Attend now with us, O Augustus, that you may be able to detect the wonted frenzy of robbers—how this sentence, from which they took the words, ‹Cyril forestalled the ears of all with the drug that blinds the eyes of the wise, and they deposed Nestorius from his episcopate, no trial and inquiry having been made,›—they not only truncated at the head, nor were they content merely to take away its head and its end; but, so that they might be more openly betrayed (since they did this not so much from a love of brevity as for the obscuring of the truth), they also stole away other things from the middle of it, which would easily show to readers that the most reverend Ibas had spoken thus not for the excusing of Nestorius, but because of the injury done to the bishops of the East and to the others.
For compare the things which they have badly excerpted and set down, and those which we have set down according to the tenor of his letter, and you will see not only what they have stolen, but even the reasons for their thefts. For why, in the first place, did they flee the beginning of the narrative of his letter, from which it behooved them to begin, except that they wished to filch from those who do not know what the letter itself contains, or who understand it less? ‹I make the beginning of my narrative,› he says, ‹from the words which you yourself also know. A dispute arose, while your reverence was here, between these two men, Nestorius and Cyril; and they wrote harmful books against each other, which were a scandal to those who heard them.›
For Nestorius taught in his books, as your reverence also knows, that blessed Mary is not the Mother of God, so that many thought him to be of the heresy of Paul of Samosata, who said that Christ is a mere man; and afterward there follows the part from which these men began: «But Cyril, wishing to destroy the books of Nestorius, fell, and was found to have lapsed into the dogma of Apollinaris. For he too wrote similarly to him, that God the Word himself was made man.» And then there follows that which they again subtracted: ‹As though there were no difference between the temple and Him who dwells in it.›
Why then, as I said, did they avoid touching the beginnings of the narrative itself, from which the method of teaching the truth rather urged them to begin, except because that which is fitting to the truth is contrary to falsehood? For wishing to slander this letter, as though it had excused Nestorius, they wanted to hide what was there said about Nestorius himself or about blessed Cyril: «They wrote harmful books against each other, which were a scandal to those who heard them.» For how would the most reverend Ibas seem to have excused Nestorius, if he were known to have said that Nestorius too had written harmful books which were a scandal to those who heard them? Therefore, not by excusing Nestorius, but by accusing blessed Cyril along with him, would he seem to have erred;
because, just as he judged it harmful in Nestorius that he denied blessed Mary to be the Mother of God, so also in holy Cyril he believed it a fault that he had supposed him to have written similarly to Apollinaris, namely, that God the Word was so made man that there was no difference between the temple and Him who dwells in it. And therefore neither is that to be believed to have been said for the excusing of Nestorius, which these men—I know not whether with conscience refusing, or because it overlooked them as they were intent on other frauds—did not put in the same book of their slanders and lies; yet what we see objected by their associates or henchmen, we do not omit to refute by like reasoning. For when the said venerable Ibas was narrating and saying:
‹All the Eastern bishops condemned this same Cyril, and decreed excommunication against the other bishops who had assented to his chapters,› there, continuing, he added: ‹And after this disturbance, each one returned to his own city. But Nestorius, since he was hateful to his own city and to those who were of higher rank in it, could not return thither.› They therefore object to us and say: Behold, where again is Nestorius excused by Ibas? for he did not say that he could not return to his city as a heretic, but because he was hateful to it and to the more eminent men in it.
As if they could prove that the most reverend Ibas said Nestorius was hateful to his city and to the more eminent men in it, not on account of heresy but on account of any other causes whatsoever, so that he could not return to it; he who had already said above that Nestorius had written harmful books which were a scandal to those who heard them, because they denied blessed Mary the Mother of God. We therefore answer them in this way—to pass over the other points by which, when they are opposed, this slander is in manifold ways and most easily refuted: Did the most reverend Ibas anywhere say that Nestorius was indeed hateful to his city and to the more eminent men in it, but not as a heretic, so that he could not return to it? «No,» they say.
Did he say at least this, that Nestorius was hateful to his city and to the more eminent men in it for other private causes, so that he could not return to it? «Neither this,» they say. If, therefore, the most reverend Ibas did not say even this—which, if he did say, it would not follow that one who was called odious for other private causes would on that account seem to be denied as odious for his heresy—yet he did not even say this: whence can you show that by these words of the venerable Ibas Nestorius was excused? Or perhaps it might seem to you to pertain to the testimony of an orthodox priest, if one be said to be hateful to his city and to the more eminent men in it? «It would not seem so,» they say;
nevertheless, in the words of this letter this is implied, that Nestorius, not as a heretic, but as one odious for other private causes, could not return to his own city. But I, in those words, rather understand this to be signified, that Nestorius was hateful to his city as a heretic, so that he could not return to it. Which interpretation will seem the more acceptable? I judge that one rather which agrees with the foregoing words, in which it was said that this same Nestorius had written harmful books which were a scandal to those who heard them, because he denied blessed Mary the Mother of God: rather than that which seems to be repugnant to all these, namely, that Nestorius, on account of his harmful books
—by which, denying Mary the Mother of God, he had scandalized his hearers—was odious to his city, so that he could not return to it. Yet, to argue out of abundance, let us suppose that the most reverend Ibas did not signify it by implication, but said openly that Nestorius was indeed hateful to his city and to the more eminent men in it, yet not as a heretic, but rather on account of other causes, so that he could not return to it; and that there were lacking to us the other arguments which we have already adduced, and many more which we shall adduce, by which, as they prove the point, it would be sufficiently shown that even these things were not said for the excusing of Nestorius: would it then be necessary to understand the very words we have feigned, considered in themselves, in such a way that Nestorius would seem to be excused in them?
For they could be understood otherwise also, namely, that although Nestorius was a heretic, yet his city did not believe this of him, and it was not as a heretic, but on account of his being hateful to it for other causes, that he could not return to it.
They could also be understood thus: that although Nestorius was a heretic, and this even seemed so to his own city, yet not on that account could he not return to it, since he had not been condemned by the Eastern bishops and those of the other provinces—whom the emperors had ordered to judge his case—but because he was hateful to it for other causes. As though the venerable Ibas, ascribing much authority to his metropolitan and to the rest of the Eastern bishops and those of other provinces who had not been awaited, were saying that Nestorius, although a heretic, yet not condemned by them, could return to his city and await their judgment, were it not that he was hateful to it for other causes.
For since these same Easterns and those who were with them so far prevailed against the council of Ephesus, on account of the reception of the chapters of blessed Cyril, that they condemned this same blessed Cyril and Memnon bishop of Ephesus, and, at the emperor's command, the count of the sacred largesses delivered them too into custody: what prejudice would it be, if Ibas also said this, that in the case of Nestorius—although a heretic, yet not excluded by the Easterns—the sentence of those was not weighed, who, being condemned as heretics, could be put into custody; but because he was hateful to his city for other causes, therefore he could not return to it? But none of these things is contained in his letter, in which this only was said:
«But Nestorius, since he was hateful to his own city and to those who were of higher rank in it, could not return thither.» Concerning which we have already answered the calumniators at greater length, perhaps, than was necessary.