Counter-statements of Theodoret
The Ecclesiastical History, Dialogues, And Letters Of Theodoret
TRANSLATED WITH NOTES
BY
THE REV. BLOMFIELD JACKSON, M.A.
VICAR OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW’S, MOOR LANE, AND FELLOW OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON.
Pros ton chratounton esmen
—AEschylus.
Chronological Tables to accompany the History and Life of Theodoret.
323.
Defeat and relegation of Licinius.
Theod. i. 1; Soc. i. 4; Soz. i. 8; Eus. x. 9.
324.
Execution of Licinius. Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, Silvester of Rome, and Alexander of Alexandria.
Theod. i. 2; Soc. i. 9; Soz. i. 2.
Colluthus condemned at Alexandria.
Theod. i. 3
325.
20th year of Constantine I. COUNCIL OF NICAEA (May 20-Aug. 25).
Theod. i. 6; Soc. i. 8; Soz. i. 17.
Birth of Gallus (Caesar).
Theod. iii. 1
Birth of Gregory of Nazianzus.
Eustathius of Beroea elected bishop of Antioch.
Theod. i. 3; Soz. i. 2.
Constantine writes a letter ordering the building and reparation of churches.
Theod. i. 14
Also a letter to Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
326.
Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, died in January (perhaps April), and Athanasius succeeds, probably on June 8th. The Festal Index gives 328.
Theod. i. 25; Soc. i. 15; Soz. ii. 17.
327.
? Consecration of Frumentius to the Abyssinian bishopric.
Theod. i. 22; Soc. i. 19; Soz. ii. 24.
328.
Arian Council of Antioch, and deposition of Eustathius: but the date is much controverted. Possibly 330 or 331.
Theod. i. 20; Soc. i. 24; Soz. ii. 19.
329.
Incident of Ischyras and Macarius.
Theod. ii. 6; Soc. i. 27.
Birth of Basil of Caesarea, “the Great.”
330.
Byzantium dedicated as Constantinople, May 11th.
cf. Theod. i. 18; Soc. i. 16; Soz. i. 3.
331.
Birth of Julian.
Perhaps the deposition of Eustathius.
333.
Constantine’s letter to Sapor II.
Theod. i. 24
335.
Division of the empire between Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, sons, and Dalmatius and Hannibalianus, nephews, of the emperor.
Dedication of the Great Church at Jerusalem.
Theod. i. 29; Soc. i. 28; Soz. ii. 26.
Anthony summoned to Alexandria.
Councils of Tyre and Jerusalem; first exile of Athanasius.
Theod. i. 28–29; Soc. i. 28; Soz. ii. 25.
336.
Athanasius at Treves.
Theod. i. 29; Soc. i. 35; Soz. ii. 28.
Death of Arius.
Theod. i. 13; Soc. i. 38; Soz. ii. 29.
Death (? Clinton gives 340) of Alexander of Constantinople.
Theod. i. 19.
337.
Death of Constantine I. Whitsunday.
Theod. i. 30; Soc. i. 39; Soz. ii. 34.
338.
Athanasius’ restoration recommended by Constantine II.
Theod. ii. 1; Soc. ii. 3; Soz. iii. 2.
340.
Constantine II. defeated and slain near Aquileia.
Theod. ii. 3; Soc. ii. 5; Soz. iii. 2.
Constantius at war with Persia.
Death of Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian.
Paul and Eusebius of Nicomedia rivals at Constantinople.
Theod. i. 19; Soc. ii. 7; Soz. iii. 4.
Athanasius withdraws to Rome.
Gregory at Alexandria.
Theod. ii. 3; Soc. ii. 11; Soz. iii. 6.
Arian Synod of the Dedication of the Great Church at Antioch, commonly dated 341.
Theod. ii. 3; Soc. ii. 10; Soz. iii. 5.
342.
Constantius orders expulsion of Paul from Constantinople.
Theod. ii. 4; Soc. ii. 7; Soz. iii. 4.
343.
Persecution in Persia.
343–4 or 347.
(See note on p. 67.) Council of Sardica.
Theod. ii. 6; Soc. ii. 14; Soz. iii. 11.
Athanasius received at Milan by Constans.
345.
Murder of Gregory.
Theod. ii. 9.
345 or 346.
Deposition of Stephen of Antioch.
Theod. ii. 8; Soc. ii. 26; Soz. iii. 20.
Return of Athanasius, October 21.
Theod. ii. 3; Soc. ii. 33; Soz. iii. 70.
347.
Birth of John Chrysostom.
349.
Council at Jerusalem (Mansi. ii. 171 u.), under bp. Maximus, in favour of Athanasius. 1st Council of Sirmium.
350.
Revolt of Magnentius.
Theod. ii. 12; Soc. ii. 25.
Constans killed February 27.
Theod. ii. 9; Soc. ii. 25; Soz. iv. 1.
351.
Constantius, sole emperor, defeats Magnentius at Mursa.
2nd Council of Sirmium.
352.
Liberius succeeds Julius in the See of Rome
Theod. ii. 12.
Paul of Constantinople strangled.
Theod. ii. 4; Soc. ii. 26; Soz. iv. 2.
353.
Suicide of Magnentius.
355.
Council of Milan.
Theod. ii. 12; Soc. ii. 36; Soz. iv. 9.
356.
Intrusion of George at Alexandria.
Theod. ii. 10; Soc. ii. 14; Soz. iv. 30.
357.
Deposition of Cyril of Jerusalem by Acacius.
Theod. ii. 22; Soc. ii. 42; Soz. iv. 25.
3rd Council of Sirmium.
358.
Return of Liberius.
Theod. ii. 14; Soc. ii. 42; Soz. iv. 15.
359.
Synod of the Isaurian Seleucia.
Theod. ii. 22; Soc. ii. 39; Soz. iv. 22.
Birth of Gratianus.
Council of Ariminum.
Theod. ii. 15; Soc. ii. 37; Soz. iv. 17.
360.
Synod of Nica.
Theod. ii. 16.
3rd Council of Constantinople. (Semi Arian.)
361.
Nov. 3 Death of Constantius.
Accession of Julian.
Theod. iii. 1; Soc. ii. 47; Soz. v. 1.
362.
Murder of George of Alexandria.
Athanasius returns Feb. 22, but goes into 4th exile in October.
Theod. iii. 5; Soc. iii. 4; Soz. vi. 6.
363.
Julian’s baffled attempt to rebuild the Temple
Theod. iii. 15; Soc. iii. 70; Soz. v. 22.
Julian’s Persian expedition and death, June 26.
Theod. iii. 20; Soc. iii. 17; Soz. vi. 1.
Accession of Jovian, June 27
364.
Death of Jovian.
Theod. iv. 4; Soc. iii. 26; Soz. vi. 3.
Accession of Valentinian. Valens Augustus.
366.
Liberius, bp. of Rome, dies and is succeeded by Damasus.
Theod. ii. 17; Soc. iv. 29; Soz. vi. 23.
367.
Gratianus, son of Valentinian, declared Augustus. aet. s.8.
Theod. v. 1.
5th exile of Athanasius.
370.
Basil becomes bishop of Caesarea.
Theod. iv. 16; Soc. iv. 26; Soz. vi. 16.
372.
Gregory of Nazianzus becomes bishop of Sasima.
Theod. v. 7; Soc. iv. 26; Soz. vi. 17.
373.
Death of Athanasius, May 2.
Theod. iv. 17; Soc. iv. 20; Soz. vi. 19.
Death of Ephraim Syrus, June 19.
Theod. iv. 26; Soc. iii. 16.
374.
Auxentius of Milan dies.
Theod. iv. 5; Soc. iv. 30; Soz. i. 24.
Ambrose archbishop of Milan.
Theod. iv. 6.
375.
Gratian emperor of the West.
Theod. v. 1; Soc. iv. 31; Soz. vi. 36.
378.
Death of Valens.
Theod. iv. 32; Soc. iv. 37; Soz. vi. 40.
379.
Theodosius named Augustus, Jan. 19.
Theod. v. 5; Soc. v. 2; Soz. vii. 2.
Gregory of Nazianzus at Constantinople.
Theod. v. 8; Soc. v. 6; Soz. vii. 7.
381.
Council of Constantinople
Theod. v. 8; Soc. v. 8; Soz. vii. 7.
383.
Death of Gratian. Rebellion of Maximus.
Theod. v. 12; Soc. v. 11; Soz. vii. 13.
386.
Birth of Theodoret, according to the less probable date of Garnerius.
387.
Sedition at Antioch.
Theod. v. 19; Soc. v. 15; Soz. vii. 23.
388.
Death of Cyril of Jerusalem.
390.
Destruction of the Serapeum.
Theod. v. 22; Soc. v. 16; Soz. vii. 15.
Massacre at Thessalonica.
Theod. v. 17.
Death of Gregory of Nazianzus.
392.
Death of Valentinian II. Eugenius set up as Emperor.
Theod. v. 24.
393.
Birth of Theodoret, according to the more probable date of Tillemont.
394.
Theodosius defeats Eugenius.
Theod. v. 24; Soc. v. 25; Soz. vii. 24.
395.
Death of Theodosius. Accession of Honorius and Arcadius.
Theod. v. 25; Soc. v. 26; Soz. vii. 25.
398.
John Chrysostom becomes bishop of Constantinople.
Theod. v. 27; Soc. vi. 2; Soz. viii. 2.
400.
Revolt of Gainas.
cf. Theod. v. 33; Soc. vi. 6; Soz. viii. 4.
401.
Roman legions withdrawn from Britain.
403.
Synod of the “the Oak.”
Theod. v. 34; Soc. vi. 15; Soz. viii. 19.
404.
Death of the empress Eudoxia.
Chrysostom ordered to quit Constantinople.
Theod. v. 34; Soc. vi. 18; Soz. viii. 24.
407.
Death of Chrysostom.
Theod. v. 34.
408.
Death of Arcadius. Accession of Theodosius II.
Theod. v. 36.
410.
Sack of Rome by Alaric.
412.
Cyril becomes patriarch of Alexandria.
Theod. v. 35.
415.
Murder of Hypatia at Alexandria.
Theodoret loses his parents and retires to Nicerte.
Theod. Epp. CXIII, CXIX.
418.
Council of Carthage.
423.
Death of Honorius.
Theodoret becomes bishop of Cyrus.
425.
Accession of Valentinian III.
428.
Nestorius becomes bishop of Constantinople.
Vandals in Africa.
Theod. Epp. XXIX-XXXVI.
429.
Death of Theodotus, patriarch of Antioch, fixed by Theodoretus as the term of his History.
Theod. v. 39.
430.
Letters of Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch on the Western condemnation of Nestorius.
Death of St. Augustine.
431.
Council of Ephesus. (3rd general.)
432.
Council of Orientals at Beroea. (St. Patrick’s mission.)
433.
Peace between Cyril and the Orientals.
434 (c).
Friendly correspondence between Theod. and Cyril.
Theod. Ep. LXXXIII.
438.
Translation of the relics of Chrysostom to Constantinople.
Theod. v. 36; Soc. vii. 45.
Cyril denounces Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia: renewal of hostilities with Theodoret.
440.
Accession of Isdigerdes II., the last event referred to in the Ecc. History.
Theod. v. 38.
444.
Death of Cyril of Alexandria.
Theod. Ep. CLXXX.
Accession of Dioscorus.
446 (c).
Composition of the “Dialogues.”
448.
Dioscorus deposes Irenaeus of Tyre.
449.
(March 30.) Edict confining Theodoret within the limits of his diocese.
(Aug.) Assembly of the “Latrocinium” at Ephesus.
450.
(July 29.) Death of Theodosius II.
Accession of Pulcheria and Marcian.
451.
Council of Chalcedon. (4th general.)
453.
Death of Theodoret, according to Tillemont.
458.
Probable date of the death, according to Garnerius.
The commentary on Jeremiah includes Baruch and the Lamentations
(c) The epistles of St. Paul, among which Theodoret reckons the Epistle to the Hebrews, are the only portions of the New Testament on which we possess our author’s commentaries. On them the late Bishop Lightfoot writes, “Theodoret’s commentaries on St. Paul are superior to his other exegetical writings, and have been assigned the palm over all patristic expositions of Scripture. See Schroeckh xviii. p. 398. sqq., Simon, p. 314 sqq. Rosenmueller iv. p. 93 sqq., and the monograph of Richter, de Theodoreto Epist. Paulin, interprete (Lips. 1822.) For appreciation, terseness of expression and good sense, they are perhaps unsurpassed, and, if the absence of faults were a just standard of merit, they would deserve the first place; but they have little claim to originality, and he who has read Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia will find scarcely anything in Theodoret which he has not seen before. It is right to add however that Theodoret modestly disclaims any such merit. In his preface he apologises for attempting to interpret St. Paul after two such men who are luminaries of the world:’ and he professes nothing more than to gather his stores from the blessed fathers.’ In these expressions he alludes doubtless to Chrysostom and Theodore.”
As a specimen of the mode of treatment of a crucial passage, of interest in view of the writer’s relations to the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies, the notes on I. Cor. xv. 27, 28 may be quoted. “This is a passage which Arians and Eunomians have been wont to be constantly adducing with the notion that they are thereby belittling the dignity of the only-begotten. They ought to have perceived that the divine apostle has written nothing in this passage about the Godhead of the only-begotten. He is exhorting us to believe in the resurrection of the flesh, and endeavours to prove the resurrection of the flesh by the resurrection of the Lord. It is obvious that like is conformed to like. On this account he calls Him the first fruits of them that have fallen asleep,’ and styles Him Man,’ and by comparison with Adam proves that by Him the general resurrection will come to pass, with the object of persuading objectors, by shewing the resurrection of one of like nature, to believe that all mankind will share His resurrection. It must therefore be recognised that the natures of the Lord are two: and that divine Scripture names Him sometimes from the human, and sometimes from the divine. If it speaks of God, it does not deny the manhood: if it mentions man it at the same time confesses the Godhead. It is impossible always to speak of Him in terms of sublimity, on account of the nature which He received from us, for if even when lowly terms are employed some men deny the assumption of the flesh, clearly still more would have been found infected with this unsoundness, had no lowly terms been used. What then is the meaning of then is subjected’? This expression is applicable to sovereigns exercising sovereignty now, for if He then is subjected He is not yet subjected. So they are all in error who blaspheme and try to make subject Him who has not yet submitted to the limits of subjection. We must wait, and learn the mode of the subjection. But we have gone through long discussions on these points in our contests with them. It is enough now to indicate briefly the Apostle’s aim. He is writing to the Corinthians who have only just been set free from the fables of heathendom. Their fables are full of violence and iniquity. Not to name others, and pollute my lips, they worship parricide gods, and say that sons revolted against their fathers, drove them from their realm, and seized their sovereignty. So after saying great things of Christ, in that He shall destroy all rule and authority and power, and shall put an end to death, and hath subdued all things under his feet; lest starting from those fables of theirs they should expect Him to treat His father like the Daemons whom they adore; after mentioning, as was necessary, the subjugation of all things the apostle adds The Son Himself shall be subject to Him that did put all things under Him.’ For not only shall He not subject the Father to Himself, but shall Himself accept the subjection becoming to a son. So the divine apostle, suspecting the mischief arising from the pagan mythology, uses expressions of lowliness because such terms are helpful. But let objectors tell us the form of that subjection. If they are willing to consider the truth, He shewed obedience when He was made man, and wrought out our salvation. How then shall He then be subjected, and how shall He then deliver the kingdom to God the Father? If the case be viewed in this way, it will appear that God the Father does not hold the kingdom now. So full of absurdity are their arguments. But He makes what is ours His own, since we are called His body, and He is called our Head. He took our iniquities and bore our diseases.’ So He says in the Psalm my God, my God, look upon me, why hast Thou forsaken me. The words of my transgressions are far from my health.’ And yet He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth. But a mouth is made of our nature, in that He was made the first fruits of the nature. So He appropriates our frequent disobedience and the then subjection, and, when we are subjected after our delivery from corruption He is said to be subjected. What follows leads us on to this sense. For after the words then shall the son be subject to Him that did put all things under Him,’ the Apostle adds that God may be all in all.’ He is everywhere now in accordance with His essence, for His nature is uncircumscribed, as says the divine apostle, in Him we live and move and have our being.’ But, as regards His good pleasure, He is not in all, for the Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear Him, in those that hope in his mercy.’ But in these He is not wholly. For no one is pure of uncleanness, and In thy sight shall no man living be justified and If thou Lord shouldst mark iniquities O Lord who shall stand?’ Therefore the Lord taketh pleasure wherein they do right and taketh not pleasure wherein they err. But in the life to come where corruption ceases and immortality is given passions have no place; and after these have been quite driven out no kind of sin is committed for the future. Thus hereafter God shall be all in all, when all have been released from sin and turned to Him and are incapable of any inclination to the worse. And what in this place the divine Apostle has said of God in another passage he has laid down of Christ. His words are these. Where there is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian . . . but Christ is all and in all.’ He would not have applied to the Son what is attributable to the Father had he not of divine grace learnt that He is of equal honour with Him.’
On the meaning of the passage about them that are baptized for the dead it is curious to find only one interpretation curtly proffered in apparent unconsciousness of any other being known or possible. Theodoret’s words are “He, says the apostle, who is baptized is buried with the Lord, that as he has been sharer in the death so he may be sharer in the resurrection. But if the body is dead and does not rise why then is he baptized?” The dead for which a man is baptized seems to be regarded as his own dead body i.e., dead in trespasses and sin and subject to corruption.
(d) Of the historical works, (i) the Ecclesiastical History needs less description, in that a translation in extenso is given in the text. Its style and spirit speak for themselves. Photius well describes it as “clear, lofty, and concise.”
Gibbon, referring to the three ecclesiastical historians of this period speaks of “Socrates, the more curious Sozomen, and the learned Theodoret.” Of learning, industry, and veracity the proofs are patent in the book itself. The chief fault of the work is its want of chronological arrangement. A minor shortcoming is what may be called a lack of perspective; a fulness of detail is sometimes conceded to mere episode and parenthesis, while characters and events of high and crucial importance would scarcely be known to be so, were we dependent for our estimation of them on Theodoret alone. Valesius inclines to the opinion that his opening words about supplying things omitted refer to Socrates and Sozomen, and compares him in his composition of a history after those writers (there is just a possibility that he might have completed the parallel by referring to a third predecessor—Rufinus) to St. John filling up the gaps left by the synoptists. But this view is open to question. Theodoret names no previous writers but Eusebius. A special importance attaches to his account of such events and persons as his local knowledge enables him to give with completeness of detail, as for instance, all that relates to Antioch and its bishops. Garnerius is of opinion that the work might with propriety be entitled A History of the Arian Heresy; all other matter introduced he views as merely episodic. He also quotes the letter of Gregory the great in which the Roman bishop states that “the apostolic see refuses to receive the History of Sozomenus’ (sic) inasmuch as it abounds with lies, and praises Theodore of Mopsuestia, maintaining that he was up to the day of his death, a great Doctor.” “Sozomen” is supposed to be a slip of the pen, or of the memory, for “Theodoret.” But, if this be so, “multa mentitur” is an unfair description of the errors of the historian. Fallible he was, and exhibits failure in accuracy, especially in chronology, but his truthfulness of aim is plain.
(ii) The Religious History, several times referred to in the Ecclesiastical History, and therefore an earlier composition, contains the lives of thirty-three famous ascetics, of whom three were women. The “curious intellectual problem” of the readiness with which Theodoret, a disciple of the “prosaic and critical” school of Antioch, accepts and repeats marvellous tales of the miracles of his contemporary hermits, has been invested with fresh interest in our own time by the apparent sympathy and similar belief of Dr. Newman, who asks “What made him drink in with such relish what we reject with such disgust? Was it that, at least, some miracles were brought home so absolutely to his sensible experience that he had no reason for doubting the others which came to him second-hand? This certainly will explain what to most of us is sure to seem the stupid credulity of so well-read, so intellectual an author.” Cardinal Newman evidently implies that the evidence was irresistible, even to a keen and trained intelligence. Probably in many cases the explanation is to be found, as has been already suggested in the remarks on Theodoret’s birth, in the ready acceptance of the current views of the age and place as to cause and effect. Theodoret believed in the marvels of his monks. Matthew Hale believed in witchcraft. Neither, that is, was some centuries removed from his own age. Neither need be accused of stupid credulity. The enthusiasm which led him to reckon on finding the noble army of martyrs a very present help in time of trouble because he had a little bottle of their oil, probably that burned at their graves, slung over his bed; and his assurance that the old cloak of Jacobus, folded for his pillow, was a more than adamantine bulwark against the wiles of the devil, indicate no more than an exaggerated reliance on the power of material memorials to affect the imagination. And it is curious to remark that with all this acceptance of the cures effected by ascetics, Theodoret made a provision of medical skill for his flock at Cyrus.
(e) The works reckoned as theological, as distinct from the controversial, are three: (i) The twelve discourses entitled Ellenikon therapeutike pathematon, or “Graecarum affectionum curatio, seu evangelicae veritatis ex gentilium philospohia cognitio.’ They contain an elaborate apology for Christian philosophy, with a refutation of the attacks of paganism against the doctrines of the gospel, and may have been designed, as Garnerius conjectures, to serve as an antidote against whatever might still survive of the influence of Julian and his writings. Here we see at once our author’s “genius and erudition” (Mosheim). In these orations he exhibits a wide acquaintance with Greek literature, and we find cited, or referred to, among other writers, Homer, Hesiod, Alcman, Theognis, Xenophanes, Pindar, Heraclitus, Zeno, Parmenides, Empedocles, Euripides, Herodotus, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, and Porphyry. Homer and Plato are largely quoted. Basnage, indeed, contested their genuineness, but without weakening their position among Theodoret’s accepted works. They have seemed to some to encourage undue honour to and invocation of saints and martyrs but their author seems to anticipate later exaggeration of their reverence by the distinction, “We ascribe Godhead to nothing visible. Them that have been distinguished in virtue we honour as excellent men, but we worship none but the God and Father of all, His Word, and the Holy Spirit.” (ii). The Discourses against paganism were followed by ten on Divine Providence, a work justly eulogized as exhibiting Theodoret’s literary power in its highest form. Of it Garnerius, who is by no means disposed to bestow indiscriminate laudation on the writer, remarks that nothing was ever published on this subject more eloquent or more admirable, either by Theodoret, or by any other. The discourses may not improbably have been delivered in public at Antioch, and have been the occasion of the enthusiastic admiration described as shewn by the patriarch John. In them he presses the argument of the divine guidance of the world from the constitution of the visible creation, and specially of the body of man. The preacher draws many illustrations from the animal world and shews himself to be an intelligent observer. The pursuit of righteousness is proved not to be vain, even though the achieved result is not seen until the resurrection, and it is argued that from the beginning God has not cared for one chosen race alone but for all mankind. The crowning evidence of divine providence is in the incarnation. “I have taught you”—so the great orations conclude—”the universal providence of God. You behold His unfathomable loving kindness;—His boundless mercy; cease then to strive against Him that made you; learn to do honour to your benefactor, and requite his mighty benefits with grateful utterance. Offer to God the sacrifice of praise; defile not your tongue with blasphemy, but make it the instrument of worship for which it was designed. Such divine dispensations as are plain, reverence; about such as are hidden make no ado, but wait for knowledge in the time to come. When we shall put off the senses, then we shall win perfect knowledge. Imitate not Adam who dared to pluck the forbidden fruit; lay not hold of hidden things, but leave the knowledge of them to their own fit season. Obey the words of the wise man—say not What is this? For what purpose is this! For all things were made for good.’ Gathering then from every source occasion for praise, and mingling one melody, offer it with me to the Creator, the giver of good, and Christ the Saviour, our very God. To them be glory and worship and honour for endless age on age. Amen.”
(iii) The Discourse on Divine Love. This love, says Theodoret, is the source of the holy life of the ascetics. For his own part he would not accept the kingdom of heaven without it, or with it, were such a thing possible, shrink from the pains of hell. It was really love, he says, which led to Peter’s denial; he need not have denied if he could have borne to keep aloof, but love goaded him to be near his Lord.
(f.) The controversial works are
(i.) The “Eranistes,” or Dialogues, of which the translation is included in the text. They contain a complete refutation of the Eutychian position, and the quotations in them are in several cases valuable as giving portions of the writing of Fathers not elsewhere preserved. They are supposed to have been written shortly after the death of Cyril in 444, and are intended at once to vindicate Theodoret’s own orthodoxy, and to expose the errors of the party protected by Dioscorus.
(ii.) The Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, (Hairetikes kakomusias epitome) was composed at the request of Sporacius, one of the representatives of Marcian at Chalcedon, and is, as its title indicates, an account of past or present heresies. It is divided into five Books, which treat of the following heretics.
I. Simon Magus, Menander, Saturnilus, Basilides, Isidorus, Carpocrates, Epiphanes, Prodicus, Valentinus, Secundus, Marcus the Wizard, the Ascodruti, the Colorbasii, the Barbelioti, the Ophites, the Cainites, the Antitacti, the Perati, Monoimus, Hermogenes, Tatianus, Severus, Bardesanes, Harmonius, Florinus, Cerdo, Marcion, Apelles, Potitus, Prepo, and Manes.
II. The Ebionites, the Nazarenes, Cerinthus, Artemon, Theodotus, the Melchisedeciani, the Elkesites, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus.
III. The Nicolaitans, the Montanists, Noetus of Smyrna, the Tessarescaedecatites (i.e. Quartodecimani) Novatus, Nepos.
IV. Arius, Eudoxius, Eunomius, Aetius, the Psathyriani, the Macedoniani, the Donatists, the Meletians, Appollinarius, the Audiani, the Messaliani, Nestorius, Eutyches.
V. The last book is an “Epitome of the Divine Decrees.”
This catalogue, it has been remarked, does not include Origenism and Pelagianism. But though Theodoret did not sympathize with Origen’s school of scriptural interpretation, there was no reason why he should damn him as unsound in the faith. And the controversy between Jerome and Rufinus as to Origen was a distinctively western controversy. So was Pelagianism a western heresy, with which Theodoret was not brought into immediate contact.
The fourth book is obviously the most important, as treating of heresies of which the writer would have contemporary knowledge. And special interest has attached to the chapter on Nestorius, who is condemned not merely for erroneous opinion on the incarnation and person of Christ, but as a timeserver and pretender, seeking rather to be thought, than to be, a Christian. Garnerius indeed doubts the genuineness of the chapter, and Schulze, in defending it, points out the similarity of its line of argument to that employed in the treatise “against Nestorius,” which is very generally regarded as spurious. It may have been added after Chalcedon, when the writer had been forced into the denunciation of his old friend. But the expressions used alike of the incarnation and of Nestorius seem somewhat in contrast with other writings of Theodoret. Schroeckh inclines to the view in which Ceillier concurs, that this damning account of Nestorius was really written by his old champion, and accounts for the harshness of condemnation by the influence of the clamours of Chalcedon and the induration which old age sometimes brings on tender spirits. It can only be said that if this is Theodoret, it is Theodoret at his worst.
The heads of the Epitome of Divine Decrees are the following twenty-nine: Of the Father; of the Son; of the Holy Ghost; of Creation; of Matter; of AEons; of Angels; of Daemons; of Man; of Providence; of the Incarnation of the Saviour; that the Lord took a body; that He took a soul as well as His body; that the human nature which He took was perfect; that He raised the nature which He took; that He is good and just; that He gave the Old and the New Testament; of Baptism; of Resurrection; of Judgment; of Promises; of the Second Advent (‘Epiphaneia) of the Saviour; of Antichrist; of Virginity; of Marriage; of Second Marriage; of Fornication; of Repentance; of Abstinence.
The short chapter on the Incarnation has a special value in view of the author’s connection with the Nestorian Controversy. “It is worth while,” he writes in it, “to exhibit what we hold concerning the Incarnation, for this exposition proclaims more clearly the providence of the God of all. In his forged fables Valentinus maintained a distinction between the only-begotten and the Word, and further between the Christ within the pleroma and Jesus, and also the Christ who is without. He said that Jesus became man, by putting on the Christ that is without, and assuming a body of the substance of the soul; and that He made a passage only through the Virgin, having assumed nothing of the nature of man. Basilides in like manner distinguished between the only-begotten, the Word and the Wisdom. Cerdon, on the other hand, Marcion, and Manes, said that the Christ appeared as man, though he had nothing human. Cerinthus maintained that Jesus was generated of Joseph and Mary after the common manner of men, but that the Christ came down from on high on Jesus. The Ebionites, the Theodotians, the Artemonians, and Photinians said that the Christ was bare man born of the Virgin. Arius and Eunomius taught that He assumed a body, but that the Godhead discharged the function of the soul. Apollinarius held that the body of the Saviour had a soul, but had not the reasonable soul; for, according to his views, intelligence was superfluous, God the Word being present. I have stated the opinions taught by the majority of heresies with the wish of making plain the truth taught by the church. Now the church makes no distinction between (ton auton onomazei) the Son, the only begotten, God the Word, the Lord the Saviour, and Jesus Christ. Son,’ only begotten,’ God the Word,’ and Lord,’ He was called before the Incarnation; and is so called also after the Incarnation; but after the Incarnation the same (Lord) was called Jesus Christ, deriving the titles from the facts. Jesus’ is interpreted to mean the Saviour, whereof Gabriel is witness in his words to the Virgin Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.’ But He was styled Christ’ on account of the unction of the Spirit. So the Psalmist David says Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.’ And through the Prophet Isaiah the Lord Himself says The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me.’ Thus the Lord Himself taught us to understand the prophecy, for when He had come into the synagogue, and opened the book of the Prophets, He read the passage quoted, and said to those present This day is the Scripture fulfilled in your ears.’ The great Peter, too, preached in terms harmonious with the prophets, for in his explanation of the mystery to Cornelius he said That word ye know which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee after the Baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus Christ with the Holy Ghost and with power.’ Hence it is clear that He is called Christ on account of the unction of the spirit. But he was anointed not as God, but as man. And as in His human nature He was anointed, after the Incarnation He was called also Christ.’ But yet there is no distinction between God the Word and the Christ, for God the Word incarnate was named Christ Jesus. And He was incarnate that He might renew the nature corrupted by sin. The reason of His taking all the nature which had sinned was that He might heal all. For He did not take the nature of the body using it as a veil of His Godhead, according to the wild teaching of Arius and Eunomius; for it had been easy for Him even without a body to be made visible as He was seen of old by Abraham, Jacob and the rest of the saints. But he wished the very nature that had been worsted to beat down the enemy and win the victory. For this reason He took both a body and a reasonable soul. For Holy Scripture does not divide man in a threefold division, but states that this living being consists of a body and a soul. For God after forming the body out of the dust breathed into it the soul and shewed it to be two natures not three. And the same Lord in the Gospels says, Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul,’ and many similar passages may be found in divine Scripture. And that He did not assume man’s nature in its perfection, contriving it as a veil for His Godhead, according to the heretics’ fables, but achieving victory by means of the first fruits for the whole race, is truly witnessed and accurately taught by the divine apostle, for in His Epistle to the Romans, when unveiling the mystery of the Incarnation, he writes Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that is to come.’
(iii.) The refutations of the Twelve Chapters of Cyril are translated in the Prolegomena.
In the Epistle of Cyril to Celestinus and the Commonitorium datum Posidonio Cyril shows what sense he wishes to fix on the utterances of Nestorius. “The faith, or rather the cacodoxy’ of Nestorius, has this force; he says that God the Word, prescient that he who was to be born of the Holy Virgin would be holy and great, therefore chose him and arranged that he should be generated of the Virgin without a husband and conferred on him the privilege of being called by His own names, and raised him so that even though after the incarnation he is called the only begotten Word of God, he is said to have been made man because He was always with him as with a holy man born of the Virgin. And as He was with the prophets so, says Nestorius, was He by a greater conjunction (sunapheia). On this account Nestorius always shrinks from using the word union (enosis) and speaks of conjunction,’ as of some one without, and, as He says to Joshua as I was with Moses so will I be with thee.’ But, to conceal his impiety, Nestorius says that He was with him from the womb. Wherefore he does not say that Christ was very God, but that Christ was so called of God’s good pleasure; and, if he was called Lord, so again Nestorius understands him to be Lord because the divine Word conceded him the boon of being so named. Nor does he say as we do that the Son of God died and rose again on our behalf. The man died and the man rose, and this has nothing to do with God the Word. And in the mysteries what lies (i.e. on the Holy Table) (to prokeimenon) is a man’s body; but we believe that it is flesh of the Word, having power to quicken because it is made flesh and blood of the Word that quickeneth all things.”
Nestorius was not unnaturally indignant at this misrepresentation of his words, and complains of Cyril for leaving out important clauses and introducing additions of his own. Cyril succeeded in pressing upon Celestinus the idea that Nestorius, who had vigorously opposed the Pelagians, was really in sympathy with them, and so secured the condemnation of his opponent at Rome and at Alexandria, and published twelve anathemas to complete his own vindication. These were answered by Theodoret on behalf of the eastern church in 431. In 433 formal peace was made, so far as the theological, as apart from the personal, dispute was concerned, by the acceptance by both John of Antioch and Cyril of the formula, slightly modified, which Theodoret himself had drawn up at Ephesus two years before. It is as follows: “We confess our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, to be perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and body, begotten before the ages of the Father, as touching His godhead, and in the last days on account of us and our salvation (born) of the Virgin Mary as touching His manhood; that He is of one substance with the Father as touching His godhead, of one substance with us as touching His manhood; for there is made an union of two natures; wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this meaning of the unconfounded union we confess the holy Virgin to be theotokos’ on account of God the Word being made flesh and becoming man, and of this conception uniting to Himself the temple taken of her. We acknowledge that theologians use the words of evangelists and apostles about the Lord some in common, as of one person, and some distinctively, as of two natures, and deliver the divine as touching the Godhead of the Christ, and the lowly as touching His manhood.”
This is substantially what Theodoret says again and again. This satisfied Cyril. This would probably have been accepted by Nestorius too. What then was it, apart from the odium theologicum, which kept Nestorius and Cyril apart? Below the apparent special pleading and word-jugglery on the surface of the controversy lay the principle that in the Christ God and man were one; the essence of the atonement or reconciliation lying in the complete union of the human and the divine in the one Person; the “I” in the “I am” of the Temple and the “I thirst” of the Cross being really the same. “God and man is one Christ.” The position which the Cyrillians viewed with alarm was a reduction of this unity to a mere partnership or alliance;—God dwelling in Jesus of Nazareth as He dwells in all good men, only to a greater degree;—the eternal Word being in close contact with the son of Mary (sunapheia). So, whatever may have been the unhappy faction-fights with which the main issue was confused there was in truth a great crisis, a great question for decision; was Jesus of Nazareth an unique personality, or only one more in the goodly fellowship of prophets? Was He God, or was He not? There can be little doubt as to the answer Nestorius would have given. There can be none as to that of Theodoret. But on the part of Cyril there was the quite mistaken conviction that Theodoret was practically contending for two Christs. On the other hand Theodoret erroneously identified Cyril with the confusion of the substance and practical patripassianism which he scathes in the “Eranistes,” and which the common sense of Christendom has condemned in Eutyches.
(g) To Nicephorus Callistus in the 15th century five hundred of Theodoret’s letters were known, and he is eloquent in their praise. Now, the collection, including several by other writers, comprises only one hundred and eighty one. The value of their contributions to the history of the times as well as of their writer will be evident on their study. The order in which they are published is preserved in the translation for the sake of reference. A chronological order would have obvious advantages, but this in many cases could only be conjectural. Where the indications of time are fairly plain the probable date is suggested in a note. The letters are divided into (a) dogmatic, (b) consolatory, (c) festal, (d) commendatory, (e) congratulatory, (f) commenting on passing events. Of them Schulze writes “Nihil eo in genere scribendi perfectius; nam quae sunt epistolarum virtutes, brevitas, perspicuitas, elegantia, urbanitas, modestia, observantia decori, et ingeniosa prudensque ac erudita simplicitas, in epistolis Theodoreti admirabiliter ita elucent ut scribentibus exempla esse possint.” “They not only” says Schroeckh, “vindicate the admiration of Nicephorus, but are specially attractive on account of their exhibition of the writer’s simplicity, modesty, and love of peace.”
From the study of these letters “we rise,” writes Canon Venables, “with a heightened estimate of Theodoret himself, his intellectual power, his theological precision, his warm-hearted affection for his friends, and the Christian virtues with which, notwithstanding some weaknesses and an occasional bitterness for which, however distressing, his persecutions offered some palliation, his character was adorned.”
The reputation of Theodoret in the Church is a growing reputation, and the practical canonization which he has won in the heart of Christendom is a testimony to the power and worth of character and conduct. Though never officially dignified by a higher ecclesiastical title than “Beatus” he is yet to Marcellinus “Episcopus sanctus Cyri” and to Photius “divinus vir.” His earnest, sometimes bitter, conflict with the great intellect and strong will of Cyril, and apparent discomfiture in the war which raged, often with dire confusion, up and down the long lines of definition, have not succeeded in robbing him of one of the highest places among the Fathers of whom the Church is proudest. He exhibits, each in a lofty and conspicuous form, all the qualities which mark a great and good churchman. His theological writings would have won high fame in a recluse. His administration of his diocese, as we learn it from his modest letters, would have gained him the character of an excellent bishop, even had he been no scholar. His temper in controversy, though occasionally breaking out into the fiery heat of the oriental, is for the most part in happy contrast with that of his opponents. His devotion to his duty is undeniable, and his industry astonishing. It is impossible not to feel as we read his writings that he is no self-seeker arguing for victory. He believes that the fate of the Church rests on the fidelity of Christians to the Nicene Confession, and in his championship of this creed, and his opposition to all that seems to him to threaten its adulteration or defeat, he knows no awe of prince or court. Owning but one Lord, he is true through evil and good report to Him, and his figure stands out large, bright, and gracious across the centuries, against a background of intrigue and controversy sometimes very dark, as of a patient and faithful soldier and servant of Christ. If his shortcomings were those of his own age,—and in an age of virulent strife and of denial of all mercy to opponents his memory rises as a comparative monument of moderation,—his graces were the graces of all the ages. Were it customary, or even possible, in our own church and time to maintain the ancient custom of reciting before the Holy Table the names approved as of good men and true in the past history of the Holy Society, in the long catalogue of the faithful departed for whom worshippers bless the name of their common Lord, a place must indubitably be kept for Theodoretus, bishop of Cyrus.
The Anathemas of Cyril in Opposition to Nestorius
(Mansi T. IV. p. 1067–1082, Migne Cat. 76, col. 391. The anathemas of Nestorius against Cyril are to be found in Hardouin i. 1297.)
I. If any one refuses to confess that the Emmanuel is in truth God, and therefore that the holy Virgin is Mother of God (theotokos), for she gave birth after a fleshly manner to the Word of God made flesh; let him be anathema.
II. If any one refuses to confess that the Word of God the Father is united in hypostasis to flesh, and is one Christ with His own flesh, the same being at once both God and man, let him be anathema.
III. If any one in the case of the one Christ divides the hypostases after the union, conjoining them by the conjunction alone which is according to dignity, independence, or prerogative, and not rather by the concurrence which is according to natural union, let him be anathema.
IV. If any one divides between two persons or hypostases the expressions used in the writings of evangelists and apostles, whether spoken by the saints of Christ or by Him about Himself, and applies the one as to a man considered properly apart from the Word of God, and the others as appropriate to the divine and the Word of God the Father alone, let him be anathema.
V. If any one dares to maintain that the Christ is man bearing God, and not rather that He is God in truth, and one Son, and by nature, according as the Word was made flesh, and shared blood and flesh in like manner with ourselves, let him be anathema.
VI. If any one dares to maintain that the Word of God the Father was God or Lord of the Christ, and does not rather confess that the same was at once both God and man, the Word being made flesh according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema.
VII. If any one says that Jesus was energized as man by God the Word, and that He was invested with the glory of the only begotten as being another beside Him, let him be anathema.
VIII. If any one dares to maintain that the ascended man ought to be worshipped together with the divine Word, and be glorified with Him, and with Him be called God as one with another (in that the continual rise of the preposition “with” in composition makes this sense compulsory), and does not rather in one act of worship honour the Emmanuel and praise Him in one doxology, in that He is the Word made flesh, let him be anathema.
IX. If any one says that the one Lord Jesus Christ is glorified by the Spirit, using the power that works through Him as a foreign power, and receiving from Him the ability to operate against unclean spirits, and to complete His miracles among men; and does not rather say that the Spirit is His own, whereby also He wrought His miracles, let him be anathema.
X. Holy Scripture states that Christ is High Priest and Apostle of our confession, and offered Himself on our behalf for a sweet-smelling savour to God and our Father. If, then, any one says that He, the Word of God, was not made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made flesh and man after our manner; but as being another, other than Himself, properly man made of a woman; or if any one says that He offered the offering on His own behalf, and not rather on our behalf alone; for He that knew no sin would not have needed an offering, let him be anathema.
XI. If any one confesses not that the Lord’s flesh is giver of life, and proper to the Word of God Himself, but (states) that it is of another than Him, united indeed to Him in dignity, yet as only possessing a divine indwelling; and not rather, as we said, giver of life, because it is proper to the Word of Him who hath might to engender all things alive, let him be anathema.
XII. If any one confesses not that the Word of God suffered in flesh, and was crucified in flesh, and tasted death in flesh, and was made firstborn of the dead, in so far as He is life and giver of life, as God; let him be anathema.
Counter-statements of Theodoret
(Opp. Ed. Schulze. V. I. seq. Migne, Lat. 76. col. 391.)
Against I.—But all we who follow the words of the evangelists state that God the Word was not made flesh by nature, nor yet was changed into flesh; for the Divine is immutable and invariable. Wherefore also the prophet David says, “Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” And this the great Paul, the herald of the truth, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, states to have been spoken of the Son. And in another place God says through the Prophet, “I am the Lord: I change not.” If then the Divine is immutable and invariable, it is incapable of change or alteration. And if the immutable cannot be changed, then God the Word was not made flesh by mutation, but took flesh and tabernacled in us, according to the word of the evangelist. This the divine Paul expresses clearly in his Epistle to the Philippians in the words, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant.” Now it is plain from these words that the form of God was not changed into the form of a servant, but, remaining what it was, took the form of the servant. So God the Word was not made flesh, but assumed living and reasonable flesh. He Himself is not naturally conceived of the Virgin, fashioned, formed, and deriving beginning of existence from her; He who is before the ages, God, and with God, being with the Father and with the Father both known and worshipped; but He fashioned for Himself a temple in the Virgin’s womb, and was with that which was formed and begotten. Wherefore also we style that holy Virgin theotokos, not because she gave birth in natural manner to God, but to man united to the God that had fashioned Him. Moreover if He that was fashioned in the Virgin’s womb was not man but God the Word Who is before the ages, then God the Word is a creature of the Holy Ghost. For that which was conceived in her, says Gabriel, is of the Holy Ghost. But if the only begotten Word of God is uncreate and of one substance and co-eternal with the Father it is no longer a formation or creation of the Spirit. And if the Holy Ghost did not fashion God the Word in the Virgin’s womb, it follows that we understand the form of the servant to have been fashioned, formed, conceived, and generated. But since the form was not stripped of the form of God, but was a Temple containing God the Word dwelling in it, according to the words of Paul “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell” “bodily,” we call the Virgin not mother of man (anthropotokos) but mother of God (theotokos), applying the former title to the fashioning and conception, but the latter to the union. For this cause the child who was born is called Emmanuel, neither God separated from human nature nor man stripped of Godhead. For Emmanuel is interpreted to mean “God with us,” according to the words of the Gospels; and the expression “God with us” at once manifests Him Who for our sakes was assumed out of us, and proclaims God the Word Who assumed. Therefore the child is called Emmanuel on account of God Who assumed, and the Virgin theotokos on account of the union of the form of God with the conceived form of a servant. For God the Word was not changed into flesh, but the form of God took the form of a servant.
Against II.—We, in obedience to the divine teaching of the apostles, confess one Christ; and, on account of the union, we name the same both God and man. But we are wholly ignorant of the union according to hypostasis as being strange and foreign to the divine Scriptures and the Fathers who have interpreted them. And if the author of these statements means by the union according to hypostasis that there was a mixture of flesh and Godhead, we shall oppose his statement with all our might, and shall confute his blasphemy, for the mixture is of necessity followed by confusion; and the admission of confusion destroys the individuality of each nature. Things that are undergoing mixture do not remain what they were, and to assert this in the case of God the Word and of the seed of David would be most absurd. We must obey the Lord when He exhibits the two natures and says to the Jews, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” But if there had been mixture then God had not remained God, neither was the temple recognised as a temple; then the temple was God and God was temple. This is involved in the theory of the mixture. And it was quite superfluous for the Lord to say to the Jews, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” He ought to have said, Destroy me and in three days I shall be raised, if there had really been any mixture and confusion. As it is, He exhibits the temple undergoing destruction and God raising it up. Therefore the union according to hypostasis, which in my opinion they put before us instead of mixture, is superfluous. It is quite sufficient to mention the union, which both exhibits the properties of the natures and teaches us to worship the one Christ.
Against III.—The sense of the terms used is misty and obscure. Who needs to be told that there is no difference between conjunction and concurrence? The concurrence is a concurrence of the separated parts; and the conjunction is a conjunction of the distinguished parts. The very clever author of the phrases has laid down things that agree as though they disagreed. It is wrong, he says, to conjoin the hypostases by conjunction; they ought to be conjoined by concurrence, and that a natural concurrence. Possibly he states this not knowing what he says; if he knows, he blasphemes. Nature has a compulsory force and is involuntary; as for instance, if I say we are naturally hungry, we do not feel hunger of free-will but of necessity; and assuredly paupers would have left off begging if the power of ceasing to be hungry had lain in their own will; we are naturally thirsty; we naturally sleep; we naturally breathe; and all these actions, I repeat, belong to the category of the involuntary, and he who is no longer capable of them necessarily ceases to exist. If then the concurrence in union of the form of God and the form of a servant was natural, then God the Word was united to the form of the servant under the compulsion of necessity, and not because He put in force His loving kindness, and the Lawgiver of the Universe will be found to be a follower of the laws of necessity. Not thus have we been taught by the blessed Paul; on the contrary, we have been taught that He took the form of a servant and “emptied Himself;” and the expression “emptied Himself” indicates the voluntary act. If then He was united by purpose and will to the nature assumed from us, the addition of the term natural is superfluous. It suffices to confess the union, and union is understood of things distinguished, for if there were no division an union could never be apprehended. The apprehension then of the union implies previous apprehension of the division. How then can he say that the hypostases or natures ought not to be divided? He knows all the while that the hypostasis of God the Word was perfect before the ages; and that the form of the servant which was assumed by It was perfect; and this is the reason why he said hypostases and not hypostasis. If therefore either nature is perfect, and both came together, it is obvious that after the form of God had taken the form of a servant, piety compels us to confess one son and Christ; while to speak of the united hypostases or natures as two, so far from being absurd, follows the necessity of the case. For if in the case of the one man we divide the natures, and call the mortal nature body, but the immortal nature soul, and both man, much more consonant is it with right reason to recognise the properties alike of the God who took and of the man who was taken. We find the blessed Paul dividing the one man into two where he says in one passage, “Though our outward man perish yet the inward man is renewed,” and in another “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man.” And again “that Christ may dwell in the inner man.” Now if the apostle divides the natural conjunction of the synchronous natures, with what reason can the man who describes the mixture to us by means of other terms indite us as impious when we divide the properties of the natures of the everlasting God and of the man assumed at the end of days?
Against IV.—These statements, too, are akin to the preceding. On the assumption that there has been a mixture, he means that there is a distinction of terms as used both in the holy Gospels and in the apostolic writings. And he uses this language while glorifying himself that he is at war at once with Arius and Eunomius and the rest of the heresiarchs. Let then this exact professor of theology tells us how he would confute the blasphemy of the heretics, while applying to God the Word what is uttered humbly and appropriately by the form of the servant. They indeed while thus doing lay down that the Son of God is inferior, a creature, made, and a servant. To whom then are we, holding as we do the opposite opinion to theirs, and confessing the Son to be of one substance and co-eternal with God the Father, Creator of the Universe, Maker, Beautifier, Ruler, and Governor, All-wise, Almighty, or rather Himself, Power, Life and Wisdom, to refer the words “My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me;” or “Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me;” or “Father save me from this hour;” or “That hour no man knoweth, not even the Son of Man;” and all the other passages spoken and written in lowliness by Him and by the holy apostles about Him? To whom shall we apply the weariness and the sleep? To whom the ignorance and the fear? Who was it who stood in need of angelic succour? If these belong to God the Word, how was wisdom ignorant? How could it be called wisdom when affected by the sense of ignorance? How could He speak the truth in saying that He had all that the Father hath, when not having the knowledge of the Father? For He says, “The Father alone knoweth that day.” How could He be the unchanged image of Him that begat Him if He has not all that the Begetter hath? If then He speaks the truth when saying that He is ignorant, any one might suppose this of Him. But if He knoweth the day, but says that He is ignorant with the wish to hide it, you see in what a blasphemy the conclusion issues. For the truth lies and could not properly be called truth if it has any quality opposed to truth. But if the truth does not lie, neither is God the Word ignorant of the day which He Himself made, and which He Himself fixed, wherein He purposes to judge the world, but has the knowledge of the Father as being unchanged image. Not then to God the Word does the ignorance belong, but to the form of the servant who at that time knew as much as the indwelling Godhead revealed. The same position may be maintained about other similar cases. How for instance could it be reasonable for God the Word to say to the Father, “Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt”? The absurdities which necessarily thence follow are not a few. First it follows that the Father and the Son are not of the same mind, and that the Father wishes one thing and the Son another, for He said, “Nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt.” Secondly we shall have to contemplate great ignorance in the Son, for He will be found ignorant whether the cup can or cannot pass from Him; but to say this of God the Word is utter impiety and blasphemy. For exactly did He know the end of the mystery of the oeconomy Who for this very reason came among us, Who of His own accord took our nature, Who emptied Himself. For this cause too He foretold to the Holy Apostles, “Behold we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be betrayed . . . into the hands of the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify Him, and the third day He shall rise again.” How then can He Who foretold these things, and, when Peter deprecated their coming to pass, rebuked him, Himself deprecate their coming to pass, when He clearly knows all that is to be? Is it not absurd that Abraham many generations ago should have seen His day and have been glad, and that Isaiah in like manner, and Jeremiah, and Daniel, and Zechariah, and all the fellowship of the prophets, should have foretold His saving passion, and He Himself be ignorant, and beg release from and deprecate it, though it was destined to come to pass for the salvation of the world? Therefore these words are not the words of God the Word, but of the form of the servant, afraid of death because death was not yet destroyed. Surely God the Word permitted the utterance of these expressions allowing room for fear, that the nature of Him that had to be born may be plain, and to prevent our supposing the Son of Abraham and David to be an unreality or appearance. The crew of the impious heretics has given birth to this blasphemy through entertaining these sentiments. We shall therefore apply what is divinely spoken and acted to God the Word; on the other hand what is said and done in humility we shall connect with the form of a servant, lest we be tainted with the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius.
Against V.—We assert that God the Word shared like ourselves in flesh and blood, and in immortal soul, on account of the union relating to them; but that God the Word was made flesh by any change we not only refuse to say, but accuse of impiety those who do, and it may be seen that this is contrary to the very terms laid down. For if the Word was changed into flesh He did not share with us in flesh and blood: but if He shared in flesh and blood He shared as being another besides them: and if the flesh is anything other besides Him, then He was not changed into flesh. While therefore we use the term sharing we worship both Him that took and that which was taken as one Son. But we reckon the distinction of the natures. We do not object to the term man bearing God, as employed by many of the holy Fathers, one of whom is the great Basil, who uses this term in his argument to Amphilochius about the Holy Ghost, and in his interpretation of the fifty-ninth psalm. But we call Him man bearing God, not because He received some particular divine grace, but as possessing all the Godhead of the Son united. For thus says the blessed Paul in his interpretation, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
Against VI.—The blessed Paul calls that which was assumed by God the Word “form of a servant,” but since the assumption was prior to the union, and the blessed Paul was discoursing about the assumption when he called the nature which was assumed “form of a servant,” after the making of the union the name of “servitude” has no longer place. For seeing that the Apostle when writing to them that believed in Him said, “So thou art not a servant but a son” and the Lord said to His disciples, “Henceforth I will not call you servants but friends;” much more the first fruits of our nature, through whom even we were guerdoned with the boon of adoption, would be released from the title of servant. We therefore confess even “the form of the servant” to be God on account of the form of God united to it; and we bow to the authority of the prophet when he calls the babe also Emmanuel, and the child which was born, “Angel of great counsel, wonderful Counsellor, mighty God, powerful, Prince of peace, and Father of the age to come.” Yet the same prophet, even after the union, when proclaiming the nature of that which was assumed, calls him who is of the seed of Abraham “servant” in the words “Thou art my servant O Israel and in thee will I be glorified;” and again, “Thus says the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant;” and a little further on, “Lo I have given thee for a covenant of the people, for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.” But what was formed from the womb was not God the Word but the form of the servant. For God the Word was not made flesh by being changed, but He assumed flesh with a rational soul.
Against VII.—If the nature of man is mortal, and God the Word is life and giver of life, and raised up the temple which had been destroyed by the Jews, and carried it into heaven, how is not the form of the servant glorified through the form of God? For if being originally and by nature mortal it was made immortal through its union with God the Word, it therefore received what it had not; and after receiving what it had not, and being glorified, it is glorified by Him who gave. Wherefore also the Apostle exclaims, “According to the working of His mighty power which he wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead.”
Against VIII.—As I have often said, the doxology which we offer to the Lord Christ is one, and we confess the same to be at once God and man, as the method of the union has taught us; but we shall not shrink from speaking of the properties of the natures. For God the Word did not undergo change into flesh, nor yet again did the man lose what he was and undergo transmutation into the nature of God. Therefore we worship the Lord Christ, while we maintain the properties of either nature.
Against IX.—Here he has plainly had the hardihood to anathematize not only those who at the present time hold pious opinions, but also those who were in former days heralds of truth; aye even the writers of the divine gospels, the band of the holy Apostles, and, in addition to these, Gabriel the archangel. For he indeed it was who first, even before the conception, announced the birth of the Christ according to the flesh; saying in reply to Mary when she asked, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” And to Joseph he said, “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” And the Evangelist says, “When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph . . . she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” And the Lord Himself when He had come into the synagogue of the Jews and had taken the prophet Isaiah, after reading the passage in which he says, “The spirit of the Lord is upon me because He hath anointed me” and so on, added, “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” And the blessed Peter in his sermon to the Jews said, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost.” And Isaiah many ages before had predicted, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots; and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;” and again, “Behold my servant whom I uphold, my beloved in whom my soul delighteth. I will put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” This testimony the Evangelist too has inserted in his own writings. And the Lord Himself in the Gospels says to the Jews, “If I with the spirit of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.” And John says, “He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” So this exact examiner of the divine decrees has not only anathematized prophets, apostles, and even the archangel Gabriel, but has suffered his blasphemy to reach even the Saviour of the world Himself. For we have shewn that the Lord Himself after reading the passage “The spirit of the Lord is upon me because He hath anointed me,” said to the Jews, “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” And to those who said that He was casting out devils by Beelzebub He replied that He was casting them out by the Spirit of God. But we maintain that it was not God the Word, of one substance and co-eternal with the Father, that was formed by the Holy Ghost and anointed, but the human nature which was assumed by Him at the end of days. We shall confess that the Spirit of the Son was His own if he spoke of it as of the same nature and proceeding from the Father, and shall accept the expression as consistent with true piety. But if he speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious. For we believe the Lord when He says, “The spirit which proceedeth from the Father;” and likewise the very divine Paul saying, “We have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God.”
Against X.—The unchangeable nature was not changed into nature of flesh, but assumed human nature and set it over the common high priests, as the blessed Paul teaches in the words, “For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: who can have compassion on the ignorant and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is encompassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people so also for himself.” And a little further on interpreting this he says, “As was Aaron so also was the Christ.” Then pointing out the infirmity of the assumed nature he says, “Who in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplication with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard for His godly fear, though He was a son yet learned obedience by the things that He suffered: and having been made perfect He became unto all that obey Him the author of eternal salvation; named of God a high priest of the order of Melchisedec.” Who then is He who was perfected by toils of virtue and who was not perfect by nature? Who is He who learnt obedience by experience, and before his experience was ignorant of it? Who is it that lived with godly fear and offered supplication with strong crying and tears, not able to save Himself but appealing to Him that is able to save Him and asking for release from death? Not God the Word, the impassible, the immortal, the incorporeal, whose memory is joy and release from tears, “For he has wiped away tears from off all faces,” and again the prophet says, “I remembered God and was glad,” Who crowneth them that live in godly fear, “Who knoweth all things before they be,” “Who hath all things that the Father hath;” Who is the unchangeable image of the Father, “Who sheweth the Father in himself.” It is on the contrary that which was assumed by Him of the seed of David, mortal, passible, and afraid of death; although this itself afterwards destroyed the power of death through union with the God who had assumed it; which walked through all righteousness and said to John, “Suffer it to be so now for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” This took the name of the priesthood of Melchisedec, for it put on infirmity of nature;—not the Almighty God the Word. Wherefore also, a little before, the blessed Paul said, “We have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin.” It was the nature taken from us for our sakes which experienced our feelings without sin, not He that on account of our salvation assumed it. And in the beginning of this part of his subject he teaches us in the words “Consider the apostle and high priest of our profession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him that appointed Him as also Moses was faithful in all His house.” But no one holding the right faith would call the unmade the uncreate, God the Word coeternal with the Father, a creature; but on the contrary, Him of David’s seed Who being free from all sin was made our high priest and victim, after Himself offering Himself on our behalf to God having in Himself the Word, God of God, united to Himself and inseparably conjoined.
Against XI.—In my opinion he appears to give heed to the truth, in order that, by concealing his unsound views by it, he may not be detected in asserting the same dogmas as the heretics. But nothing is stronger than truth, which by its own rays uncovers the darkness of falsehood. By the aid of its illumination we shall make his heterodox belief plain. In the first place he has nowhere made mention of intelligent flesh, nor confessed that the assumed man was perfect, but everywhere in accordance with the teaching of Apollinarius he speaks of flesh. Secondly, after introducing the conception of the mixture under other terms, he brings it into his arguments; for there he clearly states the flesh of the Lord to be soulless. For, he says, if any one states that the flesh of the Lord is not proper flesh of the very Word who is of God the Father, but that it is of another beside Him, let him be anathema. Hence it is plain that he does not confess God the Word to have assumed a soul, but only flesh, and that He Himself stands to the flesh in place of soul. We on the contrary assert that the flesh of the Lord having in it life was life-giving and reasonable, on account of the life-giving Godhead united to it. And he himself unwillingly confesses the difference between the two natures, speaking of flesh, and “God the Word” and calling it “His own flesh.” Therefore God the Word was not changed into nature of flesh, but has His own flesh, the assumed nature, and has made it life-giving by the union.
Against XII.—Passion is proper to the passible; the impassible is above passions. It was then the form of the servant that suffered, the form of God of course dwelling with it, and permitting it to suffer on account of the salvation brought forth of the sufferings, and making the sufferings its own on account of the union. Therefore it was not the Christ who suffered, but the man assumed of us by God. Wherefore also the blessed Isaiah exclaims in his prophecy, “A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” And the Lord Christ Himself said to the Jews, “Why seek ye to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth?” But what is threatened with death is not the very life, but he that hath a mortal nature. And giving this lesson in another place the Lord said to the Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Therefore what was destroyed was the (temple descended) from David, and, after its destruction, it was raised up by the only begotten Word of God impassibly begotten of the Father before the ages.