin, a man, conceived of the Virgin, who had been purified beforehand in soul and body by the Spirit; for it was fitting that both birth be honored, and virginity be preferred." These things... ^{C D}

^A in like manner Athanasius, who is among the saints, says in his discourse on the Holy Spirit against the Arians: "He who was begotten from above from the Father ineffably, unutterably, incomprehensibly, eternally, He Himself is begotten below in time from the Virgin Mary." And again, Basil, who is among the saints, writing to Amphilochius in the eighth chapter, said: "For neither heaven, nor earth, nor the great depths of the seas, nor those dwelling in the waters, nor the land animals, nor plants, nor stars, nor air, ^B nor seasons, nor the manifold adornment of the universe, so manifest the superiority of His power, as does the fact that God, who is incomprehensible, was able to be joined without passion to death through flesh, so that by His own passion He might grant to us impassibility." But also the holy Augustine, a bishop from the country of the Africans, in his exposition of the Creed, says these things: "Speak thou also, O Habacuc the prophet, a testimony concerning Christ. 'O Lord,' he says, 'I have heard thy hearing, and I feared; I contemplated thy works, O God, and I was astonished.'" What works of God, having admired, was he astonished at? Was it perhaps the creation of the world? May it not be so! But hear at what he was astonished. "In the midst," he says, "of two animals thy works shall be known; because thou, O God the Word, didst become flesh, in the midst of two animals thou shalt be known. Who, then, to what a point did you descend! You have made me astonished, that the Word, through whom all things were made, was born in a manger." Similar things also Leo, Pope of Rome, who is among the saints, said in his letter to Flavian, the Archbishop of Constantinople: "The impassible God did not disdain to be a passible man, and the immortal to be subject to the laws of death." ^C

These things, then, both the divine Scriptures and the holy Fathers have said; yet as regards your arguments, they are worthy of censure, as they introduce a confusion of flesh and divinity, since they state that the Word of God Himself became a man, when you have also said that Cyril, who is among the saints, calling the Word of God Himself a man, introduces a confusion through these expressions. But that the one who wrote the letter, possessed by the madness of Theodore, denied that the Word of God had become man, we shall show from those very writings directed by the same heretical Theodore against the impious Apollinarius. For in his fourth discourse he writes thus: "I said that some of our men have given to you those things which would never have been given ^D by any of those who are anxious to adhere to the ecclesiastical doctrine. For we were inquiring if they confess the Word of God to have become man, and you, having spoken, added 'they were giving.' And who, having sense, would call the Word of God a man, as you do? Unless perhaps he should first become diseased with the same madness as you. For we, indeed, strongly say that the Word of God has taken a man, but that He became a man, according to your way, we would never consent to say."

Since, therefore, it has been demonstrated through the things said that the impiety of the letter is in agreement with that heretical madness of Theodore, how could anyone just, who has his hope in the Word of God who was incarnate and became man, not rightly condemn Theodore and that aforesaid impious letter? For since he speaks in praise of [the letter]...

of the Word of God himself becoming incarnate and made man destroys the distinction between the temple and the one dwelling in the temple, know that the holy Church of God rightly proclaims the distinction of the natures from which the one Christ, our Lord and God, was composed; but [the claim of] a distinction between the temple and the one dwelling in it was taught by none of the holy Fathers, but was only stated by the impious Nestorios and Theodore, wishing thereby to introduce two persons. For even if the divine Scriptures and the holy Fathers have used the title of "temple," they say this as a sign of the body of the only-begotten Son of God, as the evangelist said: ^B "But he spoke about the temple of his body" (John ii, 21). For no one says that there is a distinction within the one person of Christ himself, as if one were in another, but only of the natures, from which the one Christ was formed confuselessly and indivisibly.

And you, therefore, defending the impiety of the letter, which denies that the Word of God himself became man, have become clearly convicted of introducing two persons in Christ, and even while thinking these things about Christ as though he were a mere man—which is what the Apostle said concerning the faithful: "That you are the temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in you" (1 Cor. iii, 16). So that, according to your error, there is no distinction between us human beings and Christ, even as Theodore the heretic himself, the master of the one who wrote the letter, in his third discourse against Apollinaris, acting madly, introduces these words as if from the person of Christ: "I indeed, whom you see, can do nothing according to my nature, since I am a man. But I work, because the Father remaining in me does everything. ^C For since I—he says—am in the Father, and the Father is in me, and the Word of God, the only-begotten, is in me, it is clear that the Father is also with him, remaining in me and doing the works; and it is nothing to be wondered at to think this about Christ, when he clearly speaks of the rest of men: 'He who loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and will make our dwelling with him' (John xiv, 23)." For if the Father and the Son make a dwelling with each of such men, what is the wonder if in the Lord Christ according to the flesh, both are thought to dwell at the same time, with the communion according to substance perhaps receiving the communion of the dwelling as well?

These things therefore having been said in this way by the impious Theodore, it is not a matter for wonder if he who has fallen from God has, joined to his impiety, also foolishness, just as the prophet Isaiah speaks about the impious: "The fool will speak foolish things, and his heart will understand vain things" (Isai. xxxii, 6). For he who insists that the Father and the Son thus remain in Christ just as they do in other ^D men, and does not confess that Christ is the Word of God incarnate and made man, how does he speak of Christ "according to the flesh"? For the holy Fathers, confessing that Christ is the Word of God incarnate and made man, whenever they say anything lowly about him, rightly add "according to the flesh." But if it is necessary for those who have taken up Theodore’s...

^A excessively blasphemous opinions to turn away from his impiety, then, because of their shamelessness, let us bring forward his other blasphemies, by which he introduces two persons. For, blaming those who say that the Word of God, who is before the ages, became man in the last times, he speaks thus in his fourth book against Apollinarius: "He who is before the ages," he says, "has become in the last times, as if some have admitted, and by saying this, none of those who are diligent in piety would deign to suffer from this madness, so as to say that he who is before the ages came to be in the last times." And after other things: ^B "Following your laws, therefore, and accepting the reversal—or rather, the subversion—established by your wisdom, come, let us confuse everything together, and let there no longer be any distinction: not of the form of God, not of the form of a servant, not of the temple assumed, not of him who dwelt in the temple, not of him who was loosed, not of him who raised up, not of him who was perfected in sufferings, not of him who perfected, not of him who was remembered, not of him who remembered, not of him who was visited, not of him who visited, not of him who was made a little lower than the angels, not of him who made [him] lower, not of him who was crowned with glory and honor, not of him who crowned, not of him who was set over the works of God’s hands, not of him who set [him], not of him who received them in subjection, not of him who gave the subjection."

From these ungodly utterances of Theodore, and from his thus manifest blasphemy, let those who defend him and his ungodly epistle blush. For by shamelessly and frequently saying that the Word of God is one thing, and Christ another; and one who confers a benefit, another who receives the benefit; and one who saves, and another who is saved; he openly denies the salvation bestowed upon us by our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. For, if he who has received a benefit from another—that is, if he has been saved—how can he save others? Those, therefore, who defend him who has blasphemed these things, whose body and blood do they think they are receiving? That of the one benefited, or that of the benefactor? But if it is that of the Word of God, the benefactor, how do they say this while not confessing that He was incarnate and made man? But if it is that of the one benefited, their hope is in vain, as they observe the worship of man, because they have reverenced and worshipped the creature rather than the Creator (Sap. XIII, 5). ^C

We, however, all who belong to the Catholic Church, confessing the Word of God to have been incarnate and made man, and to be one of the Holy Trinity, receive His body and His blood for the remission of sins and for life eternal, just as the Lord Himself taught us, saying: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." As He sent me

living Father, and I live because of the Father, and he who eats me, he also will live because of me. And these things we indeed believe and confess.

^A How great is the lie that fills that also which is contained in the aforementioned impious letter concerning the twelve chapters of the one among the saints, Cyril! For it slanders him, as though he said that there is one nature of the Godhead and the humanity of Christ in these, and it says that for this reason the same chapters are full of every impiety. This your teacher cunningly interpreted by saying that it was not stated that they were full of every impiety on account of the twelve chapters in the letter, but because it was stated that there is one nature of Godhead and humanity. But this is a manifest lie. ^B For the one among the saints, Cyril, neither in his other writings, nor in the letter to which the twelve chapters are appended, nor even in the chapters themselves, is shown to have said that there is one nature of Godhead and humanity, but he teaches that there is one hypostasis, that is, person, of the Godhead and the humanity of Christ. Which also the holy Church of God proclaims, and all the fathers have taught, anathematizing those who say that there is one nature of Godhead and humanity of Christ. For nature is one thing, and hypostasis, that is, person, is another. And nature indeed signifies that which is commonly and generally predicated of all persons, but hypostasis, that is, person, indicates that which is proper; for a person is not considered in another person.

That the abominable letter speaks of the twelve chapters of the one among the saints, Cyril, as being full of all impiety, is something you yourselves can discover from the subsequent parts of the same impious letter, in which it clearly says that these same twelve chapters are contrary to the true faith. And since the same impious letter, which is called that of Ibas, blames the one among the saints, Cyril, as denying a distinction of terms, you should know that in this too, both he who wrote the impious letter and your own teacher lie. For in all his own writings, the one among the saints, Cyril, teaching about our Lord Jesus Christ, speaks of a difference of terms, and he says that some are lofty according to his Godhead, and others humble according to his humanity, but that all, however, are said of one, and concerning one, and of the same God the Word incarnate; but the same one among the saints, Cyril, forbids these to be distributed to one person and another. But you, wishing doubtlessly to distribute the terms to two persons, for this reason say that the one among the saints, Cyril, denied a difference of terms. ^C And since your teacher, wishing to deceive you, also said in this: that the same impious letter, the one called that of Ibas, was written against the impiety of Apollinaris, and that therefore it ought to be considered orthodox; you must know that in this too he lied. For it was not written against Apollinaris, as we have indicated above; but even if, as you please, this were true, not for this reason would the same letter be freed from condemnation. For if some heretic says something against a heretic, he is not thereby shown to be orthodox. For Arius also spoke against Sabellius, and Apollinaris against Arius, and Eutyches against Nestorius. And although all these were held by a different error, ^D nevertheless none of them, from

is judged orthodox by such a rebuttal, but rather all are equally condemned by the Catholic Church. And from this it is also clear that the author of the aforementioned impious letter introduces ^A a double person, in that he said: "How can it be that the Word from the beginning received [as] a temple that which was born of Mary?" By these words he shows clearly that he does not mean that the Word of God was made flesh and was born of the holy Virgin Mary, but he calls Christ a mere man and a temple. And that the author of that abominable letter received this impiety from the teaching of Theodore is evident from what the same impious Theodore wrote in the third book against the heretic Apollinarius, saying thus: "But indeed, God, who is from God and consubstantial with the Father,—for the one born of the Virgin, O wonderful one, and fashioned according to the divine Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, ^B and who received his formation in the female womb, was present, as is likely, since as soon as he was fashioned, he received [the Word] to be a temple of God; yet we should not think that God was born to us from the Virgin, unless we must think that the one born and the temple in the one born, and the Word of God in the temple, are the same thing; nor yet, according to your voice, should one declare that the One born of the Virgin is entirely God, who is from God and consubstantial with the Father. For if he who was born of the Virgin is not a man received, as you say, but God made flesh, how could the One born be called God from God and consubstantial with the Father, since flesh is not able to accept this phrase? For it is indeed insane to say that God was born from the Virgin. For this is nothing other than to say that he is from the seed of David and was begotten from the substance of the Virgin, and was fashioned in her, since we say that what was of the seed of David and from the substance of the Virgin was established ^C in the maternal womb, and was born from the Virgin having been fashioned by the power of the Holy Spirit."

Since Theodore blasphemed in this way, and repeatedly argued that it is impossible for God, who is from God and consubstantial with the Father, to be made flesh and be born of the Virgin, since flesh is not consubstantial with the Father, how is it that those who defend such a heretic ^D are not filled with the greatest shame, who have introduced this, which is contrary to the sacred Scriptures and fights against the tradition of the holy Fathers, in whom it is surely clear to everyone that God from the beginning established his Church in the right confession? For all the priests of God have preached that the Word of God, God from God, was born and made flesh from the holy and glorious Virgin Mary, having assumed flesh animated by a rational and intellectual soul, and that he became man and was born from her; and teaching thus, they neither introduced a change of the divinity into flesh, nor did they invent that he, according to the flesh, is consubstantial with the Father, as Theodore drivels; but rather they taught that one and the same Lord and our God Jesus Christ is, according to his divinity, consubstantial with the Father, and according to his humanity, the same is consubstantial with us.

^A Furthermore, in the aforementioned text, the impious Theodorus, blaspheming, also says these things: “But the divine nature was not born of a Virgin; rather, he who consists of the substance of the Virgin was born of the Virgin. The Word of God was not born of Mary; rather, he who is of the seed of David was born of Mary. The Word of God was not born of a woman; rather, he who was formed in her by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of a woman. He who is consubstantial with the Father was not born of a mother—for he is without mother according to the voice of the blessed Paul—but he who was formed in the maternal womb in later times by the power of the Holy Spirit was, for this reason, called ‘without father’.”

These are the things which the impious Theodorus says, distorting the teaching of the Apostle who, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, says concerning the Lord thus: ^B “First, being interpreted, King of righteousness; and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Heb. vii, 2). For since the Apostle says “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” about one and the same person, the impious Theodorus says that one is “without father” and another is “without mother.” But we shall refute the impiety of those who think such things, even from the teaching of the holy Fathers.

For Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus, says in his discourse on the Theophany thus: “Who does not worship him who is from the beginning? Who does not praise and celebrate the last? Darkness is dispelled again; light is created again; Egypt is plagued again with darkness; Israel is illuminated again by the pillar. Let the people who sit in the darkness of ignorance behold the great light of knowledge. The old things have passed away, and behold, all things have become new; the letter gives way, the Spirit prevails; ^C the shadows run past, the truth enters in; Melchizedek is brought together; he who was without mother becomes ‘without father’—the one was without mother before, the other without father after. The laws of nature are overturned, the world above must be fulfilled; Christ commands that we do not resist.”

In addition to these, Saint Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople, in his discourse on the Theotokos, says thus: “He who is by nature impassible became passible through compassion; the Christ did not become God by progress—God forbid!—but through compassion God became man, in whom we believe; we do not preach a deified man, but confess an incarnate God. He who is by nature without mother, and by dispensation without father, chose his own handmaid to be his mother. For how can he himself be, according to Paul, ‘without mother and without father’? If he were a mere man, he would not be without mother, for he has a mother; but if he were God alone, he would not be without father, for he has a Father. Therefore, he himself is devoid of a mother, as creator; but lacking a father, as creature.” ^D Saint Augustine also, in his discourse on the exposition of the Creed, says thus: “We believe in his Son, Jesus Christ, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Why, O unbeliever, do you disturb this birth? Do not believe that he who was born was only a man; but if he was God-man, he was born of whom he willed, because he was born as he willed. Wonder all the more at this: that the Word took flesh, and did not turn into flesh; that being God, he became man. But why do you wonder that she who gave birth brought forth her own creator, because the creature

^A brought forth its own creator? Thus the Most High wished to be born humble, that in this very humility he might show his magnificence.

And these things, to be sure, are disputed by the holy Fathers. But it is not quite clear to us how the divine Scriptures, which the holy Fathers of the Church followed, teach the same thing, namely, that God the Word was incarnate, and born from the holy Virgin Mary, and made man. And first the prophet Isaiah says: "Behold," he says, "the Virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel," which is interpreted, "God with us." Again, King David the prophet sings in the one hundred and sixth Psalm: "He sent his Word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions." The holy apostle Paul likewise says: "But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." ^B Since these things are so, who is so foolish as to dare to say that some man existed in the heavens, and that he was sent so that he might be born of a woman, and under the law? For men were indeed under the law before the incarnation of the Word; but God the Word himself, the only-begotten Son of God, who was not under the law, but was himself the giver of the law, was sent by the Father, and being born of a woman, he became under the law, so that he might redeem us who were under the law, and that we might receive the adoption of sons.

If, therefore, the one who was born of a woman was not truly and properly the Son of God, as the writer of that impious letter and the heretic Theodore ^C insanely contend, how could he have bestowed upon us the adoption of sons? Furthermore, it is contained in that same impious letter that the passage, "You have made him a little lower than the angels," cannot possibly be spoken of the divinity of the Only-begotten; which you, too, have rightly proposed as being said, claiming that it can be attributed to a man, but not to the incarnate Word. But that the writer of the letter, taught by the heretic Theodore, uttered such blasphemy, we shall make manifest from those things which Theodore himself discusses in his fourth book against Apollinarius. It runs as follows: "The man of whom the ^D prophet speaks, the blessed Paul clearly indicates to be the one who was assumed by the Only-begotten; saying," for he said that testimony was brought forth about him by him who said (Ps. viii, 5): "What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you visit him? You have made him a little lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, and set him over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet," — he continues: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor," — clearly showing that Jesus is the man of whom the blessed David speaks, being struck with astonishment that the divine nature should then have deemed him worthy of remembrance, and even of its own visitation; because by being made a little lower than the angels, he was deemed worthy to taste death,

and to be clothed with all glory and honor, so that by his conjunction with himself, he might also be established as Lord of all. And again, in the exposition of the eighth psalm, the same impious Theodore says regarding the same passage: ^A “Therefore, the psalm shows us so great a difference between the God Word and the man assumed by him; and these things are found divided in the New Testament, the Lord taking upon himself the first parts of the psalm, in which he says that he is the maker of the creation, and that he has glory raised above the heavens, and is to be admired in all the earth. But the Apostle takes the rest, which are about the man who was deemed worthy of such a benefit by Jesus; how is it not manifest that the divine Scripture teaches clearly that one is the God Word, and the other is the man? And it shows us that there is a great difference between them. For the one makes mention, the other is deemed worthy of memory; the one visits, the other is deemed worthy of this ^B and is called blessed; the one, in granting a benefit, makes him a little lower than the angels, the other receives the benefit even through such a lessening; the one crowns with glory and honor, the other is crowned, and because of this is called blessed; and the one established him over all the works of his hands, and subjected all things under his feet, while the other was deemed worthy to rule over these things, of which he had not earlier possessed the authority.” Thus far the impious Theodore, and that abominable letter blaspheme openly by saying that the God Word is one, and Christ is another; whom you, following, have likewise written that the passage, “You have made him a little lower than the angels,” was spoken concerning a man, and not concerning the incarnate God Word. Yet you ought to have understood that every man is lower than the angels, but this was said on behalf of the only-begotten Son of God. For God, when he deemed it worthy to become man, ^C condescended to our weakness; which the Apostle also teaches us, saying, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor.” If, therefore, as you say, Jesus is one who was made a little lower than the angels, and the God Word is another who was not lessened, then without doubt Christ is a mere man who endured the passion, so that according to you, the Apostle is also a liar when he says: “For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” For who is the Lord of glory, if not the God Word made flesh, whom the Jews, not knowing him to be God, did criticize, saying: “Why do you, being a man, make yourself God?” Which your own teacher, by this wicked interpretation, having followed the Jews rather, has spoken against our God.

For the confirmation of your words, you have added to your chapters, saying that the statement of the Apostle, “who, being in the form of God, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,” ^D harmonizes with your interpretation, and that it is not spoken concerning the God Word incarnate, but concerning a man only. But if even you, following the error of the heretics in this also, assert that the Apostle spoke concerning a man, that he emptied

^A himself, it is nevertheless evident to all the orthodox that the Apostle says the God Word himself emptied himself, since being in the form of God, that is, in the divine nature, he deigned to take the form of a servant; and the form of a servant signifies the human nature, which in the womb of the Virgin, and from her, the God Word united to his own subsistence. And he was not united to a man already formed, as the impiety of Nestorius and Theodore has handed down to those who follow them. For Nestorius says that the God Word was with the man who was born of Mary. And Theodore says that he was in him as, for instance, in the one born.

That the words, « Thou didst make him a little lower than the angels, » ^B and « he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, » were said concerning the God incarnate Word, we are taught also from other sayings of the Apostle, who speaks thus: « For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich » (II Cor. viii, 9). Who then will dare to say that a man was rich, and became poor, so that he might make us rich? And since you say that if any one should speak concerning the incarnate God Word, the only-begotten Son of God, that he himself was lowered or emptied, he is causing a conversion of the divine nature according to the impiety of Apollinarius, or is introducing a mutable deity according to the madness of Arius, it is fitting to say to you that evangelical word: « You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. » For what do you have to say concerning what was ^C said by the Lord: « No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven » (John iii, 13)? Do not say that a man has descended from heaven; but it is manifest that the God Word himself emptied himself, having come down from the heavens, and was incarnate from the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, and became man, and was born of her; and he who descended is the same who ascended, and to him is attributed the lowering and the emptying on account of the descent.

Since also in another place the Lord said in the Gospels: « The Father is greater than I » (John xiv, 28), do not imagine that any man is speaking these things ^D of himself, and not the God Word who became man; but it is manifest that he who said, « The Father is greater than I, » is the same who said, « I and the Father are one » (Ibid. x, 30). For in saying, « I and the Father are one, » he signifies the equality which he himself has with the Father according to the divine nature. But in saying the same: « The Father is greater than I, » he signifies the lowering which occurred for our sake by way of oikonomia. Both, then, the equality and the lowering, are spoken of one and the same Lord and God of ours, Jesus Christ, that is, of the incarnate God Word.

And the Arians, indeed, with an evil mind, from the lowly words deny that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and for this reason assert that he is inferior; but you, not wishing to accept the lowly words concerning the incarnate God Word, introduce a new person into the Trinity according to the impiety of Theodore and Nestorius. But we—

^A while explaining both the sublime and the lowly sayings regarding one and the same God the Word made flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, introduce neither confusion nor division of natures, from which we confess the one composite subsistence of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, nor do we introduce a fourth person into the Holy Trinity.

That the passage, “You have made him a little lower than the angels,” is written concerning the only-begotten God the Word made flesh, as has been said before, is what the holy fathers and doctors of the Church, who interpreted the holy scriptures, have taught us. And St. Cyril, in his epistle to Basilides, spoke thus: “How, then, is He who is worshipped by the angels made lower than the angels? But the reason is evident. For He settled [F. (sic) He was held] within the measures of humanity; and having taken a body which is naturally subject to death, and having made it His own, He suffered in it voluntarily, and is crowned with supreme glory because of the passion, because through it He annihilated death and took away corruption, existing Himself as life and incorruption. When, therefore, he calls Him Jesus, and says that He was made lower than the angels, we do not understand a man taken apart and individually, but the only-begotten Son of God Himself, who, according to the dispensation, yields the precedence to the holy angels, because He truly became man, who is lower than their eminence. ^B For the sublimity of the holy angels is to be outside the flesh and not subject to death, which He Himself took upon Himself by a voluntary emptying; and He who is made a little lower than the angels, on account of the condition of humanity, existing in the sublimity of the Godhead, is worshipped by them, and sits upon thrones, around which the angels stand, always glorifying and ceaselessly proclaiming Him the Lord of hosts.”

That this emptying is of the God Word Himself made flesh is evident from the same St. Cyril in the book written against the refutations of Theodoret, which the same Theodoret composed against his fourth chapter, where he says: “That all human things are small to the Word born of God, I would say without any hesitation. But I ask, whose emptying is it thought to be? And who is it that suffered this voluntarily? For if, as they say, it is the form of a servant, or that which is from the seed of David, how or in what manner, I ask, was it emptied if it was assumed by God? ^C But if the Word Himself, who exists in the form and equality of God the Father, is said to have emptied Himself, how, or in what manner, was He emptied if He rejected the emptying? For the emptying for God the Word, who does not know how to suffer change, is to act and speak something human on account of the providential union with the flesh.”

And again the same St. Cyril, in the same book against the Nestorians, says thus: “Did the divine Paul then deceive those who were sanctified by faith, clearly saying concerning the Only-begotten that, being rich, He became poor for our sakes? Far from it. For the herald of truth speaks in every way what is true. But who is the rich One, and in what manner did He become poor? Let our discourse now examine this. For if, as some have dared to think and say, a man was assumed by God, how did the one assumed become poor, and being resplendent with honors that are above nature? ^D For he was glorified; or if this is not true, let it be...”

thought that the assumption was disparaged by them as if they had brought down the measure of humanity to something more ignoble and lesser; but this is absurd to think. Therefore, the one assumed did not become needy: it remains, then, for us to say that He who was rich as God became poor in our poverty. ^A Similarly, St. Gregory the Theologian in his sermon on the Nativity of Christ says this: "But God, having come forth with the assumption, being one of two opposites, flesh and spirit—of which he deified the one, and the other was deified. O the new mixture! O the wondrous tempering! He who is becomes, and He who is uncreated is created, and the Incomprehensible is contained through the middle of the intellectual soul acting as mediator between the divinity and the density of the flesh; and He who makes rich becomes poor. For He becomes poor in my purification, so that I might become rich in His divinity; and He who is full is emptied; for He is emptied of His own glory for a little while, so that I might partake of His fullness."

St. Athanasius ^B also, explaining those words of the Apostle saying, "Who, being in the form of God, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant," writes thus: "What could be clearer or more demonstrative than this? For He did not become better from something inferior, but rather, being God, He took the form of a servant; and in taking it, He was not improved, but humbled Himself." And after a little: "But what is this, that He who was in the form of God, and the Son of a noble Father, should humble Himself and become a servant for us and on our behalf?" And after a little: "For the Word became flesh, and such a man is said to be from heaven and heavenly, because the Word Himself descended from heaven."

Likewise, St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, in his third book against Eunomius discourse in this manner: "These things we have believed concerning the Crucified; and because of this, we do not cease to magnify Him according to the measure of our power, because He who is contained by no one ^C due to His ineffable and inaccessible magnificence, except to Himself and to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, He was also able to descend for the communion of our weakness. But they make this an argument of the estrangement of the Son from the Father by nature, saying that the Lord appeared through flesh and the cross, as if the nature of the Father remained clearly in impassibility and was in no way able to accept communion with suffering, while the Son, because His nature had changed toward the humbler state, did not have the inability to come to the experience of flesh and death." And after other things, he adds: "For this reason, it is also called the cross of the Lord of glory, and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. But if it is necessary also to divide the rest in the same way, we shall consider who is the one who died, and who is the one who ^D dissolved death, and what is being renewed, and what is being emptied. For the divinity is emptied, so that it might become capable of being received by human nature; but human nature is renewed through the mixing with the divine, becoming divine."

And these things, indeed, [we have set forth] from the teaching of the holy fathers.

^A Having set forth this, so that understanding it you might know that what you have proposed is what the Arians and Nestorians also speak impiously against our Lord and God Jesus Christ. For the Arians, indeed, striving to demonstrate that the Son is a creature and alien to the paternal essence, attribute the passion and the other humble things solely to his divinity; the Nestorians, on the other hand, wishing to introduce two sons, speak of the God Word separately and the Christ, a mere man, separately, and assign the humble things to the man alone. But the holy fathers do not teach thus; for they do not speak of a change in the divinity of the Son because of the humble things, nor do they divide the humanity from the divinity because of the exalted things, but they pass on that both the exalted and the humble are said of one and the same only-begotten God Word, incarnate and become man.

Since, however, you have also included in your chapters ^B this from the same epistle, that it was well said [there were] "two natures, one power, one person," in this also we shall expose the wickedness of the one who wrote the epistle. For, if one does not confess that the God Word himself, having been incarnate from the Virgin, became man, whose two natures does he speak of? But it is evident that he takes the two natures instead of persons, according to Nestorius and Theodore, whom that impious epistle praises. For even if the epistle seems to speak of one person and one son, this is what Theodore and Nestorius also say, maintaining that Christ, being only a man, occupies the person of the God Word, possesses the honor and dignity of the God Word and the grace of adoption, ^C and is worshipped in his place; and for this reason they pretend to speak of one son and one person of the Word and of Christ, agreeing only in the name of sonship. But this is shown clearly from the epistle's saying that there is "one power" of the two natures, as you also wrote. For "one power" is not said of different natures, but of different persons, which is what we confess concerning the holy Trinity. Whence the holy fathers also anathematized those who say that the man was united to the Word according to power, or dignity, or authority, or relationship, or honor, and who do not acknowledge that the union was brought about according to subsistence ^D of the two natures.

But how this, rightly spoken by the holy fathers concerning the difference of the two natures, is impiously interpreted by those who hold the opinions of Nestorius, whose leader in unbelief is Theodore, by speaking of natures instead of persons, and preaching a union of persons according to relationship, while pretending to speak of one person, the impious Theodore himself shows in the fourth discourse of his writings against the heretic Apollinarius, speaking thus: "The difference of the natures is surely shown to us sufficiently through these things; if indeed the one [Christ] is struck with wonder, as having chosen, out of a superabundance of philanthropy, to make a memory and visitation of the one who is so lowly, while he considers the blessed one [to be] worthy of such things." But indeed, he performs the division of the natures in this way, and he also points out to us the difference between the nature of the one who received and the nature of the one who was received; but the divine Scripture, caring also to point out to us the union which occurred to the one received, says many times, according to the union, the two things of the natures [original-script column: see facsimile]

^A show the distinction of natures, for the divine Scripture itself shows us the difference of the nature that takes and that which is taken. For desiring to indicate that unity which pertains to that which was taken, it says that through unity or union He made both natures His own; so that it showed us the unity of Him who was, and took, and of Him who was taken, which proceeded from the conjunction made with Him.

Since, therefore, it has been demonstrated clearly that the impious Theodore used the term 'nature' instead of 'person,' we shall bring forward a still worse blasphemy of his, by which he teaches what he himself understands by the name of unity, so that his defenders may be more fully condemned. In the eighth book on the Incarnation, he writes: "It is established, however, what is meant by unity: for by this the coalescing natures accomplish a single person through unity; so that, just as the Lord says concerning the male and female that they are no longer two, but one flesh, similarly also, by the reasoning of unity, there is no longer two, but a single person, with the distinction of the natures always remaining. For just as there, the duality of number is not abolished by the fact that it is said to be one flesh—for it is clear how one is said—in the same way, the distinction of the natures is not at all removed by the unity of the person. For when we distinguish the natures, we profess the perfect nature of the Word of God, and the perfect person (for it is not possible for hypostasis to be said without person), and likewise the perfect human nature and person. But when we direct our mind to the coupling or conjunction of these, then we preach that there is one person." We, although it is horrific for Christians to speak these things, have been compelled to bring them into the open because of the madness of those who defend Theodore and that impious epistle, praying that God may be propitious to us: by all of which it is demonstrated that that accursed epistle is full of the entire impiety of Theodore.

^C And these things, indeed, we have all answered in response to what was contained in your book of chapters, by which you strove to defend the aforementioned impious epistle, and because of this to renew the perverted opinions of Theodore and Nestorius, whose impiety the aforementioned epistle commends. Since, however, you have omitted very many things in the aforementioned impious epistle written to Maris the heretic, and have not dared to insert them into your chapters, lest perhaps the Christian people might understand from these things how great an impiety is being defended by you, we have judged it necessary to show these also in a few words. For in that part of the epistle which was omitted by you, it is held: "Cyril held the ears of all the bishops who had gathered at the council in Ephesus with the poison that blinds the eyes of the wise, and found an opportunity from the hatred preconceived against Nestorius: and that Nestorius was driven from his seat by the same Ephesian synod without any investigation and judgment having been instituted." Likewise, in the same epistle, it is held: "Those twelve chapters written by Cyril, although they fought against the true faith, were proposed and confirmed by the bishops of the Ephesian synod, and they agreed to them as consonant with the true faith; and that Nestorius, because he was held in hatred by his city and its leading citizens, could not return there at all." And in this way the writer of that impious epistle not only defends the heretics and

^A does not fear to name the catholics as well. For regarding the blessed Rabula, bishop of Edessa, a man distinguished among bishops, whose tomb works miracles to this day, he writes in this way in that same impious epistle: "The tyrant of our city, whom you yourself do not ignore, who, on the pretext of faith, persecutes not only those living with him, but also those who long ago departed to the Lord—of whom one is the blessed Theodore, the herald of truth and doctor of the Church, who not only smote the heretics in his own lifetime through his own faith, but even after death left spiritual weapons in his own books to the children of the Church, as your holiness, having spoken with him, knows, and has given credence to those things which were written by him—this man, he who dares all, has dared to anathematize openly before the Church." And again, in that same impious epistle, there is contained an insult against Cyril, who is among the saints: "That the heart of the Egyptian was softened, and without vexation he assented to the right faith; and that inordinately rushing against the living and the dead, they are in confusion, giving satisfaction for their own faults and teaching things contrary to their prior doctrine, and that one ought to confess the temple and the one dwelling in it." These things, indeed, being present in the aforementioned epistle, we have endeavored to make manifest to you, so that, even if late, you might at last, by choosing the right things, withdraw from this depravity.

^B Such, then, is the impiety of this execrable epistle that you yourselves dared not—as the saying goes—place all the things contained in it into the chapters you sent, although you did attempt to interpret some of them with a perverse understanding. For who among Christians could be numbered who does not call that epistle impious, in which such and so many blasphemies are contained? For whoever undertakes the defense of that epistle in which St. Cyril is called a heretic, and in which the first synod at Ephesus is rejected, such a person stands manifestly on the side of Nestorius and adheres to his impiety—whom that very epistle indeed confesses to have been condemned twice by inquiry and judgment, though not for the sake of his dogmas, but because, owing to the hatred of the citizens, he did not return to the Church. And he who defends the parts of that epistle is not guilty of sin only for this reason, but also because he condemns Pope Celestine as well, who said of Cyril that "Cyril’s faith is our faith." ^C And likewise, he who contends that those twelve chapters of St. Cyril are at odds with the right faith, he does not only condemn St. Cyril, and Celestine of blessed memory, and the first synod at Ephesus, but he also brings judgment against the holy Chalcedonian council, which declared Cyril to be their Father and doctor in its writings; and furthermore against holy Pope Leo of Rome, who, writing to the Chalcedonian council concerning the twelve chapters of St. Cyril, has this: "The definitions proposed against Nestorius by Cyril of holy memory shall remain firm" (the Greek reads: "shall persist").

Although indeed that execrable epistle is filled with every iniquity, it was nevertheless unable to hide one truth, namely, that Theodore, even after death, was [*missing text/lacuna*]—that is, the man whom the epistle itself says was condemned without inquiry or judgment, and not for the sake of dogma, but... ^D

A phrase entirely faulty, which, if the Greek text and the reasoning of the preceding parts is considered, should be corrected thus:

impious epistle—which declares him to be a teacher of the Church and a herald of the truth, though he blasphemed more than all other heretics—claims was anathematized after his death. ^A We have already revealed to you in another epistle a very small portion of his blasphemies, in his own words, and we have demonstrated what the holy fathers, Cyril, Proclus, and Rabulas, wrote against Theodore and his impious words, condemning him with that same impiety. For such are the blasphemies of Theodore, that even you, who defend him in putting them forward, do not dare to argue for them; yet it is established that no one who has condemned impiety by his own judgment can defend the patron of that same impiety, unless he has first turned away from his error, repented, and condemned those things which he formerly taught impiously. ^B Furthermore, to the other insults hurled against Saint Cyril in that same epistle, there is added this one too: that Saint Cyril acted shamefully, and that, repenting of what he had taught previously, he set forth a doctrine contrary to it. By which the writer of the epistle is shown to be full of all foolishness. For where did Saint Cyril set forth something contrary to his first teaching, or repent? Or how did the holy synod at Chalcedon record him as a father, if he had repented, as the epistle claims? For he who repents is not numbered among the teachers, but is to be received as one who has returned from error, in order to return to health. ^C Finally, the writer of the epistle concludes it by saying: "One must confess and believe in the temple, and in him who inhabits the temple." From this passage, as far as the impiety of the epistle and its patrons is concerned, the entire right faith is subverted. For the Catholic Church confesses one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, and does not teach anyone to believe or confess in the temple and in him who inhabits the temple. Hence, even to those who are deemed worthy of the grace of holy baptism, it is delivered to confess and believe in one God the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and in the Holy Spirit—not in two Sons or two Christs, as the epistle to Maris the Persian clearly dictates should be believed, introducing the faith of the temple and of him who inhabits it, whereby a fourth person is introduced to the Holy Trinity. ^D From all these things, therefore, it is demonstrated that he who praises or defends the aforementioned execrable epistle is judged to be entirely alien to the orthodox faith. But since you say that Saint Cyril was received by the Orientals for the reason that he interpreted his own chapters, we are not surprised that you have been similarly deceived in the chapters sent by you to us, seeing that you appear to be ignorant of the acts of the first synod at Ephesus as well. For indeed, Saint Celestine, and the first synod at Ephesus, and Saint Leo, and the holy council at Chalcedon itself, received those very chapters of Saint Cyril and confirmed them with their own vote, and never sought any interpretation of them; for the explanation was provided not for the sake of the orthodox, but for the sake of the heretics who, being addicted to the parties of Nestorius, spoke against the chapters mentioned. For as you yourselves say, neither

^A the holy Gospels, nor the Apostle, nor the other divine Scriptures are sufficiently understood, unless the holy Fathers have interpreted them. But you ought to blush for saying that the Easterners, who were defending Nestorius, accepted Cyril, who is among the saints, as he interpreted his own chapters. For on the contrary, the apostolic see of Rome, and Cyril, who is among the saints, accepted into communion the Eastern bishops who had condemned Nestorius and his impiety; just as Xystus, the pope of Rome, who is among the saints, in writing to Cyril, who is among the saints, together with his own synod, and praising his labors undertaken for the unity of the Church, among other things says this: "The brothers have returned to us, I say to us, who by our common zeal pursued the disease and took care of the healing of their souls." And again: "Rejoice, beloved brother, and rejoice as a victor now that the brothers have been gathered back to us. The Church sought those whom she received. For if we do not wish any of the little ones to be lost, how much more ought we to rejoice at the health of the leaders? We have read how much joy one recovered sheep provided, and from this we ought to understand how much praise there is in having recalled so many shepherds. Flocks are looked upon in individuals, and the matter here is not treated for one alone, as often as the health of the many is at stake." And again: "I rejoice, he says, that the priest of the Church of Antioch is now called by your holiness a venerable man and lord; and deservedly is he called lord, who has acknowledged the common Lord, who confesses the mystery of his incarnation with us in the catholic voice." And again: "Votive, he says, are always the troubles of those preaching the faith; for to them, along with blessedness, a rich reward is prepared in heaven, for whom it is commanded to endure slanders, persecutions, and every evil for the sake of righteousness. You have suffered falsehood, that you might make truth victorious, and therefore now falsehood is to be insulted, because no one could be lost to the truth." And finally: "These things, he says, the holy fraternity with me writes to your holiness, approving your labors in all things, and confirming them, which nevertheless could not be heavy or bitter, because they were spent for Him whose burden we carry, and whose yoke we bear lightly."

These things, then, Saint Xystus wrote to Saint Cyril concerning the Easterners. ^B But since you have also said this foolishly, that the condemnation of the impious letter to Maris the Persian harms the reputation of the holy Council of Chalcedon, we ask you, for what reason did you endure to write this? Do you therefore think that the definition of the holy Council of Chalcedon contains something similar to that impious letter? But may it never be said by a Christian. For understand that all things contained in that impious letter, and in the writings of Theodore, are contrary to the definition of the faith given by the Council of Chalcedon. For Theodore, and the letter, say that God the Word is one, and Christ is another. But the holy Council of Chalcedon acknowledges our one Lord Jesus Christ, God the Word incarnate, and without change made man. The letter, and Theodore, do not confess God the Word to have been incarnate from the holy and glorious ^D Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, and to have been born of her, and for this reason they deny the Theotokos

The holy Fathers who assembled synodically at Chalcedon, however, confessed the holy Virgin Mary to be Theotokos. The impious Theodore and the anonymous epistle, while admitting two persons, pretend to profess a single person by a habitual union; whereas the synod, affirming that the union of the two natures is hypostatic, proclaims one person—or rather, one subsistence—of Christ, the Only-begotten God the Word. Again, that impious epistle condemns the first synod at Ephesus and St. Cyril, and calls his chapters impious. It defends and praises Nestorius and Theodore; but the Chalcedonian synod follows in all things that same first synod at Ephesus, titles Cyril as father and teacher, and confirms his synodical epistle, to which the twelve chapters are annexed. It condemns the impious Nestorius, and in addition to these, it anathematizes along with its author the Jewish symbol sarcastically concocted by Theodore, which was formerly condemned at the first synod at Ephesus and subsequently brought forward at this same synod at Chalcedon. ^A

These things, then, the holy synod at Chalcedon set forth in its definitions, introducing nothing new regarding the orthodox faith, but in all things following the confession of faith which the Lord bestowed through the holy apostles, and which the holy apostles preached, and which the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers handed down to the Church of God, and which the one hundred and fifty Fathers confirmed, clarifying the dogmas concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The holy Fathers who gathered former times at Ephesus also followed this. Moreover, the holy synod at Chalcedon anathematized those who hand down another symbol or exposition of faith than that which was handed down by the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers. ^B

Since matters of the truth stand thus, perceive at last, late though it be, who it is that rightly defends the holy synod at Chalcedon: Is it he who demonstrates that, having followed the aforementioned holy Fathers, it set forth all things correctly, or he who strives to attribute to it the impious expressions of the heretics? For it is not possible that those who accept the pure sanctions of the first Ephesian synod and its catholic vocabulary, and who receive the holy Fathers Celestine, Cyril, and Leo, and the definition of the Chalcedonian synod, could also accept the execrable epistle to Maris, which contradicts them in every point. For who is able to embrace together the teachers of the Church and those who teach the contrary, the orthodox and the heretics, or those who condemned and those who were condemned? But in order that you may more fully understand the matters stirred up by Ibas and Theodoret, we have thought it necessary to disclose these things to you as well. ^C

Know, therefore, that at various times, on account of the impiety of Theodore and Nestorius contained in that same epistle, and because of the insults spoken against St. Cyril and his chapters, Ibas was accused before the emperor Theodosius of pious memory, and before Proclus, of holy memory, the archbishop...

of Constantinople, and before various archbishops of Antioch, and lastly ^A by the same emperor and by Flavian, who was successor to Proclus in the Constantinopolitan see, to give judgment against him; Photius, bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius, bishop of Berytus, were chosen. By them, Ibas was questioned concerning his faith and concerning the insults cast against St. Cyril, and when he was given opportunity for his defense, he denied that anything had been spoken or written contumeliously by him against St. Cyril after the reconciliation established between the Orientals and St. Cyril himself; but that foul letter produced by his accusers openly demonstrates that it was written after the reconciliation.

Ibas, therefore, is known to have completely repudiated the aforementioned letter in his own deposition; wherefore the aforementioned bishops, ^B observing the impiety of the letter, even though Ibas did not confess it to be his own, nevertheless delivered a judgment in all respects contrary to the impiety contained in that same letter. For they decreed that Ibas should anathematize Nestorius and his impious dogmas, which were gathered in the impious letter, [and] that he ought to accept the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers, and the first synod at Ephesus, as having been gathered by the Holy Spirit, in the same manner as that which consisted of those same three hundred and eighteen holy fathers, which Ephesian synod, together with St. Cyril and his twelve chapters, that same impious letter assailed with insults.

Since, however, those things which had been determined by the ^C judges were not at all fulfilled by Ibas, he was deposed from the episcopate, and meanwhile the one holy synod at Chalcedon was gathered, to which Ibas was neither called, nor did he attend as a bishop, Nonnus having already been substituted in his place by the laying on of hands, who had also been summoned to that same holy synod of Chalcedon. But after the definition which had been given concerning the faith was completed, the aforementioned Ibas arrived and requested that the case regarding his substitution be heard, by which he was cast out of the episcopate, and he brought forward the aforementioned judgment of Photius and Eustathius; which, when it was read, his accusers, who had also arrived, brought forth the acts of Tyre, in which that same impious letter was also contained. ^D When these were likewise read, Ibas, knowing that because of its impiety he would be entirely condemned if he confessed it to be his own, interrupting the reading of the acts, spoke thus: "Command that the letter of the clergy of Edessa be read, so that you may know how alien I am from those things of which I am accused." And when these were likewise read, the bishops, considering the judgment of Photius and Eustathius and the accusation instituted against Ibas, decreed that he must again fulfill those things which Photius and Eustathius had judged, and that he must accept the definition which that same holy synod had proclaimed, and subscribe to it himself; by which definition it had included both the first synod at Ephesus and St. Cyril and his doctrine, all of which, as we observe, were treated with mockery in that nefarious letter. By these things we are manifestly taught that the holy [synod] itself

had arranged for all these things to be done by Ibas, for the overturning and condemnation of the oft-mentioned impious letter. We are astonished, therefore, that you still patronize that iniquitous letter, which not even Ibas himself presumed to call his own, either at Tyre or afterwards, in the holy Synod of Chalcedon, nor could he sustain such a claim; but rather, he used the letters of the clergy of Edessa, and the suffrage of Photius and Eustathius, so that he might decline the accusation instituted against him on account of that impious letter.

As for all the other things which have been most poorly expounded by you, you have even added this: that you twist for a false meaning the declaration made by Eunomius concerning Ibas, affirming that this declaration of Eunomius was instituted regarding that impious letter. ^B For it is said to be contained therein that, whereas in the former part of his letter Ibas had insulted the holy Cyril, he nevertheless corrected and amended himself towards the end. Yet it is manifest that this declamation of Eunomius does not in the least pertain to that impious letter, but that the discourse was instituted concerning the substitution which had been made by Ibas at Tyre through Photius and Eustathius. For in the acts before them Ibas manifestly confessed, as we also indicated above, that before this time he—along with the rest of the bishops of the East—had insulted the holy Cyril, when there was discord among them; but after the union which was effected among them, he had said nothing injurious against the holy Cyril. From this confession, Eunomius, finding that Ibas had indeed first insulted the holy Cyril, but afterwards had repented and said that after the union he had uttered nothing injurious against the ^C holy Cyril, fashioned the aforementioned declaration. For that the aforementioned impious letter, which is called "of Ibas," is filled from beginning to end with every impiety and insult against Cyril, no one doubts. Nor is there any reason to believe that Eunomius would have censured the first parts of the letter as evil, yet praised the latter [parts] as being better. For no person of sound mind accepts him who, on one and the same matter, is at once both praiser and vituperator. Whoever, therefore, dares to say that the declaration of Eunomius does not refer to the substitution of Ibas made at Tyre, but rather to the purport of the aforementioned impious letter, does not follow the sequence of truth, but, like a heretic, strives to cast insult upon the fathers.

We have indeed wondered that you dared to write that the chapters of the holy Cyril are obscure, ^D while you praised that impious letter as if it were shining forth with the breathing of the Holy Spirit. It is manifest, indeed, that these words were brought forth by you not by the power of the Holy Spirit, but by the impulse of an evil spirit: since you have reproved the fathers and teachers of the Church for obscurity, yet have extolled with praises the malice and blasphemies of that letter. Wherefore, it rightly befits you and all others who think similar things regarding the holy fathers, what was said by the holy apostle Peter concerning those who wrongly understand the epistles of holy Paul: "which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own perdition" (II Petr. III, 16). So, therefore, to you also who wrongly under-

- ^A stand them, the things set forth by the teachers of the Church and by the divine scriptures seem obscure. And these things concerning Ibas and that impious letter are what are found to have been scrutinized in certain books.

It is necessary for you to know that the acts in which that impious letter is contained are not at all included among the authentic documents to which the bishops subscribed, the authentic copies of which are preserved in the most holy Roman Church, and in Constantinople, and even in our own sacred palace. Since, therefore, it is proven from every side that the same impious letter is filled with all impiety and is contrary to the things defined by the holy synod at Chalcedon, those who say that it was accepted by the holy synod at Chalcedon are considered not only to be endeavoring with every effort to defend their own malice, ^B but also to be doing an injury to the same holy synod. For whatever things were approved and confirmed by the aforementioned holy synod are contained expressly in the definition of faith given forth by it.

We wish you also to know that Theodoret, after he had directed his pen against the twelve chapters of holy Cyril, defending Nestorius and his perversion, after the definition of the holy synod at Chalcedon, had it in his instructions, first indeed to anathematize Nestorius and confess the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary as Theotokos, and he carried this out. Wherefore Ibas, likewise, and Theodoret were received, not as teachers and Fathers, but as penitents, and as those who detest the pernicious opinions of which they were accused, and who have embraced the definition of the Chalcedonian synod and subscribed to it; for it is the custom in the Catholic Church for heretics who abjure their own error and return to the orthodox faith to be received into communion, ^C but not to be numbered among the teachers and Fathers. Wherefore also the other Eastern bishops, some of whom, standing on the side of Nestorius, had spoken against the first synod at Ephesus and against holy Cyril, when afterwards they had pronounced anathema against Nestorius and his perverse opinion, the apostolic Roman see and holy Cyril received them into communion, and therefore they are understood as having been accepted by the holy Church of God.

We also wish you to be aware of this, that not only were Ibas and Theodoret cast out from the episcopacy for speaking against the twelve chapters of holy Cyril, but also Domnus, the archbishop of Antioch, underwent the judgment of condemnation for this reason, because he had written that it was expedient that these twelve chapters be passed over in silence; which judgment instituted against Domnus, the synod of Chalcedon, even with him already dead, approved and confirmed. That these things are most true, and that matters are as they have been set forth to us, Theodoret himself testifies in an epistle to John, the bishop of Germanicia, writing thus: ^D "Why indeed do the profane lie and say that no new schism concerning dogmas has occurred? For what murders, therefore, or sorceries was I driven out? What adulteries did such-and-such a person commit? What tombs did such-and-such a person break open? It is clear even to the barbarians, I beseech you, that it was for the sake of dogmas that they drove out both me and the others. For indeed the lord Domnus, as—

those who did not receive the chapters ^A destroyed them, calling these "all-laudable," and confessing that they would abide by them. For I have read their depositions, and they excommunicated me as the leader of the heresy. From these things, therefore, it is shown that it was because of the chapters of Cyril of holy memory, set forth against Nestorius, that Domnus, and Theodoret himself, and Ibas, and certain others were expelled; and the holy synod at Chalcedon received Theodoret and Ibas, because they repented and accepted the aforementioned chapters and the other things for which they had been expelled. But the others, who did not repent, were not received; and the condemnation of Domnus was confirmed even after his death.

But because ^B you wrote that you anathematize the blasphemies of Theodore which were sent to you by us, whosoever they may be, but hesitate to anathematize Theodore himself because he is said to have died in the communion of the churches, know that those who say it is not permitted for Theodore to be anathematized, but that he must be numbered with the bishops because, as you have said, he died in the communion ^C of the Church, ought also to number Judas among the apostles—he who, as he thought, deceived God, who searches the secrets of men, and who was admitted by Him to communion along with the other disciples. For as far as those who say these things are concerned, the apostles, too, are worthy of blame, they who after his death brought a vote against him, condemned him, and inducted another in his place. And again, since his name is read in the holy Gospels among the other apostles, are we to say that he is therefore received as an apostle, or that he ought to have been delivered from the trial of the anathema? Understand, therefore, that he truly dies in the communion of the churches who has kept the orthodox faith whole until the end of his own life.

For indeed, even if a Manichæan, or Arian, or Nestorian, or Eutychian, or any other kind of heretic, or one seized by the Greek madness, happens to be in communion with the Church and dies in that state, and after his death is found to be a heretic—either from his writings or in some other way—the orthodox faith is nevertheless not harmed by this, nor is he delivered from condemnation if he is said to have died in the "peace of the churches." And, in general, death does not deliver any of the heretics from the condemnation concerning their heterodoxy; rather, they are condemned the more for this reason: that they did not repent while living.

That heretics who did not repent in their lifetime were condemned even after their death is shown by many examples; for Eunomius, and Apollinarius, and Bonosus, and in earlier times Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, and Cerinthus, and many others, not being anathematized in their own lifetime, were condemned after death, and are anathematized by the Catholic Church, because they died in their own error; just as those who were justly condemned in their own lifetime, after death, by the ^D

^A Catholic Church have been recalled, namely John and Flavian, the holy archbishops of Constantinople. For according to your line of reasoning, it is necessary that heretics who have died in their own error be set free, but that the orthodox who were unjustly condemned should not be recalled after death; which is a position full of all impiety.

That it is an ecclesiastical tradition that heretics be condemned and anathematized even after death, we have shown clearly from these things; but besides this, it is also demonstrated more strongly from the Constitutions of the holy apostles. For when they say that it is proper to offer alms for the repose of those who have departed, they go on to add: ^B "We say this concerning the pious; but as for the impious, even if one were to give the whole substance of the world to the poor for their sake, it would profit them nothing. For the Divine being was opposed to him while he was alive, and it is clear that He remains so even after he has departed." Since, therefore, the apostles have laid this down regarding the pious, who would dare to declare that after death heretics—and especially Theodore himself—should be set free from the condemnation of the anathema, whom the holy fathers have numbered among those who blasphemed worse than Jews, Greeks, and Sodomites, and all other heretics, and whom they condemned along with his own impiety? ^C

That heretics ought to be anathematized even after death, as we have said, the holy Augustine, bishop of a city in Africa, also declares in the letter written to Boniface: "Although it might be possible to show that the things alleged by them against Caecilian and us are true, we would anathematize him even now, dead though he is; but yet we should not abandon the Church of Christ, which is not formed by litigious opinions, but is confirmed by divine testimonies, on account of any man whatsoever." These are the words of Augustine. ^D Yet the holy fathers do not only anathematize those who erred against the faith after death; they also anathematize bishops who, in their last will—or dying intestate—leave their goods to heretical kinsmen or to strangers. For the eighty-first canon of the African synod says thus: "Again it is decreed, if any bishop prefers strangers, or heretics (even his own kinsmen), or pagans, to the Church as heirs, let him be anathematized even after death, and let his name not be read among the priests of God, and let no excuse be allowed him should he die intestate; because it was his duty, once he became a bishop, to arrange his estate in a manner appropriate to his calling and not defer it to another time." If, therefore, as the ecclesiastical canon has defined, bishops are smitten with anathema even after death for not rightly distributing their own wealth, how much more justly shall those be subject to excommunication who have sinned against God Himself, the holy Scripture saying: "If a man sin against a man, they shall pray for him; but if a man sin against God, who shall pray for him?"

^A Having shown that in past times it was decreed by the holy Fathers that it was necessary even after death for those who had sinned either against the faith or against the canons to be anathematized, we deemed it necessary to make manifest to all what has been done in our own times, in order to remove every pretext from those who are defenders of manifest heretics and of their impiety. For the Apostolic See condemned and anathematized after their death even Laurentius and Dioscorus, who had at different times usurped the dignity of the apostolic throne, although they had not sinned against the faith, but only because they had striven to seize the episcopate by intrigue.

^B But since you have also added this to your letters, that if anyone anathematizes a heresiarch and, in passing sentence upon him, includes all those who hold the same views as he, he thereby embraces all who have in any way approved of that which is condemned; and that therefore, since you have condemned Paul of Samosata, and Photium, and Bonosus, and Nestorius, there is no need to condemn Theodorus by name, who holds the same views as they—know first of all that those who have followed the heresiarchs in error are anathematized without being named, provided they have not deceived others. But the Church anathematizes the leaders and masters of heresies by name. Furthermore, Theodorus was not only a teacher of the impiety of Nestorius, but he also led many into error through his own impious writings. For just as the true teachers of the Church are recognized and praised by their own expositions, so, on the other hand, all the authors of false doctrine are refuted and anathematized by their own impious writings. Since, therefore, Theodorus has been a heresiarch and has vomited forth innumerable blasphemies in his own books, you have no just reason to refuse to pronounce anathema against him.

^C Concerning the exposition of the faith which you inserted into your letters, although there are many things for which we might find fault, we have nevertheless considered that the whole is to be pardoned out of regard for your ignorance and simplicity. For in some places you have written incautiously, and in some places you have used words never found in the holy Scriptures nor used by the holy Fathers of the Church; in other places, you have condemned the very teachers of the Church, according to what seemed right to you, and you have, moreover, passed over in silence something that pertains entirely to the orthodox faith. Therefore, according to the admonition of the holy Fathers, you ought either to speak with knowledge, or, if you are ignorant, to keep silent and be instructed by those who are learned and knowledgeable.

^D Since you have written to us concerning how we ought to answer the Egyptians, we indeed marvel, seeing that you, who defend that impious letter, and Theodorus, and Nestorius, and their perverse opinions, should now undertake to advise us what we ought to answer to other enemies of the Church. For if anyone should consider what has been written by you, it would exhort the Egyptians to do nothing else but to receive Nestorius

all the holy Fathers who condemned them and their infidelity, and in addition fell from one error into another, since when you wrote to us asking that we should answer the enemies of the Church, you did not hesitate to call that abominable letter orthodox. ^A And that they should accept Theodore and the heretics, and reject all the holy Fathers who condemned them and their infidelity; and thus they fall from one error into another; since when writing to us to answer the enemies of the Church, you did not hesitate to call that abominable letter orthodox.

Strive, therefore, first to correct yourselves, and then to teach others. For if anyone defends Theodore, or the letter called after Ibas, or the writings of Theodoret which were set forth against the true faith, he is numbered among the heretics and makes himself an alien to the Catholic Church, whose head is the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, from whom you separate yourselves by defending that impious letter and Theodore; and for this reason it is fitting for you to refrain from the impiety of the letter and from defending Theodore, that manifest heretic. For if the holy apostle Paul forbids ^B anyone to be called by his own name, or by the name of the rest of the apostles, and rebukes those who said, "I am of Paul, but I of Cephas," etc. *Not a few things are missing.*

THE CONSTITUTION OF EMPEROR JUSTINIAN AGAINST ANTHIMUS, SEVERUS, PETER, AND ZOARAS.

(MANSI Concil., tom. VIII.)

In the name of our Master Jesus Christ our God, Emperor Caesar Flavius Justinianus, Alemanicus, Gothicus, Francicus, Germanicus, Anticus, Alanicus, Vandalicus, Africanus, Pious, fortunate, glorious, victor, triumpher, ever-Augustus, to Menas the Patriarch.