'I too likewise consent to the things which have been said before concerning the most reverend Ibas.' Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of Dorylaeum, said: 'Since so many most holy fathers are restoring the episcopate to the most reverend Ibas, I too consent.' All the most reverend bishops cried out: 'We all say the same thing: only let him anathematize Nestorius, only let him anathematize his dogmas, only let him anathematize Eutyches and his dogma.' The most reverend Ibas said: 'I have already in writing anathematized Nestorius and his dogmas, and now I anathematize him ten thousand times over; for what is once done with satisfaction, if it be done ten thousand times, causes no grief.' And: 'Anathema to Nestorius and to Eutyches and to whoever says one nature.'
And: 'I anathematize everyone who does not hold as this holy synod holds.' The most glorious judges said: 'The things which have been adjudged by the holy and venerable council concerning the most reverend bishop Ibas shall retain their own force.' These matters, then, being thus set down in the judgment and disposition of the holy Council of Chalcedon, and thus made clear by the interventions of the deputies of the Apostolic See who sustained the presence of their venerable prelate, and of the other fathers, we clearly perceive that it was said by those who are known to have held the place of our most blessed predecessor Pope Leo in that same holy Council of Chalcedon: 'His letter having been read again, we have recognized him to be catholic.' And by Anatolius of Constantinople it was said:
'The reading of all that followed shows the most reverend Ibas innocent of the things which his accusers had brought against him.' And by Maximus of Antioch it was said: 'From the re-read text of the letter which was produced by his adversary, his dictation is declared catholic.' To whose interventions the other bishops are known not only not to have contradicted but even to have given the most manifest consent. But as to what they say, namely that in that same letter of his Ibas excused Nestorius by saying: 'This same Nestorius, being unwilling to call holy Mary Mother of God, many supposed to be of the heresy of Paul of Samosata, who said that Christ was a mere man':
It comes into no one's doubt that our holy fathers looked diligently into this in that same letter. For since Nestorius, by not calling the holy Virgin Mary Mother of God, deserved to be reckoned as of the heresy of Paul of Samosata, our holy fathers understood that Nestorius was by Ibas's judgment burdened all the more, since Ibas is shown to have said nothing else by these words than that Nestorius, by denying the blessed Virgin to be Mother of God, seems to introduce our Lord God Jesus Christ as a mere man and as a non-subsistent Son of God, according to the impiety of Paul of Samosata—although Nestorius stood forth as the author of his own heresy.
Wherefore the venerable man Ibas said this rather to the aggravation of that same Nestorius, namely that he was supposed by certain persons to be of the heresy of Paul of Samosata, as if he were saying: 'Although Nestorius had founded his own error, yet by not calling the holy Virgin Mary Mother of God he so appeared impious that, without any distinction, he was by many thought to teach the heresy of Paul of Samosata.' The charge of which error Ibas so heightened in his letter that he made him fully like Paul of Samosata, whose baptism, by the sentence of the holy Council of Nicaea, the universal Church judged to be rejected.
But whereas those returning to the holy catholic Church from the Nestorian heresy are received merely upon the condemnation of that heresy, Nestorius, beyond doubt, is found through the venerable Ibas's letter to be weighed down by the burden of a graver execration, since his error is compared to an error that has no baptism. Nor, from the fact that he said 'was supposed,' should anyone accuse him of having used this word as though doubting, since the blessed apostle Paul says affirmatively to the Corinthians: 'For I think that I too have the Spirit of God'; nor indeed was he doubting that he had the Spirit of God, who elsewhere said: 'Do you seek a proof of Christ who speaks in me?' And how can it be that in one in whom Christ speaks it should be doubted whether he has the Spirit of God?
For this too our holy fathers, sitting in the Council of Chalcedon, no less attended to: that Apollinaris, with his dogma, who asserts one nature of the divinity and humanity of our Lord God Jesus Christ, is in that same letter of Ibas condemned as impious and execrable; while they greatly approved those things which Ibas said in that same letter: 'Two natures, one power, one person, which is one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.' And in that he said 'one power,' he is recognized to have followed the doctrine of the apostle Paul, who says distinctly that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, and in another place, that although he was crucified from the weakness of the flesh, yet he lives from the power of God.
That Ibas, when he was dictating his letter, must be believed to have considered this: so that, confessing the power of the assuming Word, and recognizing the assumed flesh as belonging to that same Word in him, by saying 'one power' he might show that he understood the supreme and inseparable unity under the name of one person and one Son, that is, of our Lord Jesus Christ—which he added by way of consequence; abiding in this confession of the orthodox faith, while the fathers in the holy Council of Chalcedon exhorted him likewise to do what they themselves had done, namely to condemn Nestorius and Eutyches with their dogmas, and so to be joined to their college.
This Ibas devoutly performed, testifying that he had always done so, and with free voice before all the fathers said: 'Anathema to Nestorius and to Eutyches,' adding: 'and to whoever says one nature'; by which refutation, namely of the one nature, he had come to know that he was pronounced orthodox in the confession of two natures in one and the same Son. This too must be explained by us, lest anyone suppose that Ibas's letter therein excuses Nestorius from the heresy of which he is the author, in that it said: 'But Nestorius, because he was an object of hatred to his own city and to the greatest men who are in it, could not return there.'
For by these words it is understood that rather this was signified: that Ibas called Nestorius, as a heretic, hateful to his own city and to the greatest men then in it; and therefore our fathers at Chalcedon must be believed to have so understood, because earlier in that same letter Ibas had said that this same Nestorius had written harmful books, which were a scandal to the hearers, and had denied the blessed Virgin Mary to be Mother of God. For thus, concerning that which our fathers received, it befits us to understand rightly and not to suspect anything else which the writer of the letter is not read to have said.
We could indeed, by the grace of God, render an account for the individual passages and meanings of the aforementioned letter one by one; but since the rest can fittingly be adapted to that same understanding by which we have expounded a few passages—in which, even if any obscurity should occur, we would yield to the authority of the fathers and their deeper understanding—therefore we must not linger longer on these matters. For these reasons, then, which we have said above, and on account of that profession of faith by which Cyril, bishop of Alexandria of venerable memory, and the most reverend John, prelate of Antioch, and all the Eastern bishops, through Paul, bishop of the city of Emesa, returned to concord:
which Ibas too, praising in that very letter, gladly embraces, the dictation of the orthodox Ibas the bishop was pronounced by the fathers. But the things which in that letter of Ibas the priest were said, through an error of understanding, in injuries against Cyril of blessed memory, the fathers in the holy Council of Chalcedon, while pronouncing the letter orthodox, by no means received: indeed, these things that same venerable bishop himself, having received a better understanding of its chapters, refuted in many ways, as is most evidently declared by the intervention of Eunomius of venerable memory, bishop of the church of Nicomedia, sitting in that same holy Council of Chalcedon. Which runs thus:
Eunomius, bishop of Nicomedia, said: 'Now indeed, from the things which have been read again, the venerable Ibas is proved innocent; for in those places where by his words he seemed wrongly to blame the most blessed Cyril, at the last, rightly confessing those things which he had blamed, he retracted them. Wherefore I too decree that he is worthy of the episcopate, since he anathematizes Nestorius and Eutyches and their impious dogmas, and consents to the things which were written by the most holy archbishop Leo and by this universal synod.' For the intervention of Juvenal of venerable memory signifies this same thing:
That the bishop Ibas, concerning that which by understanding otherwise he had detracted from the holy Cyril's chapters, having afterward professed that, once these were explained by him and understood by himself, he had devoutly joined in his communion and had been converted from those things which he had before understood otherwise, on that account he decreed to receive him to the episcopate as one who, as far as the profession of faith goes, was orthodox, saying thus: 'Those who are converted, divine Scripture bids us receive. Wherefore we receive even those returning from heretics. Whence I perceive that the most reverend Ibas deserves clemency—since he is also an old man—to have the rank of the episcopate, being orthodox.' By which words this is understood: 'If we receive those coming even from heretics,
how shall we not receive Ibas, who is orthodox, and who, hesitating in his understanding of the chapters of blessed Cyril, seemed to contradict him, now that he has been converted from that understanding in which he was deceived—since it is established that he is orthodox?' For bishop Juvenal would not say that Ibas is orthodox unless from the words of his letter he had approved an orthodox confession of faith. But that it may appear that the intervention of Juvenal agrees with the intervention of Eunomius, the very words from Eunomius's intervention instruct us, which among other things run thus: 'For in those places where by his words he seemed wrongly to blame the most blessed Cyril, at the last, rightly confessing those things which he had blamed, he retracted them.'
From which words it is most evidently declared that in bishop Ibas nothing was reprehended concerning the confession of faith—which it is established was praised—but that this same Ibas retracted that which, by a deceiving understanding, he had ill judged concerning blessed Cyril. For this same venerable bishop Ibas, by the preceding proceedings, as the sentence of Photius and Eustathius contains, is most manifestly attested to hold and to receive all things which were done in the first Council of Ephesus, and to judge as equal the things which were established at Nicaea, and to reckon no difference of the one to the others; and they declare that he had praised their holiness exceedingly, because Ibas was disposed to be zealous in caring for those who, whether by suspicion or in any other way, injured the repute of his teaching.
For also, after the explanation of the twelve chapters of blessed Cyril had been made, and Cyril's own meaning, which the holy Cyril had in those chapters, had been declared to him, he professed that he held himself orthodox together with all the Eastern bishops, and that he had remained in communion with Cyril even until his death. From which it appears that the venerable Ibas both, before he understood the twelve chapters of blessed Cyril—when in them he suspected that one nature of Christ was being preached—had, with an orthodox sense, rejected what he had judged to be ill said, and, after their explanation, had likewise, with an orthodox sense, reverently received those things which he now knew to have been rightly said.
But this too is unhesitatingly clear to the minds of all the faithful: that rather in the second Council of Ephesus it was Dioscorus with Eutyches who, by a heretical understanding, inflicted insults upon blessed Cyril and upon the first Council of Ephesus—men who believed that holy Cyril, through his twelve chapters, had preached one nature in our Lord God Jesus Christ; and on this account Dioscorus condemned certain Eastern bishops who were unwilling to receive the preaching of one nature:
among whom he condemned as a heretic bishop Ibas also, especially on account of this profession of his faith, by which he most openly confesses two natures, one power, one person, which is one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; and he recalled Eutyches as catholic on account of the preaching of one nature, condemning also the person of Flavian of holy memory on account of the utterance of two natures; and Dioscorus himself was found rather to be attempting to destroy the first Council of Ephesus, he who defended it under the image of an execrable understanding; and Dioscorus and Eutyches, praising blessed Cyril, incriminated him more than did Ibas in blaming him under the error of a false understanding.
For since praise and blame tended toward one and the same understanding, Dioscorus and Eutyches, who praised, were found to have praised with a heretical spirit, and therefore were condemned by the holy Council of Chalcedon; but bishop Ibas, who, through error supposing one nature to be preached in these things, had first blamed the chapters, and after their meaning had been declared to him professed himself a partaker with blessed Cyril together with all the Easterns, was judged by that same Council of Chalcedon to have remained in the rectitude of the catholic faith.
This same synod, therefore, in the case of Dioscorus and Eutyches—who strove to cover themselves falsely under the veil of blessed Cyril—seeing rather that Dioscorus and Eutyches appeared contrary to the preachings of blessed Cyril in this, that they preached one nature after the union with a blasphemous spirit, condemned this same Dioscorus with Eutyches by a like and the same sentence, destroying the second Council of Ephesus and confirming the first. And because it is objected against us out of the words of the prophet Ezekiel, that which he was saying in the person of the Lord against the priests of Jerusalem who did not distinguish evil from good:
'Her priests despised my law and defiled my holy things; they did not distinguish between the holy and the profane, nor did they discern between the clean and the unclean'—your Piety, together with you and the hearts of all the faithful, ought from these words to perceive that we, for this very reason, do not dare to revise the judgment of the Council of Chalcedon, lest, God forbid, upon the priests sitting there this stain be cast back from the snares of the heretics, so that they be charged with having been unable to discern between good and evil, and between the holy and the profane, and between the clean and the unclean—if they should now see us, under any pretext whatever, revising the causes of that same holy synod that were concluded by the judgment and with the consent of the Apostolic See.
Therefore, preserving in all things the discernment and judgment of the holy fathers, and having, by the disposition of all matters according to that reasoning which we have rendered, made clear from the judgment of the Council of Chalcedon—since the truth shines forth with sufficient and most manifest clarity, the words of the letter of the venerable man Ibas having been examined in their most correct and pious sense, and from the proceedings held before Photius and Eustathius, and from the intention of bishop Ibas himself, present and discussed by those present—that our fathers sitting at Chalcedon most justly pronounced orthodox the faith of that same venerable man bishop Ibas, and pronounced his reprehension of blessed Cyril, which they had recognized to have occurred humanly through an error of understanding, purged by fitting satisfaction:
by the authority of our present sentence we establish and decree that, both in all things and also in the oft-mentioned letter of the venerable Ibas, the judgment of the fathers sitting at Chalcedon remains inviolate; nor do we permit anyone pertaining to ecclesiastical orders and dignities ever to presume, by this our constitution, whether concerning the business of that same letter or concerning other things judged, ordained, defined, and disposed at the Council of Chalcedon with the consent of the deputies of the Apostolic See, as though they were imperfect and reprehensible, to bring in anything of rash novelty, whether by addition or by diminution or by alteration or in any way whatsoever.
By like reason we decree that no one should suppose that anything is to be derogated from the letter of blessed Cyril, to which the twelve chapters are appended, or from those very chapters promulgated against the perfidy of Nestorius, since it is established that this same Ibas the venerable man, and all the Eastern bishops, after the meaning of those same chapters of blessed Cyril had been explained to them, remained partakers in his communion throughout the whole time of his life, casting away and repelling from the rectitude of our understanding those things in which, whether from the above-written letter of the venerable man bishop Ibas or from all the things which were judged, ordained, defined, and disposed in the holy Council of Chalcedon, anything is so fitted,
so that through the authority of that same synod either a perverse dogma be asserted to be that of Nestorius, or Nestorius himself be said to be excused. And lest anyone should perhaps deem it doubtful whether it was commanded by the most blessed Pope Leo to the aforesaid legates and deputies of the Apostolic See only for the cause of the faith, and not also concerning the recall of bishops improperly deposed, and should reckon that the cause of Ibas, bishop of the city of Edessa, was as it were superfluously agitated before the holy fathers, let him know that the most blessed Pope Leo wrote these things, among others, to the holy Council of Chalcedon, saying: 'But since we are not ignorant that through wicked rivalries the state of many churches has been disturbed, and that very many bishops who would not receive the heresy
have been driven from their sees and deported into exile, and others substituted in the place of the survivors; to these wounds first the medicine of justice must be applied, so that no one may lack his own or another use what belongs to another.' And lest anyone should doubt whether those things which were done concerning the restitution of bishops in the Council of Chalcedon were brought to the notice of the most blessed Leo and confirmed by him, let him not omit rather to read, with fitting solicitude, the very report of the synod directed to the most blessed Leo our predecessor, whose words at the end, after other matters, are these: 'We have taken care to convey to you the whole force of the proceedings, for the ratification of our consistency and of the things which have been done by us, both the confirmation and the deposition.'
After the notice of which, this same most blessed Pope Leo, giving thanks to Pulcheria Augusta of pious memory concerning the restored bishops, writes thus: 'Let your Clemency therefore know that the whole Roman Church greatly rejoices over all the works of your faith, both because you aided our legation with an affection pious in all things, and because you have brought back the catholic priests who had been cast out from their churches by an unjust sentence.' Behold, in that all the proceedings were directed to the most blessed Pope Leo, notice of the things done was brought to him, and in the act of returning thanks the confirmation of the things done is declared.
We do not doubt, therefore, that it is made plain to the perceptions of all the faithful what form for dispensing matters was committed by that same blessed Pope Leo to his deputies, present at the synod in his place, or what actions they received to carry out, or what things were established by that general council, with its president—the prelate of the Apostolic See through his deputies—presiding and consenting: things which it is not lawful to be diminished, nor augmented, nor broken through, nor able to be revised by anyone.
That it is not permitted, moreover, for the statutes of the venerable Council of Chalcedon to be shaken or revised under any color or title whatsoever, the few constitutions of our predecessors, brought forth from among innumerable ones, instruct us—especially from the letters of that blessed Leo our predecessor, in whose deputies, as in its supreme prelate, the holy Council of Chalcedon flourished. For he says thus in his letter to Leo Augustus of pious memory: 'But these gifts of God are only then divinely conferred upon us, if we be not found ungrateful for the things which have been bestowed, and, as though the things we have obtained were nothing, expect rather things contrary.'
'For to seek out the things that have been made plain, to revise the things that have been perfected, and to shake the things that have been defined—what else is it than not to render thanks for the things obtained, and to stretch out toward the fruit of the forbidden tree the wicked appetites of a deadly desire?' And after some passages, thus: 'Let your Piety therefore know beforehand, venerable Emperor, that these men whom I promise to send are not to be sent forth from the Apostolic See to contend with the enemies of the faith nor to strive against any; for concerning the things defined both at Nicaea and at Chalcedon, as it pleased God, we dare to enter upon no discussion, as though the things which so great authority has fixed through the Holy Spirit were doubtful or infirm.'
Likewise this same blessed predecessor of ours, Pope Leo, to the aforesaid venerable Augustus in another letter: 'Do not suffer,' he says, 'the extinguished threat to rise up again with revived stirrings against the triumphs of the Almighty's right hand, especially since this is in no way permitted to the long-since-condemned audacities of the heretics, and this fruit is owed to pious labors: that the whole fullness of the Church may remain secure in the solidity of its unity, and that nothing at all of the well-established things be revised; for after legitimate and divinely inspired constitutions, to wish to contend is the mark not of a peaceful but of a rebellious mind, since the Apostle says: For to strive with words is useful for nothing except the subversion of the hearers.'
'For if it be always free to dispute by human persuasions, there will never be lacking those who dare to resist the truth and to trust in the loquacity of worldly wisdom.' Again, after a little: 'We must act piously and constantly, lest, while the disputation of such men is admitted, authority be derogated from those things which have been divinely defined.' Likewise from the letter of Pope Leo to Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople: 'But that this exhortation may be able to come to the notice of all the brethren, let the care of your Diligence see to it;
because, as must often be said, the whole Christian religion is disturbed if anything of the things which were established at Chalcedon be shaken, and if you suffer the things which were composed from divine inspiration to be violated by any novelty.' But also our most blessed predecessor Pope Simplicius says thus, among other things, to Zeno Augustus: 'Nor let anyone, doubtful of reasoning and trembling of mind, expect that anything after the Council of Chalcedon may be revised against its definitions, since that which was established by the whole body of priests is retained throughout the whole world by an indissoluble observance.' Again the said Pope Simplicius to Zeno Augustus: 'Let no access be opened to the ears of your Piety for pernicious minds.'
let no confidence be granted for reopening matters concerning things of old. Thus in the end the contrivances of all heresies, once laid low by ecclesiastical decrees, are never permitted, when they have been crushed, to renew the contests of their assault. Likewise the aforesaid most blessed Pope Simplicius wrote thus to the aforesaid Zeno Augustus: 'May you command that the things established by the Synod of Chalcedon, or what my predecessor Leo of blessed memory taught fully by apostolic learning, remain in force undefiled; for what has been laid to rest by their definition can in no way be reopened.' It is clear therefore, from the aforesaid testimonies of the Fathers, what caution we ought to hold, both for the uprightness of the Apostolic See and out of regard for the universal Church.
Mindful of this caution ourselves as well, and long since so, in that letter which we had then addressed to Menas, bishop of Constantinople (which letter, nevertheless, in the presence of many priests and of the glorious senate, and when Menas the bishop of holy memory had offered it and your Piety had, with his consent, restored it to us and we had received it back, we annulled insofar as it pertains to the matter of the Three Chapters), in no wise ceasing from the circumspection due to our office and purpose, we have taken care in every way to render the fitting reverence to the Synod of Chalcedon.
as the very tenor of that letter attests, from which, to prove our caution, we have appended a few things out of many; and when these are diligently examined, it is plainly shown in what manner the holy Synod of Chalcedon has remained and remains inviolate among us. For indeed concerning that same Synod it is certain that we set down thus, among other things, in that letter of ours, saying: 'Since it shines forth to us with manifest reason that whosoever attempts to do anything to the insult of the aforesaid Synod will rather harm himself.' Likewise, after other matters:
But if it had been plainly shown to us that it was rather contained in the acts themselves, no one would dare to be the author of so great a presumption as to judge anything doubtful which was brought into that most holy judgment; since it must be believed that they who were then present were able, from the present memory of events and even beyond what was written, to inquire more diligently into certain matters and to define them more surely—matters which to us now, after so long a time, seem ambiguous as though from a cause unknown; since this too is granted to the reverence of the synods, that even in things less understood one should yield to their authority. Likewise, after other matters:
with all things kept safe and enduring in their perpetual firmness which stand defined in the venerable councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, the First of Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and confirmed by the authority of our predecessors and our own; and with all those condemned without hesitation who were assigned as guilty in the aforesaid holy councils, and those none the less absolved concerning whose absolution it was decreed by the same synods. Likewise, after other matters: subjecting to the sentence of anathema him also, whosoever he be:
if any things be found, whether present in this matter or of whatever kind done or written concerning this cause, whether by us or by any persons, against the aforesaid Synod of Chalcedon, and if anyone should receive them as having any firmness—yet let the holy Synod of Chalcedon, whose firmness is great and unshaken, perpetual and to be venerated even as those of Nicaea, Constantinople, and the First of Ephesus hold, retain its own firmness. Likewise, after other matters: