And further they say that they have also consulted the Roman Church concerning so great a presumption of theirs, and now await the sentence of blessed Vigilius its prelate. As to what the men of this time think of him — that he would presume to define so great a wickedness, which from the intention of blessed Leo, under so many of his successors, was never attempted up to this time — that prudent man himself doubtless understands. For who would not understand this, even an imprudent man? For if, as they say, they have even dared to consult him on this matter, and await his judgment in this cause, I do not see how he has not already been judged by them concerning it. But they will find out how greatly their suspicion has deceived them.
Because he received his chief and greatest power not for the destruction of the paternal sentence, but rather for its defence and vindication; nor can he do anything against the truth, but for the truth he can do more readily than his fellow-priests. For the apostle Paul says: 'For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth' (II Cor. XIII, 8). But what is left for them to hope for from the response of the Roman bishop, when long since the aforesaid venerable Leo, by vehement and altogether frequent sentences restraining unlawful audacities, has prudently met their insidious attempts — so that now we await his successor not as a judge in doubtful questions, but as the avenger of a most certain transgression?
For that manifold and open prohibition of his predecessor, just as it increased the crime of transgressors, so it left nothing to anyone's judgment. For to whom else more than to Leo would it be permitted, in return for such great labours which he sustained with most persevering virtue on account of the said synod, to retract anything in the things decreed by it? But far be it that that holy man should think permitted to himself what he discerned to be inexpedient, and should lose the palm of his great struggle after he had conquered. For what now could remain intact, or what could stand immovable, if the sentence of so great a council were seen either to be supplied as imperfect, or to be re-discussed as doubtful?
Now the authority of councils prevails not only in doubt or definition of the faith, but also in all those things which, for the observance of peace and unity — of which the greatest care belongs to the wise — have there been modestly and well arranged. Hence, therefore, recognize again, August and venerable Emperor, to how great a degree you have been prepared by divine Providence as the protection of the whole world; and understand what help you owe to your mother the Church, which glories above all in you as her son.
Let not extinguished contests be permitted to rise up again with revived commotions against the triumph of the Almighty's right hand, especially since this is in no way permitted to the long-since-condemned audacities of heretics, and this fruit is owed to pious labours: that the whole fullness of the Church may remain secure in the solidity of its own unity, and that nothing whatever of things well arranged be retracted; because to wish to assail constitutions that are lawful and divinely inspired is the mark not of a peace-loving mind but of a rebellious one, the Apostle saying: 'For to contend with words is profitable for nothing, but to the subverting of the hearers' (II Tim. II, 14). For if it be always free to dispute by human persuasions, there can never be lacking those who would dare to resist the truth.
And indeed, what end will there be of contentions and conflicts, if it once be permitted to pass judgment upon those things which have been confirmed by the consensus of the whole Church? For why should not the judgment itself in turn be judged? And therefore that most prudent man, giving no occasion at all to those who seek it, declared, saying: 'Let nothing whatever of things well arranged be retracted.' Therefore, if nothing — then he did not admit even that which is thought small.
And yet these men, who hope to be able to assail the Roman prelate by the sentence of his illustrious predecessor, boast that they have removed offences arising from that synod, saying that on its account the Eutychians have always refused to communicate with us — because if that synod, so great that no other more numerous gathered for the truth of the faith, could, by so long a deliberation, even with the goading contradictions of heretics (which are wont especially to seethe at novelty), have passed over anything negligently; or if the aforesaid Leo, though so often pressed to retract something of the things established by it, is to be believed to have both heard noxious reasonings of this kind, presenting a plausible appearance, and to have dealt with them with immovable gravity;
most prudently taking heed lest perchance, with an entrance laid open on any occasion to those who knock with evil intent, the fury of those plotting against the Church of Christ should burst in. Furthermore, these men who are diligent beyond measure are unwilling to reckon all these things to prudence and caution rather than to negligence. But what will they do, since the whole Church, by God's bestowal, does not exceed the eternal bounds of its Fathers set for it — whose negligence it longs to emulate rather than the obscure diligence of these men? But of which reasoning's judgment we ought to follow is sufficiently at hand.
Whether that of these men, who supposed that if they retracted — nay rather censured — the sentence of the Fathers, the Acephali would communicate with the Church (which has by no means followed, and which, even if it should follow, was not to be approved); or that of the most wise Leo, who — as is shown in others of his writings — foretold that by this no manner of settling the Churches at strife would be established, but that, with license to rebel once given, the contests would be enlarged rather than lulled to rest? And that this was truly said is proved by the manifest outcome of events — nay rather by exile. I believe that, even were we silent, it would appear what belonged to divine Providence, and what to human rashness.
But if most blessed Leo, although of a more recent council, and defended by no prior affirmation of his predecessor, did not allow anything to be recalled into disputation, how is it believed by these men that his fourteenth successor, holy Vigilius, can judge anything new? especially when Leo himself says: «For, according to the Apostle, if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor, and I subject myself to those conditions of vengeance which not only the authority of the prince Marcian of blessed memory, but I too have confirmed by my own defence;» inasmuch as he knew that the Apostle had said this: 'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema' (Gal. I, 8).
For if, as blessed Leo himself wrote back to the Council of Chalcedon after he had received its acts, saying: «And let the brotherly company, and the hearts of all the faithful, know that I have communicated my own sentence to you not only through the brethren who executed my office, but also through the approval of the synodal acts (Epist. 65);» and he is not shown to have rebuked or censured anything in those same acts, except that it was reported that the venerable Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, had sat in a prior place to Maximus of Antioch:
how, if he were to allow this letter of Ibas — which together with the Nestorian one is said in any case to pertain to the cause of the faith — or anything of the sort which the acts contain as having been recited in that synod and not condemned, to be anathematized, or even merely re-discussed, would he not constitute himself a transgressor, by subjecting to doubt the things which he had already said he approved?
And therefore, even if no prohibition of his had gone before, nor had he answered the Emperor Leo on behalf of that council 'Perfection does not admit increase, nor does fullness admit addition,' this alone would be brought forward, that in those acts he reproved only the presumption of the bishop of Constantinople — assuredly it would seem that nothing in them which could be believed Nestorian was left to the judgment of his successor. Since, if they contained anything heretical, which, brought to the judgment of that synod, was not found to be condemned, Leo would have reproved this beforehand, when it was brought to his examination.
Hence, if that letter — which, objected by the accusers against bishop Ibas, is contained in the synodal acts — ought to be condemned by all as Nestorian, then not only the synod itself, but also Leo the prelate of the apostolic see, by whom it was approved, restrained Nestorian heresy. And he would be reproved not only by the consideration of the truth, but also by the example of his own preceding deed. For when blessed Flavian of Constantinople directed to him the acts in which Eutyches, being questioned, answered, saying: «I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union I confess one nature;» leaving aside those same acts, that same most religious and most prudent man Leo wrote back thus to the said Flavian (Epist.
12): «I marvel that a profession so absurd and so perverse was reproved by no rebuke of the judges, and that a discourse so exceedingly foolish was heard, uttered as though it gave no offence: when it is as impiously said that the only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the union, as it is wickedly asserted that, after the Word was made flesh, the nature in Him is single. Lest Eutyches should think this rightly or tolerably said, because it was confuted by no sentence of yours, we admonish the diligence of your charity, dearest brother, that — if by the inspiration of God's mercy the cause is brought to satisfaction — the imprudence of an unskilled man may be purged even of this plague of his understanding.»
I should therefore like to be instructed as to what we can reply against the Eutychians when they say: Why is it that your bishop, found diligent in the examination of the proceedings held before Flavian against Eutyches (as you suppose), is found negligent in his approval of the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon against Nestorius, so as to confirm the Nestorian letter which is contained in those very proceedings — unless it be that, forestalled by the contrary error of Nestorius, he was resisting Eutyches? For on what account did he call his profession, in which he said:
'I confess that our Lord, before the union, was from two natures' — a profession concerning which he had not been accused in Flavian's judgment — he calls absurd and perverse, faulting it because it was rebuked by no censure of the judges, though to him it seemed exceedingly foolish and impious; yet he passes over in silence that the Nestorian letter, brought before the examination of the Council of Chalcedon by the accusers of Ibas, and there rejected, was not condemned — the very letter which you now, anathematizing it, confess ought there to have been anathematized. For even if, as you imprudently denied, it had not been pronounced orthodox by that council, it nevertheless ought to have been condemned, lest to the ignorant it should seem to be approved.
Since therefore, according to these clear and inescapable grounds for condemning this letter, so great a charge against the blessed Leo also necessarily follows, I know not what is to be expected from these men concerning the judgment of his successor — except what is itself the mark of great error, and what the heretics could never have hoped: that together with the great and universal Council of Chalcedon, that most glorious author and defender of it, Leo, should be condemned. But how worthy of punishment it is that they have dared not only to attempt this, but even to expect it of his successor, we leave to the consideration of Him from whom it cannot be hidden how grievously the Church would be offended if so great a sacrilege — which God forbid — were to be left unpunished.
I am indeed confident that those who do not rightly esteem the obedience you owe to Christ, and the devotion you show toward His Churches, cannot maintain their defense against the force and justice of the canons. But it is expedient for them rather to fear, lest perchance they find — the Lord ruling your heart — that you hold power from on high not for the protection but rather for the punishment of transgressions. Let the violators of the paternal sentence, therefore, cease to trust in some refuge or other, which no Christian Romulus has built for them — whose God is that Father who is truly called: 'The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle' (Ps. 23:8) — but which their own empty presumption has fabricated.
Nor let them presume upon your consent in such a deed, since it was wrested from you by stealth — occupied as you were with very many affairs of state — that you should consent to its being done; whereas they are all the more to be punished on that very account, because, willing that the connivance which they extended to the heretics should go unpunished under cover of your person, they did not permit it to be made known to you that the things being done were contrary to the decrees of the Fathers; so that in this way, through the authority of your consent, they might also gather to themselves many accomplices:
and as though impunity attended the multitude — according to what someone saw fit to say, 'whatever is sinned by many goes unavenged' — they pay too little heed that neither can a multitude of sinners resist the divine judgment, nor can the authors of rashness, by their numbers, mock the human one. For when those have been left to the future judgment of God who were either led on by their faction or compelled by oppression, these same factious presumers shall receive the sentence they deserve, the heavier in proportion to the more they have harmed.