Latin fragments and English translation via Google of the Latin fragments of Theodore of Mopsuestia's book “Contra defensores peccati originalis”

 

Latin fragments and English translation via Google of the Latin fragments of Theodore of Mopsuestia's book “Contra defensores peccati originalis”  

In this post, I’ll provide a translation via Google translate of the text of the Latin fragments of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s work “Contra defensores peccati originalis” preserved in the Patrologia Latina, a work also attested by the Greek theologian Photius of Constantinople (fl. 9^th century) and the East-Syrian theologian Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7^th century)[1] under the title “Against those who say that men sin by nature”.

I’ll quote from this link: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragmenta_(Theodorus_Mopsuestenus)

Fragment 1

“I. On the second codex of the fourth book, folio ten, against Saint Augustine defending original sin, and arguing Catholically that Adam became mortal through transgression.

"With so many things existing which show that Adam was formed from the earth in such a way that he was completely mortal, he wished to occupy himself with the discourse concerning his own food, and not being able to notice the truth from there, he joined the advocacy for the true dogma, a seduction from a lie: he did not say (Gen. 2), "You shall be mortal," but "You shall die by death," threatening to inflict the experience of death on those who were completely mortal by nature, which he also delayed to bring to fruition, according to the custom of his own kindness. For just as  when he says: "Whoever sheds man's blood, his blood shall be shed for him" (Gen. 9:6), he does not say this because whoever kills a man will be mortal, but because he is worthy of being condemned to this kind of death; so he said in the present case: "You shall die by death;" not because they would then become mortal, but because they would be worthy who would bear the sentence of death for their transgression. But also note the divine sentence which God seems to inflict on Adam after his sin. For thus it says: Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of this ground, and have eaten of it, cursed is the ground in your works; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you, and you shall eat the grass of the field, and in the sweat of your face shalt thou eat bread, till you return to the ground (Gen. iii, 14 ff.). But this he threatened by all these things, that he would have a miserable life, and with labor he would henceforth take the fruits of the earth, by which he would be nourished and subsist, never having, as before, such a proposed bounty as he enjoyed from the abundance of Paradise. For God did not give the earth to be worked as a punishment, as if transferring men from an immortal nature to mortality, since he also commanded him to work and guard Paradise. But for such great original bounty and pleasure of paradise, he threatens that his support would be miserable from the fruits of the earth. For just as he became mortal, and then needed the fruits of paradise, just as he then seeks the fruits of the earth, and as punishment, being deprived of his original delights, he is punished by this most miserable and laborious way of life. Whence he added to the last as a consequence: For earth you are, and to earth you shall return (Gen. iii), hence also signifying the mortality of nature. For he did not coin the term earth for an immortal being and now only beginning to receive the sentence of death, as the wisest defenders of original sin, nay rather the wonderful fathers of sin, assert; but as from the beginning naturally made mortal, divine Scripture judged this appellation to be fitting, often adopting this term of men to show their corruptible and resolvable nature. For, He remembers, he says, that we are dust: man, his days are as grass, and as a flower of the field, so shall he flourish; because the breath passeth over him, and there shall be no more place for him (Ps. 102:14). But he means to say that we are all corruptible and dissolvable, like grass that flourisheth for a little while, and after a little while perisheth. For indeed we lead life for a short time; but afterwards we have come to non-existence in every way. So also Abraham, he says, I am earth and ashes, for him as if he were saying: I am not worthy to converse with so great a God, a man made of earth, and in every way to be so. Therefore he ought rather to have said: For earth thou shalt be, and unto earth shalt thou return: for now was the nature of man first made mortal.”

"I. De secundo codice libri quarti, folio decimo, contra sanctum Augustinum defendentem originale peccatum, et Adam per transgressionem mortalem factum catholice disserentem. (0589C)

807 « Tantis exstantibus quae demonstrent Adam sic ex terra formatum, ut mortalis prorsus existeret, erga cibum proprium voluit occupare sermonem, nec exinde valens advertere veritatem, pro dogmate vero, seductorio ex mendacio, advocationem jungens: non ait (Genes. II), Mortales eritis, sed Morte moriemini, prorsus existentibus natura mortalibus inferre mortis experientiam comminatus, quam etiam juxta morem propriae benignitatis ad effectum perducere distulit. Sicut (0590C)enim cum dicit: Qui effuderit hominis sanguinem, sanguis ejus pro eo fundetur (Genes. IX, 6), non hoc dicit quia qui occiderit hominem, erit mortalis, sed quia dignus est hujusmodi morte damnari; sic et in praesentiarum dixit: Morte moriemini; non quod tunc mortales fierent, sed quod digni essent qui mortis sententiam pro transgressione referrent. Sed et divinam sententiam, quam post peccatum Deus Adae inferre videtur, adverte. Sic enim dicit: Quia audisti vocem uxoris tuae, et comedisti de ligno de quo praeceperam tibi de hoc solo non comedere, ex eo comedisti, maledicta terra in operibus tuis, in tristitia comedes eam omnibus diebus vitae tuae, spinas et tribulos proferet tibi, et comedes fenum agri, et in sudore (0591A)vultus tui comedes panem tuum, donec revertaris in terram (Gen. III, 14 seqq.). Hoc autem per haec omnia comminatus est, quod aerumnosam vitam habiturus esset, cum labore deinceps fructus de terra sumpturus, quibus aleretur atque subsisteret, nequaquam habens, ut pridem, tantam propositam largitatem, quanta ex paridisi copia fruebatur. Non enim operari terram pro supplicio dedit Deus, quasi ex immortali natura in mortalitatem homines transferens, 808 quandoquidem et paradisum ei, ut operaretur et custodiret, indixit. Pro tanta vero pristina largitate et voluptate paradisi, aerumnosam ejus fore sustentationem de terrae fructibus comminatur. Nam prorsus ut mortalis factus, et tunc paradisi fructibus indigebat, sicut tunc terrae fructus inquirit, et pro supplicio pristinis (0591B)fraudatus deliciis, hac aerumnosissima laboriosissimaque conversatione mulctatur. Unde ad postremum consequenter adjecit: Quia terra es, et reverteris in terram (Genes. III), hinc etiam mortalitatem naturae significans. Non enim immortali et nunc primum incipienti sententiam mortis excipere, sicut sapientissimi defensores peccati originalis, immo potius patres peccati mirabiles, asseverant, vocabulum huic terrae composuit; sed ut ab exordio naturaliter effecto mortali appellationem hanc congruere judicavit divina Scriptura, hoc de hominibus vocabulum ad ostensionem corruptibilis et resolubilis eorum naturae saepius assumens. Nam, Recordatus est, inquit, quia pulvis sumus: homo, sicut fenum dies ejus, et sicut flos agri, ita florebit, quia spiritus pertransivit in eo, et non erit (0591C)amplius locus ejus (Psal. CII, 14). Vult autem dicere quod corruptibiles et resolubiles omnes sumus in modum feni parumper florentis pereuntisque post paululum. Nam ad breve quidem tempus vitam ducimus; ad non existendum vero deinceps omnimodo pervenimus. Sic et Abraham, Ego sum, inquit, terra et cinis, pro eo ac si diceret: Non sum dignus cum tanto Deo colloqui, homo factus e terra, et omnimodis hoc futurus. Magis ergo dicere debuit: Quia terra eris, et in terram reverteris: siquidem nunc primum fieret natura mortalis. »"

Fragment 2

“II. From the second manuscript, book three, before the four leaves of the end of the book.

"But the wonderful assertor of original sin could not foresee any of these things, since he was never trained in the divine Scriptures, nor from childhood, according to the words of blessed Paul (2 Tim. iii), had he learned the sacred letters. But whether often declaiming about the meanings of Scripture or about dogma, he often shamelessly uttered many things that were particularly or generally absurd about the Scriptures themselves and many dogmas. For fear of power did not allow him to utter anything against it, but only those who had a knowledge of the divine Scriptures, who were silent, denigrated them. Finally, he fell back on this novelty of dogma, by which he said that in anger and fury God commanded Adam to be mortal, and because of his one sin He punished all men, even those not yet born, with death. But in thus disputing, let him not be afraid, nor be ashamed to think those things about God, which no one has ever attempted to estimate even about men who are sane (0592B)wise and who have some care for justice. But he did not remember that divine voice, that this parable should no longer be said in Israel: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge, because thus says the Lord God: The teeth of those who have eaten sour grapes shall be set on edge (Ezek. XVIII, 1 seqq.), showing by these things that God does not at all punish one for another, according to the error of some, but each one will give account for his own sins. In harmony with these, blessed Paul also adds: God, he says, who will render to each one according to his works (Rom. II, 6); and: Each of us will bear his own burden (Gal. VI, 5); and: Why do you judge your brother? or why do you despise your brother (0592C)? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ (Rom. XIV, 10). But the wonderful man thought that God was moved with such fury because of one sin that He subjected him to the most atrocious punishment, and promulgated the same sentence upon all his descendants, among whom it would not be easy to count how many were righteous. Of whom it was fitting to consider him most, because it seemed very incongruous that Noah, Abraham, David, Moses, and the rest of the innumerable righteous should be made subject to punishment because of his one sin, and approved by the taste of the tree, and that thus God extended His wrath beyond the measure of justice, so that He cast away all the virtues of so many righteous men, and enslaved them to such punishment because of the sin of one Adam."

"For if nothing else, at least he should have weighed Abel's mind appropriately; who, being the first just man, was the first to die. And since God had appointed death as a punishment for men, how was it not the utmost impiety that he who was the cause of sin should live, and that Eve, the discoverer of wickedness, should also live with him (but I will leave aside the devil, who has so far endured in immortality), and that the first just man, the discoverer of virtue, and the first to take care of divine worship, should have been struck down almost before all the sinners? But it was necessary for the wisest man to weigh diligently also about Enoch, who did not die. For he was not endowed with such virtue or piety that he was better than all, I mean Moses, and the Prophets, and the Apostles, or all the rest, of whom the blessed Paul says, "The world was not worthy" (Heb. 11:38), so that, when they had died, he alone should have endured without experiencing death. But from the beginning God had this determined with Himself, that first indeed they should become mortal, and afterwards they should enjoy immortality: thus He Himself disposed to be made for our benefit. » And after a little. « God shows these same things more clearly, he says, when He transfers Enoch, and makes him immortal. For if through sin God brought death as a punishment, and had not formerly determined this with Himself, ineffably dispensing all things for us according to His own wisdom, Enoch indeed would not have existed immortal, but the Lord Christ would not have reached the experience of death." And after a little. "For this reason," he says, "the Lord became the author of all good things for men, so that just as Adam was the initiator of the first and mortal state, so too, being the initiator of the second and immortal state, he would first preserve the natural qualities of the first Adam, while he was born of a woman, while he was wrapped in swaddling clothes, and gradually received the increase of age (for Jesus (Luke 2:52), he says, "advanced in age and wisdom and grace before God and men") while he received circumcision, while he presented himself to God in the temple according to the legal custom, and was subjected to his parents, and was given over to lawful conduct. So also, to fulfill the rest, he finally received death, as a gift of nature, so that by dying according to the law of human nature and rising from the dead by divine power, he might become the beginning for all men who receive death according to their own nature, to rise from the dead and be changed to an immortal substance. For as we are all made conformable to Adam according to our present state, so shall we be made conformable to Christ the Lord according to the flesh in the future. For He has transfigured the body of our humiliation to be conformed to His glorious body (Philippians 5), and as it was earthly, such are earthly, and as it was heavenly, such are heavenly; and as we have borne the image of the earth, so shall we also bear the image of the heavenly (1 Corinthians 15), showing that having become partakers of the first state of Adam, we necessarily also obtain a partaker of the future state of the second Adam of Christ the Lord according to the flesh, since He arose from this same nature, and assumed all that was of nature, and therefore endured death, so that, assuming the death of nature, and rising from the dead, He might perfect a nature free from death. And indeed He therefore assumed death, but not sin at all, but remained entirely immune from it. For what was of nature, that is, death, He undoubtedly assumed: but sin, which was not of nature, but of the will, He by no means assumed. But if there had been sin in nature, according to the saying of this wise man, sin, existing entirely in nature, would necessarily have taken hold of it."

“II. Ex secundo codice, libro tertio, ante quatuor folia finis libri.

« 809 Sed nihil horum prospicere potuit mirabilis (0592A)peccati originalis assertor, quippe qui in divinis Scripturis nequaquam fuerit exercitatus, nec ab infantia, juxta beati Pauli vocem (II Tim. III), sacras didicerit litteras. Sed sive de Scripturae sensibus, sive de dogmate saepe declamans, multa frequenter inepta proprie communiterve de ipsis Scripturis dogmatibusque plurimis impudenter exprompsit. Nam potentiae metus nullum contra sinebat effari, sed tantummodo taciti, qui divinarum Scripturarum habebant notitiam, detrahebant. Novissime vero in hanc dogmatis recidit novitatem, qua diceret quod in ira atque furore Deus Adam mortalem esse praeceperit, et propter ejus unum delictum cunctos etiam necdum natos homines morte mulctaverit. Sic autem disputans non veretur, nec confunditur ea sentire de Deo, quae nec de hominibus sanum (0592B)sapientibus et aliquam justitiae curam gerentibus umquam quis aestimare tentavit. Sed nec illius divinae vocis recordatus est, Quod non diceretur ulterius ista parabola in Israel: Patres manducaverunt uvam acerbam, et filiorum dentes obstupuerunt, quia haec dicit Adonai Dominus: Dentes eorum qui manducaverunt uvam acerbam, obstupescent (Ezech. XVIII, 1 seqq.), ostendens per haec quod alterum pro altero, juxta quorumdam errorem, Deus omnino non puniat, sed unusquisque pro delictis suis redditurus est rationem. His consona beatus quoque Paulus annectit. Deus, inquit, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera sua (Rom. II, 6); et: Unusquisque nostrum onus suum portabit (Gal. VI, 5); et: Tu quid judicas fratrem tuum? aut tu quare spernis fratrem (0592C)tuum? omnes enim adstabimus ante tribunal Christi (Rom. XIV, 10). Sed vir mirabilis propter unum peccatum de tanto furore commotum arbitratus est Deum, ut illum atrocissimae poenae subderet, et ad universos omnes posteros ejus parem sententiam promulgaret, et inter quos quanti justi fuerint non facile numerare quis poterit. Ex quibus eum maxime considerare convenerat, quod valde videretur incongruum Noe, Abraham, David, Moysen 810 et reliquos innumerabiles justos obnoxios poenae redditos ob ejus delictum et unum, atque ex gustu arboris approbatum, et quod sic ultra modum justitiae iram suam Deus extenderit, ita ut tot justorum virtutes cunctas (0593A)abjiceret, eosque propter unius peccatum Adae tanto supplicio manciparet.

« Nam etsi nihil aliud, saltem de Abel mente perpendens convenienter aestimare debuerat; qui primus justus existens, primus mortuus est. Et siquidem mortem Deus ad poenam statuerat hominum, quomodo non impietatis erat extremae vivere quidem eum qui fuit causa peccati, vivere etiam cum illo et Evam malitiae repertricem (praetermitto autem diabolum in immortalitate hactenus perdurantem), primum vero justum repertoremque virtutis primumque divini cultus curam gerentem ante omnes pene peccantium fuisse perculsum? Oportebat autem sapientissimum virum et de Enoch, qui non est mortuus, diligenter expendere. Non enim tanta virtute vel pietate praeditus fuit, ut melior (0593B)omnibus existeret, Moyse dico, et Prophetis, Apostolisque, vel reliquis omnibus, de quibus ait beatissimus Paulus, quibus dignus non erat mundus (Hebr. XI, 38), ita ut, illis mortuis, ipse solus sine mortis experientia perduraret. Sed jam ab initio Deus hoc habuit apud se definitum, ut primum quidem mortales fierent, postmodum vero immortalitate gauderent: sic ad utilitatem nostram fieri ipse disponens. » Et post paululum. « Manifestius, inquit, haec eadem Deus ostendit cum transfert Enoch, et immortalem facit. Nam si per peccatum causa supplicii Deus intulit mortem, nec olim definitum hoc habuit apud se, ineffabiliter pro nobis juxta propriam sapientiam cuncta dispensans, nequaquam Enoch quidem immortalis existeret, Dominus autem Christus ad mortis experientiam perveniret. » Et (0593C)post paululum. « Idcirco, inquit, Dominus auctor omnium bonorum hominibus factus est, ut sicut Adam primi et mortalis status exstitit inchoator, ita et ipse secundi et immortalis status initiator existens, primitus Adae prioris naturalia custodiret, dum nascitur ex muliere, dum pannis involvitur, et paulatim aetatis incrementa sortitur (Jesus enim (Luc. II, 52), inquit, proficiebat 811 aetate et sapientia et gratia coram Deo et hominibus) dum circumcisionem suscipit, dum juxta legalem consuetudinem Deo astitit in templo, parentibusque subjicitur, et conversationi legitimae mancipatur. Sic etiam, ad expletionem reliquorum, et mortem, utpote naturae tributam, postremo suscipit, ut secundum legem humanae naturae moriens, et a mortuis divina virtute resurgens, initium cunctis hominibus, qui mortem (0593D)secundum propriam naturam suscipiunt, fieret, ut a mortuis surgant, et ad immortalem substantiam commutentur. (0594A)Sicut enim conformes Adae secundum statum praesentem sumus omnes effecti, sic Christo Domino juxta carnem conformes efficiemur in posterum. Transfiguravit enim corpus humilitatis nostrae conformes fieri corporis gloriae suae (Philipp. V), et qualis terrenus, tales et terreni, et qualis coelestis, tales et coelestes; et sicut portavimus imaginem terreni, portemus etiam imaginem coelestis (I Cor. XV), ostendens, quod primi status Adae participes facti, necessario etiam secundi Adae Christi Domini secundum carnem futuri status participium consequimur, utpote qui ex hac eadem natura constet exortus, et cuncta quae fuerant naturae susceperit, et ideo sustinuerit mortem, ut mortem naturae suscipiens, et a mortuis resurgens, naturam liberam morte perficeret. Et mortem quidem (0594B)propterea suscepit, peccatum vero nequaquam, sed ab hoc immunis omnino permansit. Quod enim erat naturae, id est, mortem, indubitanter assumpsit: peccatum vero, quod non erat naturae, sed voluntatis, nullo pacto suscepit. Quod si fuisset in natura peccatum, juxta sapientissimi hujus eloquium, peccatum in natura prorsus existens, necessario suscepisset. »”

Fragment 3

“III. On the second codex, from the third book, folio 18.

« If, » he says, « God did not know that Adam would sin, let this be the wisdom of these wisest men and this answer, that this is most insane even to perceive in thought. It is clear that He knew that he would sin, and because of this he would undoubtedly die. How then is it not extreme madness to believe that He first made him mortal in six hours (for so many were the hours from his condition to his commission, since on the sixth day he was made from the earth, and eating contrary to the divine commandment, he was driven out of paradise), but that He showed him mortal after the sin? For it is certain that if He had willed that he should be immortal, neither would sin have changed God's mind by intervening: for He did not make the devil mortal from an immortal, and indeed the existing principle of all evil. »”

“III. De codice secundo, ex libro tertio, folio decimo octavo.

« Si, inquit, peccaturum Deus nesciebat Adam, sit horum sapientia sapientissimorum 812 et ista responsio, quod hoc insanissimum est vel in cogitatione percipere. Manifestum est quod et peccaturum eum noverat, et propter hoc procul dubio moriturum. Quomodo ergo non est extremae dementiae credere quod primitus (0594C)eum mortalem in sex horis fecerit (nam tantae fuerunt a conditione ejus usque ad commissionem, quandoquidem sexto die factus e terra, et comedens contra divinum mandatum, de paradiso pulsus est), mortalem vero post peccatum monstraverit? Certum est enim quia si eum immortalem esse voluisset, nec intercedens peccatum Dei sententiam commutasset: quia nec diabolum fecit ex immortali mortalem, et quidem cunctorum malorum existentem principium. »”

Fragment 4

“IV. On the second codex, from the third book, folio twenty-five.

 

“For,” he says, “to those who from Adam until the coming of Christ the Lord were in so many impiety and iniquities, as blessed Paul expressed in his own words, as was declared in his words above, there is no reward as if he were to confer some great resurrection, if he had delivered them over to certain punishments without end and without correction. For where will resurrection be counted as a reward, if punishment without correction is inflicted on those who rise again?” And a little later. “Who,” he says, “is so mad as to believe that so much good becomes the material for infinite punishment on those who rise again, for whom it was more profitable not to rise at all, than to endure the experience of so many and such evils after resurrection under infinite punishments?””[2]

“IV. De secundo codice, ex libro tertio, folio vigesimo quinto.

« Non enim, inquit, his qui ab Adam usque ad adventum Christi Domini in tantis fuerunt impietatibus et iniquitatibus, quantas beatus Paulus propriis verbis (0594D)expressit, ut in superioribus est ejus declaratum vocibus, tamquam magnum quiddam resurrectionis collaturus (0595A)est praemium, si eos suppliciis quibusdam sine fine et sine correctione tradiderit. Nam ubi jam loco muneris resurrectio computabitur, si poena sine correctione resurgentibus inferatur? » Et post paululum. « Quis, inquit, ita demens, ut tantum bonum credat materiam fieri resurgentibus infiniti supplicii, quibus utilius erat omnino non surgere, quam tantorum et talium malorum post resurrectionem sub infinitis poenis experientiam sustinere? »”

---

[1] See my previous post on Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of_28.html . The fragments might be compared with the summary provided by Photius: 

“Read a book whose subscription reads, "Theodore of Antioch, Against those who say that men sin by nature and not by intention."  His polemic against those is developed in 5 books.  He wrote this work against westerners touched by this ill; it is among them, he says, that the promoter of this heresy appeared: he left these and came to establish himself in eastern regions and there composed some books on the new heresy which he had imagined, and sent them to the inhabitants of his country of origin.  By these writings, he attracted many people of those regions to adopt his views to the point where entire churches were filled with his error.

I cannot say with certainty whether the name of Aram which he gives to their chief is a name or nickname.  This person, the author says, fashioned a fifth gospel which he feigns that he found in the libraries of Eusebius of Palestine.  He rejected the translation of the New and the Old Testament published by the united Seventy and also those of Symmachus, Aquila, and others, and boasted that he had composed a new one of his own without, like the others, having studied and practised Hebrew since infancy and without having mastered the spirit of the Holy Scripture.  Instead he put himself under the tuiton of some low-class Jews and there acquired the audacity to make his own version.

The principles of their heresy are, in summary, the following.  Men sin, they say, by nature and not by intention; and 'by nature' they do not mean that nature which was in Adam when first created (because this, they say, was good because made by a good God), but that nature which was his later after the fall because of his ill conduct and sin.  He received a sinful nature in exchange for the good and a mortal nature in exchange for an immortal; it is in this manner and by nature that men became sinners after having been good by nature.  It is in their nature and not by a voluntary choice that they acquired sin.

The second point is connected to the preceding propositions. They say that infants, even newly born, are not free from sin because, since the disobedience of Adam, nature is fixed into sin and that this sinful nature, as was said, extends to all his descendants.  They quote, he says, the verse, "I was born in sin" and others similar: the holy baptism itself; the communion with the incorruptible body for the remission of sins and the fact that these apply to infants as a confirmation of their own opinion.  They claim also that no man is just, and this is thus obviously a corollary of their initial position, "because nothing of flesh can be justified before you," he says, and he cites other texts of the same kind.

The fourth point (O blasphemous and impious mouth) is that Christ himself, our God, because he put on a nature soiled by sin, was not himself free from sin.  However, in other places in their impious writings, as the author says, it can be seen that they apply the Incarnation to Christ not in truth and in nature, but only in appearance.

The fifth point is that marriage, they say, or the desire of carnal union and the ejection of seed and all that is of that domain and by which our species perpetuates itself and increases itself are works of the evil nature into which Adam fell through sin to receive all the weight of the evils because of his sinful nature.  Such are thus the positions of the heretics.

As for our Theodore, he repulses them with reason and sometimes it is in the best manner and with vigour that he blames the absurd and blasphemous character of their opinions; and, in returning to the words of Scripture that the others interpret against their correct meaning, he demonstrates their ignorance perfectly.  On the other hand, this is not always the case, but he seems to us, in many places, entangled in the Nestorian heresy and echoes that of Origen, at least in that which concerns the end of punishment.

Further, he says that Adam was mortal from the beginning and that it was only in appearance, to make us hate sin, that God seemed to impose death on us as a punishment for sin;  this assertion does not seem to me to proceed from just reasoning, but on the contrary it leaves much to explain if someone chooses to ask, even if, as the author wants to say, a opinion like his is strongly opposed to heresy.  Because  an idea is not good just because it fights a bad idea ---- in fact bad ideas combat each other ---- but that which conforms to valid reasoning and is supported by the testimony of the holy Scriptures is admissible, even if no heresy dares to oppose it.

There is a further point which in my judgement has no place among the dogmas of the truth, which is affirmed with excessive insistance and which is not recognised by the divine church: that there are two remissions of sin, one for what one has done and the other, what to call it I do not know, a remission which is the very fact of existing without sin or of sinning no more (in fact we need several explanatory  terms in order to express this new kind of remission of sins).  He calls what is properly called the absence of sin, the total remission and a more appropriate sense of the term and the complete destruction of error.

What then is this remission of sins?  Where is it granted?  When does it begin?  It began to manifest, he says, with the incarnation of Christ our Lord and was given by way of a down-payment; and it is given in a perfect manner and based on our works even in that restoration which follows the resurrection and to obtain which we are baptised just like our children.

But what has been said so far is deserving enough of respect and close to nature to make us turn everything avidly towards our end.  Tell us again, what is done and what is to do?  In fact we will lend you an attentive ear.  What is this famous total remission of sin?  He says that we will sin no more after the resurrection.  But what hopes you have dashed!  Because, leaving to one side this investigation into the manner in which the remission of sin must be stated, I will explain myself briefly.

And what?  It is for this, in your eyes, that the Christ became incarnate, and was crucified, ---- that you would sin no more when you were resurrected from among the dead?  So those who sinned before Christ walked on earth sin among the dead?  And, if we are not baptized, we will commit still more sins among the dead, according to you, us and the tiny infants?  And all the infidels, in the future life, they will be able to commit thefts, adulteries, impieties, robberies, and to satisfy all their wicked passions?  Because you will not find for them any chastisements just or heavy enough for faults committed in that life!

These then are the reasons why in my opinion it is proven that his idea of the remission of sins cannot be approved.  Perhaps he himself did not arrive at this view on his own, but to resolve the difficulties raised by those who wonder why children participate in incorruptible mysteries and why it is thought that they merit baptism if this is not because they themselves are charged with sins, since this sin is bound up in their nature, because the sacraments are administered for the remission of sins.  But it will be necessary to resolve this difficulty, which offers numerous elements of solution, in another way, and, after having examined the astonishing corollaries of his conception of the remission of sins, not to strain so hard for an answer.

This Theodore is the author who also write polemically with success in twenty-eight books against Eunomius to defend the teaching of St. Basil, or rather, the truth; in fact the vocabulary, the arrangement of words, the spirit of the dogmas, the richness of the refutation and all the rest offers nothing wrong.  He is lacking in clarity, although he uses a vocabulary which contains nothing unusual, but most of the time he employs long periods and repeated digressions during which the sense of his arguments is much delayed.  He employs oblique cases and participles in abundance; he often repeats the same facts in no particular order; his repetitions (in which there is a total lack of method) are longer than the matter of his book itself.  Some defects of this kind produce a great obscurity in his writings.  However he seems to have worked seriously at our holy scripture, although he deviates frequently from the truth.” (source: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_copyright/photius_04bibliotheca.htm#177 )

[2] Alternate translation of the second part of fragment 4: ““Who is so mad that he would believe to be so great a good that material of endless torment is being prepared for those who arise, for whom it would be more useful not to rise at all, than to endure, after the resurrection, the experience of such great evils of such kind, in endless pains?” , source: https://www.academia.edu/35123005/The_Involvement_of_Theodore_of_Mopsuestia_in_the_Pelagian_Controversy_A_Study_of_Theodore_s_Treatise_Against_Those_who_Say_that_Men_Sin_by_Nature_and_not_by_Will , G. Malavasi “The Involvement of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Pelagian Controversy”, footnote 82. The author of the paper also quotes the fragment preserved by Isaac of Nineveh: “In the world to come, those who have chosen here what is good, will  receive the felicity of good things along with praise; whereas the  wicked, who all their life have turned aside to evil deeds, once they  have been set in order in their minds by punishments and the fear of  them, choose the good, having come to learn how much they have  sinned, and that they have persevered in doing evil things and not  good; by means of all this they receive a knowledge of religion’s  excellent teaching, and are educated so as to hold on to it with a good  will, (and so eventually) they are held worthy of the felicity of divine  munificence. For (Christ) would never have said ‘Until you pay the  last farthing’ (Mt 5, 26) unless it had been possible for us to be freed from our sins once we had recompensed for them through punishments. Nor would He have said ‘He will be beaten with many stripes’  and ‘He will be beaten with few stripes’ (Lk 12, 47-48) if it were not  (the case) that the punishments, measured out in correspondence to the  sins, were finally going to have an end” (Theodore of Mopsuestia, quoted by Isaac of Nineveh, Second Part 39.8, S. Brock translation)