Yet we add something even to these things, that we may set down—what was by no means actually done—either Theodore, or the venerable Ibas himself, as accused in the synod concerning the praise of Theodore. If, then, that synod is to be called heretical for this reason, that it pronounced orthodox his letter praising Theodore, blessed Cyril and Proclus, whom they pretend to honor, will be defended from the charge of heresy—men who, when the Orientals defended Theodore, accused in their presence, and praised him much more highly, did not condemn them as heretics, but rather confirmed them as orthodox by communicating with them; not to mention that even their own sentences, that is, of Cyril and Proclus, against this same accusation of Theodore, maintain that neither he nor his sayings are to be condemned.
Wherefore, even if either Theodore, or bishop Ibas, were accused in the synod for the praise of Theodore, the same synod could not be accused by the Eutychians for having pronounced that letter orthodox, unless Cyril and Proclus were consequently accused as well, for having judged the Orientals orthodox—the Orientals who, defending in their presence the accused Theodore, had even extolled him with the highest praises. But if anyone should weigh a little more attentively the weights of both sides, he would find the cause of that holy synod lighter than that of blessed Cyril and Proclus.
For even if, as we have supposed, Theodore were accused before that synod, it would be a lighter thing for it to absolve bishop Ibas, who had praised him when as yet no accusation had been deposited before him, than what blessed Cyril and Proclus did, who judged orthodox the Orientals by whom that same Theodore was praised after the accusation. But where can anyone be shown to have been condemned, even if he was truly a heretic, by a universal synod without an accusation having been brought forward? For our Fathers first admonished all the heretics whom they expelled to be wiser; then they threatened condemnation if they did not repent, granting them even a respite of treating with them, as seemed necessary. We do not boast these things without proof.
The examples of our forefathers attest to us, by whose pattern blessed Cyril also condemned Nestorius, who had first been corrected, not because he had slipped, but because he refused to repent; and he forbade the condemnation of Theodore, who had been accused before. Some, having wickedly transgressed this rule of soundness and modesty, in order not to confess their error even belatedly, say that they can prove that certain heretics—I know not whom—were condemned after death: as though forsooth they thereby proved that those men were not also condemned while living, or even if it has escaped our memory and knowledge. For no one is able to know or remember all things, since not even all the things that have been committed to writing endure to this day.
But, to pass over this, they certainly cannot deny that those men were first reproved, and brought into judgment, and convicted; and if, in order that they might repent, they were not quickly stripped of the honors which they exercised in the Church, yet they were removed from fraternal communion. Which of these things had already preceded in the case of Theodore, that the synod should sentence him though accused before it? But if anyone affirms that some were condemned by the Church before correction, he is found to set up our Fathers, who were their condemners, as opponents of the Apostle—rather than the men themselves—the Apostle who commands that a heretic be avoided only after a first and a second admonition (Tit. iii, 10).
But far be it from us that the catholic and apostolic Church should ever have been opposed to the Apostle! If, therefore, the authority of his moderation and order has any weight among them—which the Church has always held to be wholesomely instituted by the Apostle in the avoiding, that is, the excluding, of heretics—let them cease to assail it with their contentions. For they do not assail the holy synod, which did nothing against the custom of the Church, even if it did not condemn Theodore though accused before it; but rather they assail the universal Church, whose pattern it followed. Yet these men argue, and say that in this Theodore was by Him...
...had been expelled from the Church, since the holy Fathers in the books which they wrote privately censured those who held such views as Theodore is said to have held. Indeed, above already, not only by the testimony of great men but also by the production of his own words, it has been shown how he thought; nevertheless, since they calumniously pluck out certain things from his innumerable books, as though contrary to those which we have set forth, and on account of these think he ought to be condemned, asserting that our Fathers in their books had previously marked out whoever held such opinions: therefore in the following volume we bring forth things like those of these very Fathers which they censure, so that they may see their calumnies, devised against the great council, repulsed on every side.
But even with these things removed, or but slightly mitigated, if, as they say, Theodore had then already been expelled, then the blessed Cyril too, as well as John and Domnus of Antioch and the other Eastern bishops, were expelled together with him at the same time, since they would not allow the expelled man to be condemned; and falsely too are Nestorius said to have been expelled by the same blessed Cyril or by the holy Celestine, bishop of Rome. For if Theodore had already been expelled on this account, namely that the holy Fathers in their books censured those who held such views, much more had Nestorius already been expelled, who is both manifestly shown to have held perverse views, and who scorned to remove the offense to his hearers which he had incurred by the profane novelties of his words.
But from this I shall inquire what sort of conscience these very Eutychians have. Let us suppose that someone is accused before us who is said to deserve expulsion because he teaches things contrary to certain opinions of the Fathers; I ask for counsel, what we ought to do. Would it occur to us that, unadmonished and unrebuked, he should be expelled from the Church merely because the Fathers, in the books they wrote privately, were found to have refuted those who held such opinions; and not rather that he should first be questioned and admonished, the opinions of the holy Fathers being shown to him to which he was said to be contrary; and if he did not correct himself, that he should be summoned to a council; and if he did not believe its authority, that he should be expelled?
This surely seems to have been what ought to have been done, this the order to be observed by us, this the rule of humaneness to be held, even if the Apostle had not commanded it. But if we ought not to condemn even a living man, when absent, without his first being admonished and rebuked: how could the holy synod, even if Theodore were accused before it, justly condemn a dead man? For first, how could his accuser be so certain that all those chapters which are censured are his own, that if it were said to him as an accuser, according to custom, 'Swear by the name of the Lord that Theodore, whom you seek to have condemned after his death, wrote these things,' he would dare to swear? For it was not lawful for that great synod lightly to believe what is gravely said it ought to have condemned.
For it is one thing, when we read something merely for instruction, that we simply believe it to be of that author whose name the title bears, prejudging nothing about him from this our credulity; but another thing, when the condemnation of him who is believed to be the author is demanded in a judgment. Hence, even if this accuser were to swear that all those chapters are Theodore's, not even so ought the synod to be led by his oath to condemn one deceased in the peace of the Church. What more then could that accuser do than to cite witnesses of suitable merit and number, who, having sworn, would be willing to testify to this very thing? Moreover, not even this which might further be done would suffice for his condemnation.
For if, while the same Theodore was living, witnesses had been brought against him, it would not have been right to condemn him, when not summoned to judgment, on testimony alone. But if, when summoned, he were unwilling—whether from consciousness of guilt or from contumacy—to await the appointed examination, then no longer would the witnesses be believed about the absent man, but rather he himself who judged against himself. But one condemned with no correction or summons preceding would justly complain of the iniquity of the judges, and would acceptably say that they had maliciously or rashly believed false witnesses against an absent man. On account of which, in that same holy synod, the bishops cried out on behalf of the most reverend Ibas, often saying: 'They did evil who condemned him contrary to the canons;
let the things which were done against an absent man be annulled. This we all say: let no one condemn an absent man.' But if it was not right to accept witnesses against a living man, so that he should be condemned without being questioned or summoned, how could the holy synod, even if they testified against Theodore at his examination, justly receive them? Or would it be easier to lie about a living man, and harder to lie about a dead one? But if the same witnesses were questioned, whence they knew most certainly that those things which were censured were written by Theodore, what could they more credibly answer than that they either found them in books said to be Theodore's own, or had learned them from him while he was living?
But that the title of books does not suffice for effecting the condemnation of that man who departed this life in the peace of the Church and with the greatest praise of the Fathers, we have shown above, especially because he complained that some of his books had been corrupted by heretics; and the blessed Cyril said of him that, since the person who might be charged with the fault was not at hand, the refutation of the chapters would be uncertain, and those who did these things would be found running into uncertainty and beating the air.
How then would the synod believe, on the basis of certain witnesses—even if they were produced—that to be certain which Cyril, while the memory of the matter was still more recent, testified to be uncertain? But if they should rather say this, that they learned from Theodore himself that it was his, what could they answer if it were said to them: 'What then was the reason that you did not at that time bring these things which you allege to the prelates of the Churches while he was alive, when he could both be brought to judgment, and either deny that they were his, or interpret them better, or—what is the last resort—reject them if he could not?'
There is nothing therefore for which the holy synod should be blamed regarding Theodore's not being condemned, even if he had been accused before it, and witnesses of suitable merit and number had been brought into his examination. But let us grant even this to the Eutychians, and let us establish that it had been produced to the synod that those chapters were Theodore's: whence would it be certain with what intention they were brought forth? For we both speak many things not as we think, and many things are not received by others as they are uttered by us; but let us suppose even this, that they knew Theodore wrote those chapters in error:
whence could the synod know whether they were among those, as has been said, or among the like of those which the same Theodore either censured or amended in his own sayings? For this too is justly said, that the censure or correction of those things ought to have served also for the excuse of other similar things. But if it were not even shown that Theodore censured or corrected certain things in his own sayings, and those things which they reprehend in him are believed to have been hidden from the Church; whence does the synod hold it certain that, after he wrote those things, he did not come to know the truth by the inspiration of God, who is wont secretly and wonderfully to work in the hearts of His own, so that it should judge him as one who died in that very error?
For even if it were proved that until the day of his death he was ignorant of something concerning the incarnation of Christ, nevertheless, since he was not separated from his Church, whence, as I said, would the synod hold it certain that, in that very hour in which he was about to breathe his last, the great and unsearchable mercy of God—which on the cross loosed the not-unknown crimes of the thief—did not also grant to him, in return for his such great labors and contests in the Church against heretics, that he should recover from his ignorance, and, the error condemned, follow the thief, himself also being at once in paradise with Christ—he who is now said to have deserved condemnation for the Nestorian dogma before Nestorius?
For how many heretics, how many Jews and pagans have we learned, by trustworthy testimony, to have been converted on the very threshold of death? But because their error was public, their conversion could not but be public, while they besought to be reconciled, to be baptized by the Church, while at last they were reconciled or baptized; but his hidden ignorance, blamed by no one, which Theodore is said to have had—to which the Eastern council also bears witness, that he received no detraction from the orthodox during his life, and of whom and of others Proclus the bishop says, 'whom we never blamed even while living'—he could secretly reject.
But if he cast it off not secretly, but with some persons aware of it, nevertheless this could be hidden from the holy synod, and it could not judge concerning what is hidden, because this is proper to God, as Moses says: 'The things that are hidden belong to you and to your children.' Whence also the blessed Cyril says: 'It appears most just to prudent men to yield to Him who foreknows the will of each one.' Why then should this synod be blamed, which yielded all things to God who foreknows all, and did not dare, like certain men, to be a judge of hidden things, which God alone is? But neither, as I think, does any modest man presume to define that all are bound to fall into heresy who, not being obstinate, but as imperfect and ready to learn, have known something less in the Christian faith;
as even the apostles Thomas and Philip themselves. For to Thomas it is said: 'If you had known me, you would surely have known my Father also' (John 14:7). And to Philip: 'Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known me, Philip? And, Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?' (ibid. 9, 10). Who then would call such men heretics, if, though still ignorant, they have yet ended this present life in the Church, which they do not believe can err; since he would not dare to suspect that the aforesaid apostles were heretics even at the very time when they were ignorant of these things? But of this too we shall say much hereafter. But since the synod held it uncertain whether all those chapters, for which he was said to deserve exclusion from the Church, were Theodore's;
and even if it held this certain, it would still be uncertain to it with what intention they were brought forth; and if it knew without doubt that he had erred, it would not immediately also appear that he did not afterward amend the error; nor, if even this were established by some certain reasoning, does anyone pious and grave presume to define that all are heretics who, without obstinacy, are deceived in the Christian faith, if, not yet instructed, they have ended their life in the peace of the Church: who but a rash man would say that that synod, amid so many uncertainties, ought to have condemned Theodore under anathema? But you consider without doubt, O emperor, how many things we have spontaneously given or conceded to the Eutychians and their abettors, with no reason compelling us;
and yet the truth does not concede to them that the sentence of the great synod, which pronounced orthodox the letter containing the praises of Theodore, should be judged blameworthy. But if such great proofs as we have brought forth, on account of the proven obstinacy of our adversaries, had been wanting to us, what religious man could reprehend this synod, which did not dare to usurp what was not given to it? For the Lord granted to His Church no power of binding and loosing among the dead, when He said to His disciples: 'Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven' (Matt. 18:18).
Those alone therefore who are on earth He received power to bind and to loose, and therefore it ought not to be reprehended for not daring to bind Theodore, even if it had known him to be blameworthy, yet because he was not on earth. Let that presumption belong to others to whom it was pleasing, not to it. For just as it ought not to have dared to loose after death those who were bound on earth—which indeed seems to have some image of piety—so it ought not to have dared to bind after death him who was not bound on earth; which is both openly of impiety, and not entrusted to its power. Wherefore also the blessed Fathers defined that it is not ours to judge those who have died honorably, but the office of the Judge of the living and the dead alone.