In Defence of the Three Chapters 28

But since it has been shown, by an evident and manifold conviction of documents, that it is falsely denied that the synod pronounced the letter of the venerable Ibas orthodox, and at the same time it has appeared that blessed Leo did not judge it Nestorian — for without doubt he would also have condemned it with a manifest and vehement sentence — it suffices us, for the defense of that letter, that so great a synod, and the very author of that synod, an apostolic man most renowned throughout the whole world in the doctrine of truth, approved it. This is our first and immovable and secure argument, which protects and strengthens us against all the questions of the gainsayers: that, as the Apostle says (2 Thess.

2:2), we should not be quickly moved from our mind, nor terrified, even if on this point we are less able to say, or to grasp the reason, why the synod judged it orthodox. For there is no other usefulness in holding councils than this: that what we do not comprehend by understanding, we should believe on authority, and wherever the reason less occurs to us, faith should quickly come to our aid lest we fall. For if it were permitted to dispute after the decree, so that one might say, 'Let that letter first be proved correct, that it may be believed to have been received,' there would be no reason for councils now to be gathered, nor would questions be called settled — nay, not even settleable — whose proof is always being demanded. For why should it not likewise be said:

'Let it first be proved that the Father and the Son are of one essence, that this may be believed to have been settled by the Council of Nicaea'; and that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, since it cannot otherwise be believed that the Council of Constantinople decreed this. And thus, with all questions remaining in their ancient state, not only will nothing be seen to be settled by the constitutions of the synods, but the memory of the questions will even be preserved in them to perpetuate disputes. And therefore the manner and order of inquiry ought not to be the same after the definition of a council confirmed by the consensus of the whole Church as it was before the definition. For then reason demanded that, if that letter were proved orthodox, it should be judged worthy of reception by the synod:

but now reason demands that, if it is proved to have been received by the synod, it be judged orthodox. For those who keep this observance, the cunning of the heretics will in no way prevail against us, if we do not presume to judge what we are not able to understand. And yet we have understood not a little: for we have understood the frauds of the heretics, and we refute their errors. It is therefore no small thing that we shall truly trace out error, even if we cannot fully teach the truth. To Jeremiah the Lord says: 'Behold, I have put my words in your mouth, and I have set you this day over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root up and to pull down, and to destroy, and to build and to plant' (Jer. 1:10).

And so the prophet is commanded first to root up and to pull down and to destroy errors and lies, and to build and to plant knowledge and truth. This is the perfect work, and this is the preacher's goal; and if we are not able to attain it, it is nevertheless certain that we have begun something. For we have rooted up, and pulled down, and destroyed what had to be rooted up and pulled down and destroyed; and if we are less able also to build and to replant, let us reserve this for better men, and let us in the meantime be content with the authority of the Fathers. But someone says: And will you really set the authority of the Council of Chalcedon against the Eutychians, to prove from it that the letter of the venerable Ibas is not Nestorian, on the ground that it judged it orthodox —

when from that very thing they rather accuse the aforesaid synod as Nestorian, because it received it? Here I first reply that I am not a debtor to the Eutychians in this matter. For the order of reason does not permit me to answer them why our fathers decreed thus concerning the letter of the venerable Ibas. For it is first necessary that they confess along with us — what we have taught was confirmed even by the Council of Ephesus — that our Lord Jesus Christ is to be believed in two natures, about which the principal disagreement between us and them exists; and so at last, having become friends, let them ask that the reason of the fathers' judgment be given them.

But if they remain enemies, and despise the commandments of God, resisting the holy definitions of the Fathers, they are to be disregarded and rejected, since they importunately seek to gain through us the knowledge of that cause which the Lord in the Gospel says is owed to friends alone: 'You,' He says, 'are my friends, if you do the things that I command you. I now do not call you servants, for the servant knows not what his lord does. But I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father I have made known to you' (John 15:14-15). Therefore the reason of the fathers' counsel is not owed to the servants of sin and to those who spurn the commandments of God, even if they importunately and preposterously demand that it be given them by us. Thus, when the apostle Peter (1 Pet.

3:15) commands us to be ready to answer everyone who asks of us a reason concerning the faith and hope that is in us, the preparation pertains to that of which Paul his fellow-apostle admonishes (Col. 4:6), that we may know how we ought to answer each one. Knowing therefore how we ought to answer each one, we say that they should first agree with us about the confession of the two natures of Christ, which is the sole, or the greatest, cause of disagreement; and then the rest will be inquired into, the order being preserved. For while that question remains between us, who would not judge it superfluous or preposterous if we were to dispute with them about the synod's sentence concerning the letter of Ibas?

Hence blessed Leo, when he promised that he would send the legates requested by the emperor Leo, says (Letter 78): 'Let your piety therefore know beforehand, venerable emperor, that these whom I pledge to send will set out from the apostolic see not to do battle with the enemies of the faith, nor to contend against any; for concerning the matters defined at Nicaea and at Chalcedon, as it pleased God, we dare enter into no discussion, as though those things were doubtful or weak which so great an authority fixed through the Holy Spirit. But to the instruction of our little ones, who after the nourishment of milk desire to be filled with more solid food, we do not deny the support of our ministry:

and as we do not despise the simpler ones, so we abstain from the rebellious heretics, mindful of the Lord's precept which says: Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6). For it is too unworthy, and too unjust, that those should strive after the liberty of disputation whom the Holy Spirit signifies through the prophet, saying: The strange children have lied to me (Ps. 17:46). And even if they did not resist the Gospel, they would still show themselves to be among those of whom it is written: They profess that they know God, but in their works they deny Him (Titus 1:16).

By this authority of blessed Leo, then, our argument is confirmed: that no order permits us to dispute with the Eutychians about the sentence pronounced concerning the letter of Ibas. Next, how do they even seek to contend with us, and to accuse the holy synod for having received a letter which contains its writer's unfitting suspicion concerning blessed Cyril, unless they first confess that the very suspicion of Ibas is false — that by which he thought blessed Cyril had denied Christ to be in two natures? For then they will be able to charge that letter with an unjust reprehension of blessed Cyril, then rightly to complain of injuries done to him — if they themselves do not say, along with the aforesaid Ibas, that he proclaimed Christ to be of one nature.

Otherwise they will not be able to blame the same most reverend Ibas for a false reprehension — unless perhaps they persuade us both that blessed Cyril proclaimed one nature of Christ composed of divinity and humanity, and that the orthodox Ibas ought not to have blamed this which the whole Church confesses to be blameworthy. You see, therefore, religious prince, that for the defense of this letter it suffices us at the present time that we have proved it to have been judged orthodox by the synod, and not expelled by blessed Leo, as was pretended, but rather confirmed together with all the things there defined concerning the faith. Wherefore, as has been said, this proof alone suffices us.

Since neither can any catholic resist the authority of so great a synod, nor does reason allow us to do battle with the Eutychians — much less among ourselves, once the principal question is settled — about the sentence pronounced concerning the letter of Ibas: especially because they could not complain of injury done to blessed Cyril (over which they pretend to grieve, to the discredit of the great synod) unless they first confess that he proclaimed Christ in two natures. But now that the things which had to be said have, as I think, been sufficiently explained, and the heretics have been driven far from the discussion of this letter — since through their underhand dealings many faults have been falsely and deceitfully imputed to that same letter —

compelled by this necessity, I do not deny — for the instruction of our little ones, lest they be scandalized in such matters, not as one great like Leo, but as one somewhat bigger among them — whatever small support of ministry I can give. And since blessed Leo himself granted this too, I do not deny it, however small it be — on this condition only: that I place the merit of the case not in my own reasoning, which I am about to render (a case which you indeed perceive to be already settled), but rather in the authority of the great synod, which, amid the waves and whirlwinds of the heretics, we hold as an anchor of the soul, safe and firm.

Binding ourselves therefore to this anchor by devotion and obedience, having first set against the barking adversaries the mass of the paternal sentence — which we have shown was pronounced concerning the oft-mentioned letter — let us, in a certain most calm harbor of faith, either seek the reason of the case to be found, or show it already found: that what is believed by faith may also be known by understanding, namely, that the great synod cannot justly be reprehended for having judged that letter orthodox — which, in the division of this work, we promised to demonstrate in the last place.