But all these things—from which it could appear from what cause the most reverend Ibas, offended with the others, and especially with the Eastern bishops, spoke thus about blessed Cyril—those doctors of a novel truth avoided putting in their book, so that that letter, which the synod pronounced orthodox, might seem to have excused Nestorius. And if indeed they did so, then what we replied to the Nestorians on behalf of blessed Anatolius, by whom Dioscorus was condemned—whom, wishing to excuse him, the Nestorian said had not been condemned for the faith—this too we could not without reason reply to the Eutychians on behalf of the most reverend Ibas. For it is one thing if anyone is simply deceived in a heretic who conceals his deceits, so that he thinks him orthodox;
and it is another if one follows and defends his very heresy when recognized. Although, if anyone should diligently weigh the cause of both even thus, that of bishop Anatolius would be proved the more grave; for he, as has been said, in that synod wished to excuse Dioscorus, a defender of the heresy of Eutyches and of the Eutychian dogma, in the very synod in which Eutyches with his dogma, and Dioscorus, as his defender, were among others condemned by his own decree. But Ibas was not present at the council of Ephesus in which Nestorius was condemned: nay rather, even from this—that the Eastern Fathers and the other bishops of various provinces who had come with them to Ephesus were not awaited—he was gravely offended at the condemnation of Nestorius.
For even if those who write things to be read should deign to read other things as well, they will find that Timothy too, a disciple of Apollinaris, was through ignorance commended to the apostolic see as orthodox by blessed Athanasius in the times of blessed Damasus, and was simply received by Pope Damasus himself without any restraint of his heresy. They will also find that Pelagius the heresiarch, from whom the Pelagians are named, was through the same ignorance acquitted in the judgment of the Palestinian bishops, when he was covering up what he held against the grace of Christ and was interpreting his depraved opinions with cunning.
They will find, finally, that blessed Zosimus too, the prelate of the apostolic see, against the sentence of his predecessor holy Innocent—who first condemned the Pelagian heresy—praised the faith of Pelagius himself and of his accomplice Coelestius (whom, convicted in the Church of Carthage and appealing to the apostolic see, he himself had examined through the proceedings) as though true and catholic, and moreover even blamed the African bishops because by them these men were held to be heretics: since he himself did not yet, even though the African bishops were laying bare their deceits much more manifestly, hold the said Pelagius and Coelestius to be other than orthodox.
And yet the Church does not believe Athanasius, nor Damasus, nor those Palestinian bishops, nor Zosimus to be heretics because they thought well of heretics, but rather, by the pious merit of their faith, judges and honors them as catholics: since the cunning of the malicious, not understood by the simple, ought not to be reckoned a crime. Wherefore, even if the letter of the venerable Ibas were proved to have excused Nestorius, it ought on that account not to be judged heretical by the synod, but, by the merit of its faith, orthodox.
Moreover, it is not necessary to make this reply to the Eutychians in defense of the holy synod, since it sufficiently appears in the words of the letter itself, and will appear still much more evidently from the things that were done concerning the venerable Ibas himself, that this same Ibas did not say, as some wished it to seem, for the excusing of Nestorius: «They deposed Nestorius from his episcopate, no trial and inquiry having been made.»
For even if he did not wish, as we previously established, that it be understood as said of the chapters of blessed Cyril, nothing prevents it being believed that this same thing was said because the venerable Ibas, on account of the injury done to the Eastern and other Fathers who were not awaited so as to be present at the trial and inquiry, disdained to say that Nestorius ought to have been deposed by them too, deposed «with trial and inquiry made»: ascribing such authority to holy John of Antioch and his other fellow-provincials, or to the bishops of other provinces, that he would not deign to call what had been done apart from them either judged or inquired into.
For not small was the number, nor small the authority, even of those chief bishops who, together with the bishops of their own dioceses, as they had been admonished, coming to Ephesus, had held the same opinion with the said holy John of Antioch and the rest of the Easterns. For the bishops of nine provinces were joined to them, that is, of Bithynia, Pisidia, second Cappadocia, Pelagonia, Europa, second Mysia, Rhodope, Thrace, and Thessaly. But what bearing upon the council of Chalcedon had what this same venerable Ibas directed—whether arrogantly, or from the pain of injuries, or from any other cause—when concerning the Christian faith for which they had assembled, he had spoken nothing profane in his letter?