But that it may appear the more to your clemency that it was perhaps denied by the synod that the letter was received not so much because there occurred no reasoning by which that letter might be defended, but rather that all the things which are said to have been elaborated in its purgation were done to the prejudice of the synod itself: consider, I pray, or else ask those who composed such things, why so much was written to the reproach of that letter; why so many faults were ascribed to it, which were not even imputed by Ibas's own accusers; why finally it was condemned as impious and Nestorian.
Did not the necessity of defending the synod demand this too—when rather it ought to have been excused—so that, even if it was thought there was something to be feared, the synod might be seen to be fortified on both sides of the defence, by their saying both that that letter had not been received, and that even if it had been received, the synod was not to be blamed? But as it is, they heap up against that letter many charges, they fabricate as it were acceptable causes for its condemnation (which is what was awaited by the heretics), and they boast that it was not received—which no one can demonstrate. For when they came to the place of that very letter where Ibas relates and says:
'But many, not having the fear of God before their eyes, under the occasion of ecclesiastical zeal, hastened to bring to effect the enmities which they kept hidden in their hearts. From among these there has arisen one tyrant of our city, whom not even you yourself are ignorant of, who under the occasion of the faith persecutes not only those now living, but also those who long ago went before to God. Of these one is the blessed Theodore, herald of truth and teacher of the Church, who not only in his own lifetime buffeted the heretics by the truth of his faith, but also after his death left behind spiritual weapons in his own books for the sons of the Church, even as your reverence too came to know when it conversed with him, and was instructed from the things he wrote.'
'This man he—who presumes upon all things in the Church—presumed to anathematize openly; that man who, on account of zeal for God, not only converted his own city from error to truth, but also instructed by his teaching Churches set far off.' When therefore, as I said, they came to this place, where the same venerable Ibas, writing to Maris the Persian, marks out a certain person who presumed to anathematize Theodore—although they did not set down the words of that very letter in their own book as they actually stand, but plucked out what they pleased according to their own will—yet they did not hesitate to add even this, saying: 'One must look openly at the letter to Maris, which says everything indeed without God and impiously:'
'showing well only this one thing, that from him Theodore was anathematized throughout the East in the Church.' I should therefore wish that they would answer me and show me—I do not say those who wrote such things, for they themselves know what they did, but those who subscribed to such things—how they confirm that that letter written to Maris says everything without God and impiously. Has it indeed condemned the confession of the two natures of Christ? Or are not these words contained in that same letter: 'For the Church says thus, as your holiness also knows, and as from the beginning it learned, and was confirmed by the divine teaching from the books of the blessed Fathers: two natures, one power, one person, which is one Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.'
It is therefore now clear, as much as I judge, even to those to whom perhaps it seemed otherwise, that that letter was condemned cunningly, for the denial of the two natures of Christ, under the pretext of some unknown diligence. For why would they say that it says everything without God and impiously, except that they might include in it that too, namely that it confesses Christ to have two natures? And lest it should be taken according to some customary manner of speaking, that which they said—'everything'—they showed that they had set it down not lightly but cautiously and carefully, by adding an exception, appending and saying: 'showing well only this one thing, that from him Theodore was anathematized throughout the East in the Church.'
If therefore, with that one thing alone excepted, it says everything without God and impiously, then in all those things without doubt they wished that to be understood too, namely that it professed Christ to have two natures. But not, as they boast, does that letter show this well, that from him Theodore was anathematized throughout the East in the Church—since it relates this to have been done by one man; rather it shows this well, that he is not to be anathematized, whom one man alone presumed to anathematize. And if anyone approves that man's presumption, he without doubt condemns the rest of the bishops of the East, who judged this to be impious.
But that we may show by yet another indication that, for the denial of the two natures of Christ which the same Ibas confessed in the aforementioned letter, they added their saying that it says everything without God and impiously: recall, I pray, O emperor, what formula of the condemnation of that letter was first given, and what was afterwards composed. For it had first been said:
'If anyone says that the impious letter to Maris which is said to have been made by Ibas is correct, or is its defender, and does not rather subject it to anathema, inasmuch as it ill-treats holy Cyril (who says that God the Word was made man), and detracts from the twelve chapters of the same holy Cyril, and attacks the first synod of Ephesus, but defends Nestorius and praises Theodore of Mopsuestia—let him be anathema.' But now, with all these causes removed—I do not wish to say whether they were true or of what sort, lest it should seem to have been condemned only on account of them, and not also on account of the confession of the two natures of Christ which it contains—afterwards such a formula of subscribing was given, and so it was ordered to be done absolutely:
'If anyone says that the impious letter to Maris is correct, or defends it, and does not anathematize it, let him be anathema.' Since therefore both in the very protestation of the book they pronounced that it says everything without God and impiously, and in the formula of subscription which they afterwards altered they removed the other causes of its condemnation, whatever they were—so that it might seem to be condemned not on account of some particular things, but on account of all—what else is to be understood, except that under the pretext of a false diligence they wished to destroy the confession of the two natures of Christ? They have emended other things too, and they still emend, in that same book of theirs, whatever sort it is—if indeed that is to be called an emendation, through which the lie is not taken away, but increased.
Hence, if after this our response too they should alter other things, they ought not to impute it to us, as though we had falsely reproached the things which were said by them otherwise. For if they would once stand firm, and would cease to be changed and to change, our response too would be found congruent with their sayings. But if anyone cannot investigate their deceits from the things we have recalled—since not all have a zeal for reading—for whom would the mere consideration of the deed itself not suffice to recognize the inexperienced designs of the heretical faction? First, that suddenly, and with no cause even provoking it, we are tossed about over matters judged nearly a hundred years ago by a universal council.
Next, that, a formula of subscribing having been given which it was not permitted to exceed, bishops found anywhere and everywhere are compelled, to increase the number, to subscribe to another's decree—which, carried around through various provinces, might seem to be confirmed by the subscription of all the priests. For the Eutychians, knowing that the private will of any individual could not bring upon a universal synod that prejudice which they have always sought, accomplished this through their satellites, by the art with which the practised malice of heretics is wont, so that, as though by the judgment of the whole Church, they might prove the letter to be Nestorian—of whose reception they accuse the universal synod. For no other cause is seen or stated, on account of which subscription should be sent into many provinces.
But if we could not understand even these things—whom in sound mind would it not at last disquiet, if to him, neither seeking it nor acting for it, an antidote were thrust upon him, which, since it is given against something, is indicated by its very name? And therefore, if there be no disease against which it is given, it is administered not without suspicion of the removal of health. This we urge upon you, religious emperor, by no foreign reasoning: for these things which we say are your own. For at the time when, for the strengthening or further publishing of the condemnation of Theodore of Alexandria and others like him, you wrote to the most blessed Roman bishop, you added this very thing which we assert, saying thus: 'Moreover, as for your saying that a general council ought to be held, what the cause of this matter may be, we know not.'
No unknown heretic has come forth, no perfidy has been born in our times, nor is anything found in the faith which ought to be reconsidered;' and you brought in that which we too say in this cause: 'For he who applies to the sound those things which are wont to be applied to wounds does not desire to restore health, but to expel it.' This is your reasoning, most serene emperor: from which, if we do not turn away our gaze, we can judge nothing else concerning the present cause, except that in the condemnation of this letter the abettors of the heretics desired not to restore, but to expel health. For this reason, therefore, we are not led away by the false title of your name, so as to say that those things which we discern to be contrary to this sound reasoning belong to your piety;
nor that we should believe the holy and universal synod to have been purged by such means, as though hitherto it had remained impure, and as though its authority—truthful and ever honoured by the devotion of all catholics—stood in need of falsehood and of a forced defence. Whereas, if it seemed that one ought so to answer the heretics on its behalf, by denying that it pronounced the letter of the venerable Ibas orthodox, this could not be confirmed by the subscription or testimony of those bishops, whom, if the Eutychians believed, they would not separate themselves from the communion of the Church. For which reason no one has ever used his own witnesses against heretics;
but rather by divine authority and necessary reasoning, and by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, whose teaching they lyingly profess to receive together with us. But it is said that the Eutychians grievously bewail the injuries to blessed Cyril which the letter contains, and on that account are scandalized at the synod, by which they say it was received. What then—if we deny that it was received, will they believe us? Or did they believe us, that is, the catholics, and not rather see for themselves that it was received, so as on that account to make their complaint? But if they should even be said to have believed us that it was received, how will they again believe us if we say that it was not received?
But if they did not believe our testimony, but themselves came to know what is manifest, will they be likely to believe our subscriptions more than their own reasoning? Not therefore did the crafty abettors of the heretics wish to effect this by the subscriptions of those bishops, that the Eutychians should be convinced that the letter of the venerable Ibas was not received by the synod, but rather that, by their very denial, it might seem that it ought not to have been received. But truly, supposing they had thought that the Eutychians would believe our false testimony, why then did they not at least decree thus, so as to say: 'If anyone says that the letter to Maris was received by the synod of Chalcedon, let him be anathema';
but rather it had to be said: 'If anyone says that the letter to Maris is correct, or defends the impious letter, and shall not have anathematized it, let him be anathema'—except in order that they might condemn, for the heretics' will, the holy men who, gathered in council, did not anathematize it, nay rather judged it orthodox? And although, in order to induce us to its condemnation, they feigned that those same Fathers who assembled at Chalcedon did not pronounce it orthodox—about which we shall inquire later—yet in the meantime it is certain that, when it was read out before them, they did not append that it should be anathematized. Or is it because they did not say with a word of past time, 'if anyone has not anathematized the impious letter to Maris,' but 'if anyone does not anathematize':
therefore are they to be thought not to have devised this for the condemnation of the synod of Chalcedon? Indeed, if this were demanded to be done by the subscribers, the matter would be done, and now it would be seen not as a suspicion, but as a manifest contradiction. But they judged this not to be necessary for themselves, since we always say, 'the Prophet says, the Apostle says, the Evangelist says,' and it is worth just as much as if we should say, 'this man or that said.' Next, we say that those very Fathers who assembled at Chalcedon live in their own constitutions, both with God and with us: because, as the Lord says in the Gospel, 'Their God is not the God of the dead, but of the living' (Matt. XXII, 32).
Which blessed Leo too, bishop of the Roman Church, writing to the venerable Anatolius, bishop of this royal city, intimates is to be so understood: 'Those holy and venerable Fathers,' he says, 'who in the city of Nicaea, the sacrilegious Arius being condemned with his impiety, established laws of the ecclesiastical canons to abide until the end of the world, both among us and in the whole world live in their own constitutions.' If therefore all the venerable Fathers live in their own constitutions, assuredly those too who had assembled at Chalcedon, as living men, not only did not anathematize, but even still do not anathematize, nor ever will anathematize, the letter of the venerable Ibas.
Since these things are so, it is certain that they wished this anathema to reach those same Fathers. Furthermore, even with this reasoning removed, it cannot acceptably be said that it was instituted thus not for the condemnation of the synod of Chalcedon, but in order that those alone who are present in the body might be condemned, if they did not pronounce the anathema upon the letter of Ibas. For how can we be condemned—we who were not judges in the cause—while those Fathers go uncondemned, who first, in their own judgment, did not condemn that same letter when it was read out, and by whose example we too were led not to pronounce anathema upon it? For the form of judgment ought to proceed from the condemnation of those from whose error the form of the sin proceeded;
and those who are caught as the authors of an error are worthy of greater punishment than those caught as its followers. But since they have decreed and established these things in the condemnation of the holy synod, for the heretics' will—that if anyone does not anathematize the aforementioned letter of the venerable Ibas, let him be anathema—consider, I pray, of what levity, of what confusion and disgrace it is, that they compel us to communicate with them, while we remain in that opinion by which we not only do not pronounce anathema upon it, but even deny that it ought to be pronounced. Here we omit to say that, if we communicate with those who have already pronounced anathema upon us, we shall not only communicate with the condemnation of the synod of Chalcedon, but shall also, by that very communion of theirs, confirm their sentences against us.
For it is said that perhaps they too wish even this. But we say rather this: that if among them there were any regard for divine religion or for human reason, it ought to have seemed profane and exceedingly base to themselves as well, by communicating with us, to turn back of their own accord upon themselves the anathema which they decreed against us. Whence it sufficiently appears how great is the gravity and how great the integrity of those who presume to reconsider the decrees of the council of Chalcedon.
Accordingly, let them reckon it rather a benefit than an injury that we do not communicate with them, until they take away from their midst that anathema, which, lying between like a great chaos, divides from the people poor in spirit—at rest in the sense of the fatherly faith and judgment—the restless and most arrogant presumers, who seem to themselves so to abound in wisdom that, weaned, they despise above their mother the institutions of the Church, though it is written: 'My son, keep the law of thy father, and reject not the institutes of thy mother. Bind them moreover always about thy soul, and put them about thy neck' (Prov. VI, 20). And again: 'Hear, my son, the discipline of thy father, and cast not away the institutes of thy mother.'
'For you shall receive a crown of graces upon your head, and a golden chain about your neck' (Prov. I, 8). O how great an evil it is to wish to exchange a golden chain for an ass's millstone! So that we who ought — keeping the discipline and law of God the Father, and also out of reverence for the institutions of our mother — to receive a crown of grace upon our head and a golden chain about our neck, by casting away what holy mother Church has established, instead set a stumbling-block before her children, and fall into that judgment of which the Lord says: 'But whoever shall scandalize one of these little ones who believe in me, it were better for him that an ass's millstone be hanged about his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals! for it must needs be that scandals come;'
'but woe to that man by whom the scandal comes!' (Matth. XVIII, 6, 7). If, then, to scandalize one little one is so grave a thing that it would be better for the one who scandalizes to be drowned in the depth of the sea with an ass's millstone hung about his neck, how much more grave is it to throw the whole Church into turmoil out of mere restlessness of mind and an itch not to keep silent!