But since, on account of these same complaints—even if it were true—the disciple could be excluded only after his master Diodorus had first been excluded, how is it to be believed that by these men Theodore alone has been excluded, and not to the overthrow of the synod of Chalcedon? Our Jerome too, a man exceedingly learned, who was moreover of such wide reading that he had read all, or nearly all, the expositors of the divine Scriptures, whether in Greek or in Latin speech, wrote a book whose title is On Illustrious Men, in which he recorded not only catholics but also heretics, who composed anything concerning the Scriptures of Manes in either language;
he did not pass over in silence who were the founders of heresies, or their advocates, or even those who were accused by some as heretics while others defended them on the contrary. Yet of holy Diodorus he related that he had not even come under suspicion of heresy, of whom he speaks thus: «Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, while he was a presbyter at Antioch, had the greater repute. There are extant his commentaries on the Apostle, and many other works pertaining rather to the manner of Eusebius; whose meaning, though he followed it, he could not imitate his eloquence, on account of his ignorance of secular letters.» And this saying of blessed Jerome, in which he reports that Diodorus was inferior in eloquence, accords with the words we have mentioned of blessed Basil, which, writing to this same Diodorus concerning a book he had sent him, he spoke:
«Because it varies in its opinions, and in it the contrary objections are easily distinguished, and the replies to them, and it is simple in its diction and without any rhetorical buskin—which seemed to me to befit the style of a Christian who writes not for display but for the profit of men.» And indeed these things which have been said would have been abundant for us to demonstrate what we set forth. But since we ought in no way to diminish either the glory of blessed Diodorus himself or the knowledge of the case, we believe it must not be omitted in what manner your religious predecessors—Gratian, Valentinian, and the elder Theodosius—bore witness to him.
When they wrote to Auxonius, proconsul of Asia, concerning the restoration of the churches, after some matters they said thus: «Let those alone possess the churches who are in communion with Nectarius of Constantinople, and Timothy of Alexandria, and Pelagius of Laodicea of the East, and Diodorus of Tarsus, and the whole council established under the vicar of Asia, and Amphilochius bishop of Iconium and Optimus of Antioch. In the Pontic diocese, however, with Helladius bishop of Caesarea, and Otreius bishop of Melitene, and Gregory of Nyssa, and Terentius of Scythia, and Martyrius of Marcianopolis. But those who do not honour the same faith, let them be excluded from the churches as heretics, and never thereafter return to them.»
«For after this law the religion of the Christians must everywhere be purged among all.» Since, then, these religious princes determined this to be a sure token—that if anyone did not hold communion with blessed Diodorus, who held the same views as Theodore, he should be reckoned a heretic—by what reasoning is it now decreed that if anyone does not anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and his dogmas, and those who either thought or now think things like his, he should be reckoned a heretic? But because Diodorus, the greatest herald of truth, had learned, in the power of God, through the arms of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, as the Apostle teaches, to wage war:
consider, I pray, most clement Emperor, in what manner he ran his course through glory and ignominy, through ill repute and good repute, ever with a strong and spirited intent. For just as he was ever approved by the doctors of the Church and accused by the heretics, so too is he found ever praised by religious princes and reviled by the impious. For Julian, the emperor faithless to Christ, thus writes to the heresiarch Photinus against Diodorus: «You indeed, O Photinus, seem likely and nearest to being saved, doing well in that you by no means brought into the womb him whom you believed to be God. But Diodorus, a sorcerer of the Nazarene, sharpening with his pigment-like conjuring tricks the irrationality of it, has appeared a shrewd sophist of a boorish religion.»
And after a little: «But if the gods and goddesses, and all the Muses, and Fortune shall have aided us, we shall show that he is a weakling and a corrupter of laws, and of reasonings, and of the mysteries of the pagans, and of the gods of the underworld; and that new God of his, the Galilean, whom he fabulously proclaims to be eternal, stripped by an unworthy death and burial of the godhead feigned by Diodorus.» But as those who err, when convicted, are wont to pretend that they are vanquished by art rather than by virtue, he goes on to say:
«For this fellow, sailing to Athens for the common detriment, and philosophizing imprudently, took part in the doctrine of the musicians, and with the rhetoricians' confections armed his hateful tongue against the heavenly gods, being so ignorant of the mysteries of the pagans, and pitiably imbibing the whole, as they say, of the error of those degenerate and unskilled theologians-fishermen of his, that on this account it is now a long time that he is being punished by the gods themselves. For now through many years, turned into danger and falling into a wasting of the chest, he has come to the utmost torment. His whole body is consumed: for his cheeks have fallen in, and the wrinkles have sunk deep into the body:»
«which is not a token of a philosophic manner of life, as he would have it appear to those deceived by you, but assuredly of justice, and of the gods' penalty, by which he is struck with fitting requital, living a harsh and bitter life right up to the very last end of his days, with a face wasted by pallor.» By the testimonies of the holy Fathers among the bishops we have learned above whose judgement we ought to follow in the case common to Diodorus and Theodore: whether that of Athanasius, Peter, Timothy, Basil, John, Epiphanius, and of the Egyptian bishops in exile at Diocaesarea for the true faith, and of the council of Constantinople, and likewise of that most learned man Jerome; or that of Apollinaris and his disciples, who, even had they been catholics, ought not to have been preferred to such men.
Now from among princes we have learned whose judgement in this same case of Diodorus and Theodore ought rather to be followed: whether that of Gratian, and Valentinian, and the elder Theodosius, or that of the sacrilegious apostate Julian, who for this reason calls Photinus likely and nearest to salvation, because he did not, like Diodorus, bring into the womb him whom he had believed to be God. But who would bear that Diodorus, accused by Julian because he confesses God to have been born of the Virgin, should be accused also by Christians, as though he had denied this?
or who, hearing Julian threatening Diodorus because he proclaimed the Galilean God to be the eternal God—whom he could not deny to have died and been buried—and saying that on this account he was punished by his gods with the utmost torment, because, pitiably imbibing the error of the theologians-fishermen, he proclaimed such things, would judge that he should also be condemned by the Christians, as though he had believed Jesus the Galilean to be merely a man and not also God? This, then, is the choice we propose to the supporters of the heretics: that they either choose to imitate the venerable Fathers and the religious princes, and with them approve Diodorus and Theodore; or, if they prefer to follow Apollinaris and his disciples, and Julian, let them at least not blame Diodorus for anything other than these things,
except for that on account of which Apollinaris and his disciples, and Julian, believed that he ought to be blamed. But if they cannot blame Diodorus because he brought into the womb Jesus the Nazarene, whom he believed to be God in two natures, calling Him eternal whom he held to have been buried and to have died, how could they justly condemn Theodore, his disciple? For they testify that the case of both was the same, and that there was one accusation of both. Therefore let those at last cease to call them Theodorians who followed the testimony of such great Fathers, so that they might by no means presume to condemn Diodorus. But it is the mark of an exceedingly hard and obstinate heart,
to believe that those who do not approve Diodorus should consequently also not reprove Theodore, so as neither to praise them as they were praised by the holy Fathers, nor to condemn them for that on account of which they were condemned by the sacrilegious. But behold, as you discern, most serene Emperor, even if we grant them, as they wish, that Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, was blamed by blessed Cyril, it will appear to no one, even of slight intelligence, that, in order to condemn him under anathema, they have followed the judgement of blessed Cyril himself, which they scorn in the case of holy John of Constantinople, his fellow-disciple, and of his master Diodorus:
but rather because they sought a prejudgement against the Church, so that by his condemnation the holy synod of Chalcedon—which condemned neither him nor the letter praising him—might appear to have been Nestorian.