The care of the work we have undertaken requires that what we began to demonstrate in the previous book, we should set forth in this one in manifold ways: namely, that the accomplices of the heretics have subjected to anathema Theodore also, bishop of Mopsuestia — who died in the peace of the Church, and who was, as we have already recalled, commended by the holy Fathers — to the destruction of the great Council of Chalcedon and of the ordinances of blessed Leo. And because, in order to draw the light of heart into agreement with them, they say that blessed Cyril faulted certain writings of this same Theodore, let us prove this also: that even if it be true, they have acted against the judgment of him by whose example they vainly attempt to excuse their presumption.
So that, just as they evidently appeared to have falsely boasted that, out of grief over the injuries done to him, they had condemned the letter of the venerable Ibas, so they may be convicted by their own testimony of having impugned his judgment in the condemnation of Theodore. And where we have shown that, even if the Council of Chalcedon did not pronounce that same letter orthodox, it would nonetheless be condemned for its commendation of Theodore unto his ruin, there assuredly it was at the same time shown that Theodore himself was for that reason also condemned. Whence it is also necessary that this should follow, which we have already said concerning the aforesaid letter of the venerable Ibas: that if it be said to pertain to the truth and judgment of the catholic faith what these men have decreed, saying:
'If anyone does not anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and his dogmas, and those who either have held or do hold opinions like his, let him be anathema' — then that council will be established as not having been catholic, which did not condemn him, though from the aforementioned letter it heard the praises of his dogmas recited. Moreover, neither will Leo, the Roman bishop, be free of this charge: for since he said that he approved the acts of the aforesaid council, he did not censure the fact that he found there the praises of Theodore not condemned. And this — wherever we complain of the reprehension of that council — we must observe: that it is not faulted apart from the aforesaid blessed Leo.
What too of that point which, concerning the very manner of the deed by which that letter was condemned, we set before the judgment of the prudent for consideration — ought it not also to be weighed in the condemnation of Theodore? Namely, that not even against him — even if he were still living in the body and were proved a heretic, the Nestorian error having long since been condemned, in which he is said to have been forestalled — was it fitting to seek the sentence of so many bishops, which was never necessary for the condemnation of ancient heretics, but only sometimes for the exclusion of new ones, provided that, having been admonished, they had scorned to correct their errors. For this reason now the favorers of the heretics have sought that Theodore be pronounced by the universal Church the master of Nestorius;
so that — since they can easily show that not only the letter of the venerable Ibas, containing his praises, was approved by the synod (which was falsely denied), but also that the letters of the most wise John of Antioch and of the Eastern council, sent to blessed Proclus and the emperor Theodosius, in which the same Theodore is praised far more abundantly — they might by this also establish the aforesaid synod to be Nestorian. For from the very formula of subscription which was given for the condemnation of that same Theodore, nothing else seems to be shown, since it was said: 'If anyone does not anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and his dogmas, let him be anathema' — a thing which we do not recall to have occurred in the condemnation of any heretic:
that they too should be anathema who did not pronounce anathema against him. Since indeed of no heretics are both the dogmas and the names hidden from many who ought not to be anathema, because they do not anathematize those whom they do not know. But, as has been said, in order that they might attain to the injury of the Council of Chalcedon — which, when the praises of that same Theodore were recited before it out of the letter of the venerable Ibas, said anathema neither to him nor to his dogmas — for this reason such a formula of subscribing was given, contrary to custom and contrary to humanity, as though no one could otherwise be approved as catholic unless he had said anathema to Theodore of Mopsuestia and his dogmas.
If we accept this decree, there is nothing we can reply to the heretics on behalf of the Council of Chalcedon, when they shall say: Thus it seemed good to you to excuse that synod in the book to which you assented, that you should say that — not content with the denial made by Ibas concerning the letter to Maris, nor even with the testification made on his behalf by the clergy of Edessa, but confirming the judgment of Photius and Eustathius — it required Ibas, for the destruction and exclusion of the impious letter to Maris, to anathematize Nestorius and his dogmas.
And indeed thus ought an orthodox synod to have acted, whosesoever that letter might be which was charged against Ibas as his own: namely, in order to remove suspicion utterly, it should have compelled that same Ibas to anathematize Nestorius, mention of whom was made therein. How then did the aforesaid Council of Chalcedon, if it was truly orthodox — demanding that Ibas anathematize Nestorius and his dogmas, which he had not praised — not demand that he should above all anathematize Theodore, whom it had heard recited before itself out of the said letter as a blessed herald of the truth and a teacher of the Church, who both in his life had buffeted heretics by the truth of his faith, and after death had left spiritual arms in his own books to the Churches?
Or did not Theodore — concerning whose blasphemies you said that they surpass the madness of the devil — out of zeal for God, as it is written, not only convert his own city from error to truth, but also instruct by his teaching the Churches situated far off? Since the Council of Chalcedon heard all this out of the letter charged against Ibas, it did not compel that same Ibas, thus praised, to anathematize Theodore — for this very reason assuredly, because, taking up the impious error of Nestorius, it concealed indeed his name, but defended that of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was the master of Nestorius, just as in the aforesaid book, to whose definitions you subscribed, it is said concerning such men.
When these things have been objected against us, what shall we be able to reply in return, if he is not orthodox who does not say anathema to Theodore of Mopsuestia and his dogmas? Hence you perceive, O Augustus, that these things were established to the reprehension of the Council of Chalcedon, even if we should pretend that the letter mentioned there was only recited, and not also received. And therefore the accomplices of the heretics are convicted by their own reasoning and their own testimony, as we have said, of having decreed such things against the great synod.
For if, as they fallaciously persuade, the synod is to be excused by us on the ground that, not content with the denial of the venerable bishop Ibas concerning the letter to Maris, nor with the testification made on his behalf by the people of Edessa, it required of him to anathematize Nestorius, whom he had not praised in that letter — then it cannot be excused on the ground that it did not require him above all to anathematize Theodore, who was there commended with his dogmas, since according to these men no one can otherwise be proved catholic.