Let us indeed see of what sort that too is, which they likewise wished us to assert in excuse of that same synod—that we should say the sentence concerning the letter pertains not at all to its decrees, on the ground that, as it were after the condemnation of Eutyches and Dioscorus, and after the definition of the faith, Theodore and Ibas sat in the council. For thus it seemed good to them in their book to say concerning the most reverend bishops Theodoret and Ibas: That, because of that for which they were accused—as receiving the dogma of Nestorius—they were not summoned to sit with the holy synod.
But after judgment had been passed concerning Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the right ordinances of the Fathers had been set in order by the holy synod, by which they condemned and subjected to anathema Nestorius and Eutyches and those who followed their wicked decrees, then the aforesaid Theodoret and Ibas came before the holy synod. Who, being unaware of what was done in that synod, would believe that these men could fabricate such things about a matter that was public and set before the eyes of all? What then? Did not the bishop Theodoret take his seat in the holy synod, save in the eighth session, after judgment had been passed concerning Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the right ordinances of the Fathers had been set in order by the holy synod?
And how is it recorded in the acts of that same synod that in the very first session Theodoret sat among the other bishops, in the consulship of the Emperor Marcian, on the eighth day before the Ides of October? Are not these words contained there? «The most glorious judges and the most distinguished senate said: Let the most reverend bishop Theodoret enter, that he may be a participant in the synod, since the most holy archbishop Leo has restored to him his episcopate, and the most sacred and most pious emperor has decreed that he be present at the holy synod. The most reverend bishop Theodoret, coming into the midst, said: I have offered petitions to the most sacred and most Christian lords of the world, and I have related the wounds that have been inflicted upon me, and I pray that these be read through.»
And after this discourse of the same most reverend Theodoret, when the most glorious judges and the senate again declared that this same Theodoret had received his proper place from the most holy bishop of the illustrious city of Rome, and that he had the testimony of Maximus, bishop of Antioch, that he was of the catholic faith—as it is written there—he sat in the midst, and with him present and taking his seat among the other bishops, there were read the things that had been done under Dioscorus at Ephesus. And when this same Dioscorus, together with Juvenal of Jerusalem and certain others, seemed liable to condemnation, they judged that the matter must first be referred to the emperor.
This indeed must plainly be admitted, that the bishop Ibas did not take his seat in the synod until after his cause had been examined and concluded in the seventh and eighth sessions; for before that, Nonnus, who had been ordained in his place, is read to have sat in all the sessions. For in the sixth session, when the definition of the faith had been completed and duly subscribed by all the bishops, the emperor spoke, that all the bishops should wait a certain number of days, and that the private causes of any persons should there be concluded. After this same Ibas had been cleared in the eighth session, he subscribed to those things which had already been defined in the earlier sessions.
This is clearly shown from the opinion of the holy Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, which—among others concerning the cause of Ibas himself—he set forth in the eighth session, when he said (Act. 10): «The opinions of the most reverend judges show that the most reverend Ibas is innocent of those things which his accusers had brought against him; wherefore I now cast off all suspicion concerning him, since he both consents and subscribes to the sentence which has now been given concerning the faith by the holy council and to the letter of the most holy archbishop of Rome, Leo; and I judge him worthy of the episcopate and of holding the charge in which the Church formerly stood.
But concerning the most reverend bishop Nonnus, who was made in his place, the most reverend Maximus, bishop of Antioch, will provide a ruling.» Hence, then, it is proved, as has been said, that after the eighth session, in which he was cleared, he subscribed to the earlier matters adjudged by the council; for the holy Anatolius in his opinion concerning him, as we have recalled, said «he consents and subscribes,» not «he consented and subscribed.» Let it therefore cause no difficulty that, although in the earlier sessions the said Ibas is nowhere read to have sat, he is nonetheless found in them, together with Nonnus who had been ordained in his place, to have subscribed to the matters adjudged by the council.
For after the eighth session, in which Ibas, having been cleared, recovered the episcopate of his Church, we find that in the other sessions in which this same bishop Ibas took part, the aforesaid Nonnus neither sat nor subscribed. In the second session also—which in the codices is indeed written after the third, but took place in the same consulship, on the sixth day before the Ides of October, in which the treatise concerning the matters in dispute begins—Theodoret sat in the one hundred and eleventh place.
And when, after the recitation of the creed of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers who were at Nicaea, and of the one hundred and fifty who were at Constantinople, and of the two letters of the blessed Cyril—that is, to Nestorius and to John of Antioch—the letter of Pope Leo to Flavian was also read again, certain who doubted concerning some words of that very letter (which we have already mentioned in the second book) were reassured when this same Theodoret rendered an explanation. For thus the acts of that session contain: «When there was being read a part of that same letter which runs thus: Although in our Lord Jesus Christ there is one person of God and of man, yet that whereby the reproach is common to both is one thing, and that whereby the glory is common is another:
for from us comes that humanity which is in him less than the Father; from the Father comes that divinity which is in him equal with the Father. When the Illyrians and the most reverend Palestinians doubted, the most reverend Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, said: There is likewise an example from the blessed Cyril which runs thus: even making man, and not losing that which is proper to him. For it remained the same that it was; yet there is understood altogether also another in another that dwells, that is, the divine nature in the humanity. The most glorious judges and the most distinguished senate said: After all this, does anyone still doubt? The most reverend bishops cried out: No one doubts.» All these things from the acts of that synod I have transferred into this book.
How then is it said of the most reverend bishop Theodoret that he sat only in the eighth session? But in the third session, in which Dioscorus was condemned—which took place in the same consulship, on the third day before the Ides of October, which also was held without the judges and the senate, and is found joined to the first in the codices—for this reason, as I suppose, because in the first session it had been adjudged that this same Dioscorus must be deprived of the honor of his episcopate, so that his condemnation might follow next; and indeed not only the notation of the days, but also the very tenor of those sessions, namely the second and the third, when read, teaches that in the codices the third was placed before the second.
In which third session, in the fifty-fifth place, when Nonnus, who had been ordained in Ibas' stead, subscribed and said: I, Nonnus, bishop of the city of Edessa, have subscribed; even Ibas himself, in the one hundred and seventy-seventh place, as we have found, thus subscribes to his condemnation: I, Ibas, bishop of the city of Edessa, have subscribed. Then we find that in the next session, in the same consulship, on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of November, the bishop Theodoret sat in the one hundred and twelfth place, and spoke in the thirty-eighth place concerning the aforementioned letter of the holy Leo, where it is written: «The most reverend Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, said:
The letter of the most holy bishop and lord Leo accords with the faith set forth at Nicaea by the holy and most blessed Fathers, and with the creed of faith dictated at Constantinople by the one hundred and fifty, and with the letters of the blessed Cyril.» But concerning the fifth session, which took place in the same consulship, on the eleventh day before the Kalends of November, in which the exposition of the faith was first recited and referred to the emperor, that it might afterward be confirmed by the subscriptions of all, we can prove nothing:
because both the subscription was deferred, as I have said, and in the very report in which it is narrated with whom seated that same exposition of the faith was read again, where the Roman legates and fifty-two other bishops are named by name, it is said: While these and the rest of the holy and universal synod were seated; but it is silent concerning the names of the others. But in the sixth session, in the same consulship, on the eighth day before the Kalends of November, in which the emperor also was present, and all subscribed to the definition of the faith, anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches and all who held contrary opinions, Nonnus is found to have sat in the twenty-eighth place, and to have subscribed in the thirty-first, in this manner: I, Nonnus, bishop of the metropolis of Edessa, defining, have subscribed.
Ibas too, although, as we have said, he is not read to have sat, is nonetheless found to have subscribed in the ninetieth place in these words: I, Ibas, bishop of Edessa, defining, have subscribed. And Theodoret too is found to have sat in the one hundred and seventh place, but to have subscribed in the one hundred and thirty-third in these same words: I, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, defining, have subscribed. How then, against so clear an evidence of the facts, were the abettors of the heretics not ashamed to lie, so as to say that the bishop Theodoret was not present at the council except after the definition of the faith? And yet, caught in so many falsehoods, they still demand that on their testimony the letter now be condemned which nearly a hundred years ago the universal synod approved.
Who will give a just judgment, and will not those rather be condemned who have fabricated such things? Or how shall they be allowed either to bear witness or to accuse anyone against the canons of the Fathers, whom we convict of being liars in matters so great? And if anyone be unwilling to assent to such lies, he is called a heretic—as though it belonged to heretics to refuse to lie. Moreover, if we subscribe to these falsehoods, and place the defense of the synod in such things, what shall we be able to answer to the Eutychians on its behalf, when they have convicted us by manifest truth? Or under how great a necessity shall we appear to have taken refuge in such lies, in which there is no place for hiding, as though nothing remained that we could truthfully answer on behalf of that same holy synod?
Those, then, will not persuade us—who, by feignedly refuting the calumnies of the Eutychians, in fact strengthen them—to say that Theodoret did not enter the synod before judgment was passed concerning Eutyches and Dioscorus and the exposition of the faith was concluded. For if we say these things with them, we are without doubt convicted, nor do we escape the calumnies of the heretics, but rather more and more confirm them. Let those, therefore, who strive to persuade us of such things know that we understand that they wage too friendly an enmity with the Eutychians. It is true that Theodoret was not present, just as neither was Ibas, at the Chalcedonian definition of the council;
but were these things to be said, in order to show that the letter of the venerable Ibas does not pertain to the decrees of that same council, because it was judged after the definition of the faith? In that case, then, even the canons of ecclesiastical discipline, which were usefully established there after the definition, will be said not to pertain to that same synod. And would that they would teach to which synod we ought to ascribe them, if the things that were done by the Chalcedonian council are not of the Chalcedonian council! Then, by how contrary and self-destroying an assertion is that synod to be excused?
For those who, in order to clear it, would have us say that no one ought to regard the things which were said by certain persons before the completion of judgment, but those which were defined in the final order—these same persons now, on the contrary, urge that by this very thing we should defend the synod, namely that the letter was judged after the definition; so that they may afterward convict us not only by the showing of the fact, but also by the contradiction of our own assertion. But our reasoning does not so fail us for defending the synod concerning the letter of Ibas, that we should wish it to be vainly excused on that ground against the calumnies of the Eutychians, whereon it cannot be excused against the Nestorians.
For if on this ground the definition of the faith which was made in that synod be defended against the calumnies of the Eutychians—namely because, for the very reason that Theodoret and Ibas had been accused as receiving the dogma of Nestorius, they were not summoned to sit beforehand with the holy synod—then on this ground it cannot be defended against the calumnies of the Nestorians: that Anatolius of Constantinople, who had usurped for himself there a place before the bishop of Antioch, and Maximus of Antioch himself, and Juvenal of Jerusalem, sat there, men who had formerly been defiled either by the dogma or by the communion of the Eutychians.
For the venerable Anatolius—after the blessed Flavian had been cast out by the Eutychians for the sake of the true faith—and the holy Maximus likewise had been ordained by them in place of bishop Domnus, and Juvenal, having lapsed into the very Eutychian dogma, had been excluded from the Church: which both the letters of the blessed Leo and the records of other writers declare. Let us not, therefore, wish so to defend the ordinances of the faith which was confirmed in that synod, as to say those things which indeed help us nothing against the Eutychians, but help the Nestorians very greatly against the Church.
But could Theodoret and Ibas avail so much to incline the council to their opinion as the bishops of Constantinople, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem, who sat there first after the legates of the apostolic see?—to say nothing of very many others who, through the violence of Dioscorus, had previously been forced into the affirmation of the Eutychian dogma.
Or is the labor for us so great to defend the Chalcedonian council against the Eutychians concerning the letter of Ibas, as it is for us against the Nestorians—not only on account of the persons of so very many bishops who were in that council, but also on account of the intervention of the holy Anatolius, prelate of Constantinople, whom Dioscorus in that council called a confirmer of the Eutychian dogma and an oppressor of the catholic faith, declaring that he had not been condemned for the faith? Whence the Nestorians say to us: How have you received that synod, in which not only many, but even in a more eminent place, there sat bishops who were both ordained by the Eutychians, and are proved to have followed the dogma of Eutyches and Dioscorus?
Or how do you assert that it was assembled for the condemnation of the perfidy of Eutyches and Dioscorus, when there Anatolius of Constantinople approved the perfidy of Dioscorus—which was common to him with Eutyches—pronouncing that he had not been condemned for the faith? But if these things of the Nestorians do not move us, much less will those of the Eutychians be able to move us. For it is easy that we should show even to the Nestorians themselves that it is such a thing for them to say that the definition has no authority which the Fathers who, recovering themselves from the presumption of Dioscorus, had assembled with others at Chalcedon, established:
as if one were to say that even the teaching of the apostle Peter, which he preached concerning Christ together with the other apostles, has no authority, because he once denied Christ, or because he was rebuked by Paul, when, not walking rightly toward the truth of the Gospel, he compelled the Gentiles to judaize. It is also such a thing as if the Sabellians should wish to say that they do not therefore receive the Church's teaching concerning the Trinity, because far more bishops than those who had assembled in the second, not-to-be-named, synod of Ephesus had at Ariminum been forced into the Arian dogma, under the pressure of Constantius.
As, therefore, we say to the Sabellians that the Church's confession concerning the Trinity is not on that account to be fled, because at the council of Ariminum many, yielding to the Arian dogma, falsely affirmed that there were three diverse natures of the same holy Trinity: so we say also to the Nestorians that the holy confession of the Chalcedonian synod concerning the one subsistence of Christ—that is, of God and man—is not on that account to be fled, because formerly, under the pressure of Dioscorus, many, yielding to the Eutychian dogma, falsely affirmed that there was one nature of the same subsistence.
Or because they allege that the Greeks—although not all, indeed in comparison with all the fewer—had lapsed into the opinion of Dioscorus, let them follow the opinion of so many Latins, who, since they cannot be accused of agreement with Eutyches or Dioscorus, or with any other whatsoever, yet hold that very same opinion concerning the incarnation of Christ which the Chalcedonian council established. Concerning the intervention also of the holy Anatolius, which he set forth concerning the person of Dioscorus, we have answered that it must not be said to pertain to the crime of heresy that in some part he thought well of Dioscorus. For the holy Anatolius did not approve the perfidy of Dioscorus itself, but rather wished him to be cleared from that perfidy.
For it is one thing to excuse a heretic because he is thought catholic, and another to approve and defend the heresy itself; just as it is one thing to accuse a catholic because he is thought a heretic, and another to disapprove and reprehend the catholic faith itself. For an approver and lover of chastity can, without approving fornication, approve a fornicator while he is deceived in the person; and, without disapproving chastity, can disapprove a chaste man while he is likewise deceived in the person. Finally—a thing which they most readily concede—just as the Eutychians are not on that account defended in the crime of their dogma, because, thinking that the ancient fathers believed that which they themselves most wickedly believe, they approve us, whose faith they oppose:
so neither is the crime of the Eutychian dogma to be charged upon the holy Anatolius, because he either thought or excused Dioscorus to be free from the guilt of the Eutychian dogma, since he himself refuted and condemned the Eutychian dogma itself.