Having premised these things, which sufficiently defend the judgment of the great Council against the calumnies of the heretics drawn—as they boast—from the censure of the blessed Cyril: surely you now gather in your mind, O pious Prince, that we can far more easily refute those things which even the very accusers of the venerable Ibas charge against his letter as criminal. Its complete text, as we promised, we transfer into this book from the acts of the Synod. After the prefatory remarks, then, it runs thus (Council of Chalcedon, act 10): "But in brief we have hastened to report to your luminous prudence, which knows much in few things, what manner of things were done here both formerly and now:
knowing that the things which we write to your holiness, and the things which are done here, will become known to all who are placed there through your solicitude, because they have admitted no alteration of the Scripture handed down by God. Now I make the beginning of this matter from things which you yourself also know. A contention arose, from the time when your holiness was here, between these two men, Nestorius and Cyril, and they wrote harmful books against each other, which were a scandal to the hearers: for Nestorius said in his books, as your holiness also knows, that blessed Mary is not the Mother of God, so that many supposed him to be of the heresy of Paul of Samosata—the one who said that Christ is a mere man.
But Cyril, wishing to destroy the books of Nestorius, lapsed, and was found to have fallen into the dogma of Apollinaris. For he too wrote in like manner to him, namely that God the Word Himself became man, as though there were no difference between the temple and Him who dwells in it. For he wrote twelve chapters, which I suppose your holiness has also come to know, namely that there is one nature of the deity and the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that, as he says, one ought not to divide the spoken utterances which either the Lord Himself spoke concerning Himself, or the evangelists spoke concerning Him. But these things are full of all impiety, even before we say so, as your holiness knows. For how can it be taken that, In the beginning was the Word (John 1:1)
is said of the temple born of Mary; or that saying, You have made him a little lower than the angels (Ps. 8:6), is said of the deity of the Only-begotten? For the Church speaks thus, as your holiness also knows, and as it learned from the beginning, and was confirmed by the divine teaching from the books of the blessed Fathers: two natures, one power, one person, which is one Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. On account of this contention, the victorious and pious Emperors ordered the chief of the bishops to be gathered in the city of Ephesus, and the books of Nestorius and Cyril to be judged in the presence of all. But before all the bishops who had been ordered to assemble had arrived at Ephesus, the same Cyril, anticipating, forestalled the ears of all with the pigment that blinds the eyes of the wise.
Now he found his pretext from the hatred which he had against Nestorius, and before the most holy and most reverend Archbishop John was present, they deposed Nestorius from the episcopate, without judgment or inquiry having been made. Then, two days after his condemnation, we arrived at Ephesus; and when we learned that, in the condemnation of Nestorius which was made by them, they had set down the twelve chapters which were written by Cyril—being contrary to the true faith—and had confirmed them and consented to them as though consonant with the true faith, all the Eastern bishops condemned the same Cyril, and decreed excommunication against the other bishops who had consented to his chapters;
and after this disturbance each one returned to his own city. But Nestorius, since he was held in hatred by his own city, and by those in it who were of higher rank, was unable to return thither. And the Eastern council remained without communion with those bishops who had communicated with Cyril; and on account of this much grief arose among them, and the bishops were in contention against bishops, and peoples against peoples, and that which is written was fulfilled in deed: For a man's foes shall be those of his own household (Matt. 10:36). From this, many detractions of the pagans were made against us. For no one dared to set out from city to city, or from province to province;
but each one persecuted his neighbor as though an enemy. And many, not having the fear of God before their eyes, under the occasion of ecclesiastical zeal, hastened to bring to effect the enmities which they kept hidden in their hearts. Of whom one arose as the tyrant of our city, whom you yourself are not unaware; who, under the occasion of the faith, persecutes not only the living now, but also those who have long since gone before to God. Of whom one is the blessed Theodore, herald of the truth and teacher of the Church, who not only in his lifetime buffeted the heretics by the truth of his faith, but even after his death left behind spiritual weapons in his own books for the sons of the Church:
as your reverence also came to know by conversing with him, and was instructed by the things which he wrote. This man he presumed to anathematize openly in the church—a man who, on account of zeal for God, not only turned his own city from error to truth, but also instructed by his teaching the Churches set far off. And indeed much searching was everywhere being made of his books: not because they were alien to the true faith—for I myself saw, while he was yet living, his volumes frequently being read—but on account of the hidden enmities which he had against him, because he had manifestly convicted him in the synod.
While these evils therefore intervened, and each one, as it is written, departing as he pleased, our God who is to be adored—who in His clemency ever takes care of the Church—stirred up the heart of the most faithful and victorious Prince, so that he should direct the venerable and most holy Archbishop of the East, the lord John, to be reconciled to Cyril: for by him he had been deposed from the episcopate.
And after he received the letters of the Emperor, he directed the most holy and most reverend Paul, bishop of Emesa, writing through him the true faith, and charging him that, if Cyril should consent to this faith, and should anathematize those who say that the deity suffered, or those who say that there is one nature of the deity and the humanity, he should communicate with him. Now the Lord willed—He who ever takes care of His Church, which He redeemed with His own blood—to soften the heart of the Egyptian, so that without wearying he should consent to the faith, and receive it, and anathematize all who should believe otherwise than this; and when they communicated with one another, the contention was taken away from the midst, and peace was made in the Church:
and there is no schism in it, but peace as before. Now what the words are which were written by the most holy and most reverend Archbishop John, and which Cyril received and wrote back, I have joined these very letters to this one which I directed to your reverence, and have transmitted them to your holiness, so that on reading them again you may know, and may announce to all our brethren who love peace, that the contention has now subsided, and the middle wall of enmities has been taken away, and those who had seditiously rushed against the living and the dead are in confusion, making satisfaction for their own excesses, and now teach the contrary to those things which they had taught before.
For no one dares to say that there is one nature of the divinity and the humanity, but they confess a temple and Him who dwells in it, who is one Son, Jesus Christ. Now I have written these things to your holiness out of the great affection which I have toward you, knowing that your holiness night and day exercises yourself in the teaching of God, so as to be useful to many." This is the complete text of the letter, which—as we have already taught—the great Synod of Chalcedon, having had it recited before it, pronounced orthodox.
I shall therefore set about, with the aid of the Savior, to defend the judgment of that Synod not only against those things which were faulted in writing by the abettors of the heretics in the aforesaid letter, and which were condemned, as though Nestorian, in reprehension of the said judgment; but also against whatsoever things we have learned to be commonly accused by the wanton words of the irreligious. And through the course of this treatise we shall also show, where it shall be opportune, that if the Synod were to judge that same letter heretical, it would hence rather establish that the blessed Cyril was a heretic, and would excuse Nestorius, and would reprehend the Council of Ephesus.
Wherefore let us now transfer into our own book, from their book, those things which they said were to be reprehended in writing, according to the tenor and context in which they were set down by them, lest anyone suppose that we have omitted any of those things which pertain to the case. Thus, then, they said: "The accusers of Ibas came in, and they too requested that there be read again the things which had been accused concerning Ibas at Tyre before Photius and Eustathius, lovers of God. And while the acts were being read again, there was found set down among them a certain letter, as though made by Ibas to Mari the Persian, heaped with all impiety. For it contains these things: Cyril, wishing to destroy the books of Nestorius, lapsed, and was found to have fallen into the dogma of Apollinaris. For he too wrote in like manner to him, namely that God the Word became man."
And after other matters: For how can it be understood that 'In the beginning was the Word' is said of the Word as born from the temple, that is, from Mary? Or that other saying, 'Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,' how can it be said of the deity of the Only-begotten? Once more, Cyril forestalled the ears of all with a salve that blinds the eyes of the wise, and they deposed Nestorius from his bishopric without trial or inquiry having been made. To this they add that, in the condemnation of Nestorius which was carried out by them, they set down and confirmed the twelve chapters composed by Cyril, which stand contrary to the true faith, and assented to them as though they were consonant with the true faith. And a little later, disparaging the bishop of Edessa, he says:
'This man dared openly to anathematize in the church the blessed Theodore, that tyrant of our city, the herald of truth and leader of the Church, he who presumes all things in the church.' Now it is manifest to anyone reading these things that we too have set them down, not as they are contained in that letter, but as those men, plucking and tearing them apart, assert them according to their own pleasure, and have reduced them into a single patchwork. But that your Serenity may recognize their customary frauds yet more clearly, and may see what leaps they made in their narrative, not, as they wished it to appear, for the sake of avoiding prolixity, but rather for the sake of obscuring the truth, lest in any way the intention of Ibas the speaker should appear, compare what they set down with the tenor of the letter which we recalled above:
and it will now belong to your prudence to discern whether the things which they leaped over and refused to touch would have made the narrative prolix, or whether they would rather have laid open more plainly that very matter which they feared. Of all the things, however, which they reproved in this letter, we first clear away two, since they are held connected within one chapter, but were badly divided by these men. The one is what they set down at the beginning, saying, 'Cyril, wishing to destroy the books of Nestorius,' and so forth. The other is what they set down in the second place, namely, 'For how can it be understood, In the beginning was the Word, of the Word born from the temple, that is, from Mary,' and so forth.
In the first place, indeed, it must be confessed that this letter sufficiently shows that the most reverend Ibas, as has been said, together with the bishops of the East and of other provinces, understanding too little the intention of the words of the blessed Cyril, and suspecting that he was denying in Christ the difference of natures, consequently judged that he had fallen into the dogma of Apollinaris, who believed that God the Word became man not by the assumption of human nature, but rather thought that a part of the very substance of God the Word had been converted into flesh. For this reason, therefore, he there subjoined and said: 'For he too wrote in like manner to that man'—that is, to Apollinaris—'that God the Word himself was made man, as though there were no difference between the temple and him who dwells within it.'
It is not, therefore, that the venerable Ibas was ignorant that God the Word became man; but against the madness of Apollinaris he denied that he became man by conversion. For the blessed Cyril himself, in the book which is called the Scholia, under the title 'How Christ is one,' says: 'Therefore, even if others have been called Christs by a like appellation, yet there is one through whom are all things, Jesus Christ—not that the Maker of all became man.' This Cyril is not to be believed to have written against the prophet who says, 'The mother Sion shall say, A man, and a man was made in her, and the Most High himself founded her'; but rather with this intention, that God the Word, the Maker of all, was not made man according to the sense of Apollinaris, that is, by conversion.
Either, therefore, in both cases we understand that God the Word, that is, the Maker of all, is said to have been denied to have become man because he did not become man by conversion, and neither will be charged with the Nestorian error; or, if this is not granted, the same fault will belong to both. But not even the Eutychians themselves are willing for the blessed Cyril to be seen as a Nestorian when he says, 'not that the Maker of all became man,' or that God the Word, through whom all things were made, partook of flesh and blood in like manner as we, and was called man. Although that very appellation lies open to calumny, as though he were named man perfunctorily and was not truly the man Christ. For he himself there subjoined and added: 'as though there were no difference between the temple and him who dwells within it.'
But if for this reason the great synod were to condemn this letter as heretical, would it not rather, as we have said, seem hence to have believed the blessed Cyril a heretic, since he likewise says 'not that the Maker of all became man'? But if the venerable Ibas had read the other sayings of the same blessed Cyril, or had attended to them as he ought, he would without doubt have found that Cyril too, with the intention which we have described, denied that God the Word became man against Apollinaris, and taught the difference of natures. But replying to Nestorius, who divided the one Christ into two sons, he did not find it necessary to dispute against him more plainly and expressly concerning the two natures.
Nay rather, lest he give any occasion to that man's error, he spoke more sparingly of the distinction of natures, lest, while he himself distinguished the natures, the other should bring in two persons. And so the Eastern Fathers heard or read again the words of one who was speaking, yet did not mark his intention, according to which judgment must be made about words; for what is said must not be attended to more than why each thing is said. And we could indeed bring forward many testimonies of divine Scripture concerning the diversity of intention and of words—if indeed that is to be called diversity—how very often someone seems to deny something which ought not to be denied, in order that something else which is more necessary may be intimated.
But since we are now treating of a cause peacefully settled by its own authors, let these two examples suffice us. For who, unless instructed by other testimonies of divine Scripture, would believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be either good or God, on hearing the evangelist Mark thus narrate concerning him: 'And when he had gone out into the way, a certain man running and kneeling before him asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do that I may obtain eternal life? But Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, God' (Mark 10:17). The Lord said this in order to admonish that man to believe him to be God, if he wished to confess him truly good, because, as the inspector of the heart, he saw that he was believed by him to be only a man and not also God.
Although, therefore, it may seem to certain heretics who do not understand that he denied himself to be good, yet to catholics who understand it appears rather that he insinuated himself to be God. For who, hearing only that which the same evangelist Mark likewise narrates concerning the Lord, would not deny with the Manichaeans that he is the son of David? For the Manichaeans, abusing this very testimony, abjure the sacrament of his incarnation. 'Jesus answering,' it says, 'said, teaching in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? For David himself says in the Holy Spirit, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. David himself therefore calls him Lord, and whence is he his son?' (Mark 12:35).
Not, therefore, did he here too, by speaking such things, deny himself to be the son of David, that is, a man, as seems to the ignorant; but he rather indicated what was necessary, that he is the God of David. For if he is not God when he says, 'Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, God,' nor man when he says, 'David himself therefore calls him Lord, and whence is he his son?'—what do we say that he is? And the prudent reader will find other utterances of this kind in the divine writings, according to which whoever so speaks, every interpreter of them, so that he too seems to deny something which ought not to be denied, in order that something else which is more necessary may be intimated;
so he is not to be reproved as a heretic, but is rather to be judged from his other sayings, just as no catholic dares to reprove even the divine Scriptures themselves in such passages, but rather, from other clearer ones, recognizes how he ought to understand those things which are obscure. Hence, if the blessed Cyril, when Nestorius was attempting to introduce a certain unspeakable duality, in order to give no occasion to his error, confined his discourse more to those things which pertain to the unity—just as, on the contrary, the earlier teachers of the Church, replying to Apollinaris, who most foolishly confounded the diversity of natures, dwelt the more upon their distinction—
so he himself, in resisting the Nestorian, ought not to be thought to have denied the difference of natures, just as those who resisted Apollinaris are not to be thought to have denied the unity of the person; because the order or manner of the battle is not always the same, but in the assailant lies the reason how the defender ought to oppose him.