Wherefore that holy Synod also, not exceeding the pattern of canonical Scripture in its judgment, pronounced his letter orthodox according to the catholic and general confession of two natures in the one Person of Christ, not according to the private suspicion which Ibas, along with others, held concerning the blessed Cyril; by this very word, that it called it orthodox, showing that it had approved in it the confession of faith. For it was not the praise of the blessed Cyril, but the true confession of the Christian faith, that would merit this name. Otherwise we should be saying that the Eutychians are orthodox, who magnify the blessed Cyril, thinking that he held the opinion which they hold:
which the most reverend Ibas, although he ought not to have done so in the case of the blessed Cyril, nevertheless truly judged to be blameworthy. But if the praise of the blessed Cyril in no way helps the Eutychians, so as to be judged orthodox on its account, but rather they are pronounced heretics for their denial of the two natures of Christ, then in no way ought the suspicion concerning the blessed Cyril to have weighed against that letter, so as to have it judged heretical on its account; but rather, on account of the confession of the two natures of Christ in the unity of person, it had to be pronounced orthodox. Wherefore, just as it does not follow that, because we pronounce the aforesaid Eutychians heretics, we ought therefore to blame in them the praise of the blessed Cyril:
so it does not follow that, because the holy Synod pronounced the letter of the venerable Ibas orthodox, it should therefore seem to have approved in it the injury done to the blessed Cyril. But, someone says, if then the Synod of Chalcedon does not accept the injury done to the blessed Cyril, why did it approve absolutely a letter that speaks ill of him, and pronounce it orthodox without any exception? For it ought to have said that it erred in certain points. It is indeed shown from what was recalled above that for this reason it did not censure the author of that letter for that error, because in those matters in which he was seen to blame the most blessed Cyril by speaking ill of him, in his later words, confessing rightly, he himself had already rejected those things for which he had blamed him.
Nevertheless, even if the judgment of the Synod did not contain this at all, neither would it thus be credible that it had approved, in the letter of the venerable Ibas, the injury done to the blessed Cyril, whose faith it would be shown by the testimony of the very acts of the Synod to have praised with many and concordant voices. And if even this had been lacking to us, no one could show in its judgment that it had approved all things which are contained in that letter. Whence, if it were permitted to another to accuse the Synod on this ground, because in its judgment it is not found that it approved the letter in certain points, then surely it would also be permitted to me on this ground to excuse the same Synod, because in its judgment it is not found that it approved it in all points.
For just as it did not say that the letter was right in certain points, so neither did it say that it was right in all. And even if it had said "in all," I would accept those things which pertain to the confession of faith which we have in Christ; just as we accept that, on account of the worship of the one true God, it is written that the heart of Asa was perfect with the Lord all his days; and just as we accept that for this reason it was said of Jehoshaphat: He walked in the way of his father Asa, and turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the sight of the Lord; and just as we accept that for this reason Hezekiah was said to have clung to the Lord, and not to have departed from Him, and to have kept His commandments, whatsoever the Lord had commanded Moses.
Although that very name too, as we have already said, by which it was called orthodox, is wont to be assigned by a synod to the confession of the Christian faith. Yet it is to be wondered at that those men should say that, on account of the passing and most trivial suspicion which it contains, the letter—which rightly confesses concerning the mystery of Christ's incarnation—ought not, or could not, be judged orthodox by the Synod: those who have said, "One must look openly at the letter to Mari, which says all things indeed without God and impiously." For if it seemed most just to them to define that that letter speaks without God and impiously—the letter which confessed two natures of Christ in the unity of person—
how could it seem unjust to the holy Synod to pronounce it orthodox on account of that same right confession of faith which it contains, since it is not found to have approved it in all points? And therefore, if the letter of the venerable Ibas is both to be approved in the confession of faith which it contains concerning Christ, and to be disapproved in the suspicion which its author held concerning the blessed Cyril: judge, I beseech you, O religious Emperor, whether the Synod is to be blamed, in whose judgment it is not shown that it approved the letter in all points, or rather those who dared to pronounce that it says all things without God and impiously. The holy Synod of Chalcedon, although it noted in the most reverend Ibas that he had falsely suspected things concerning the blessed Cyril;
nevertheless, even if it had not done so, it would be shown, as we have said, to have followed the pattern of divine Scripture, so as to pronounce his letter orthodox on account of the right confession of the incarnation of Christ, which pertains most of all to the divine worship. But what pattern or rule will those men be said to have followed, who, on account of one man's suspicions concerning another man, called even the right confession concerning Christ, all too inconsiderately, impious at the same time?