In Defence of the Three Chapters 9

But now we ought to treat the first part of this division. We say, then, that even if—as certain men have lied—the Synod of Chalcedon did by no means approve the letter of the venerable Ibas, nor was it brought at all to its examination, even so it would, to that Synod's abolition, be condemned for the praise of Theodore. Which is evidently shown from its allocution which, as we taught in the prior book, it wrote to Marcian Augustus, whose authority your piety also has confirmed by its own law. But before we bring forward or weigh the testimony of that allocution upon this matter also, I think it necessary to recall the aforesaid law of yours which, as we have said, attests to its authority.

And the title under which it is contained is this (Code, On the Supreme Trinity, Book 7): "On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith, and that no one may dare publicly to dispute concerning it." And the beginning: "The Emperor Justinian Augustus to Epiphanius, the most holy and most blessed archbishop of this royal city and universal patriarch. Wishing your Holiness to know all things that pertain to the ecclesiastical state." And after other matters: "The same holy Synod of Chalcedon also, by its own relation, received and confirmed the letter of the great Proclus written to the Armenians, concerning the fact that one ought to call the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God and our God, one of the holy Trinity."

"For if they go beyond the aforesaid holy four Synods, or the things ordained by them, we give occasion to the heretics who were deposed by them, and to their dogmas, to display their pestilence once more in the holy Churches of God." Let it suffice to have brought forth these things from your law in confirmation of the aforesaid allocution. Whose title—by which it is forbidden that anyone dare publicly to dispute concerning the catholic faith—whether it be observed, when now after nearly a hundred years there is in the Church a dispute over the sentence of a universal Synod, it is for your piety to judge;

or whether it be without any transgression that the four holy Synods and the things ordained by them are torn apart, when the letter of the venerable Ibas, bishop of Edessa, which the great Synod of Chalcedon pronounced orthodox, is condemned as impious and Nestorian. What then does it profit to have foreseen that through these things occasion would be given to the heretics who were deposed by them, and to their dogmas, to display their pestilence once more in the holy Churches of God, and to have by no means provided that it should not come to pass? But from that allocution we must now prove what we intend.

And so, addressing Marcian Augustus, the aforesaid Synod (after the acts of the Council), confirming by the authority of the Fathers both the reason of its decrees and the letter of blessed Leo, thus replied against the Eutychians who blamed it for having defined that there are two natures of Christ: "An ambiguity of the question having arisen, we are known to have fitted our confession to the interpretations of the Fathers: making satisfaction that in nothing have we offered a mind discordant from their understanding, but we use these as witnesses to the firmness of our faith."

And to show that the aforesaid heretics were blaming not so much that letter itself as the ancient teachers of the Church whose opinion it had followed in this matter, after recalling in the same address the letters of certain Fathers, it likewise mentions the volume of the great Proclus to the Armenians, which you have called to mind in your law, and the letter of the most wise John of Antioch, speaking thus: 'Indeed, he will also subject the great Proclus to this reproach, who sent to those same Easterners a volume to the Armenians on behalf of the harmony of the faith.'

But to this reproach there shall also be joined the most holy John, bishop of Antioch, who, rejecting the slanders of the heretics and proclaiming the doctrine of the apostolic teaching, sent the confession of the whole East, as though from one mouth, to the most holy Proclus and to him who at that same time governed the helm of the world. Let them not therefore, as though it were a stumbling-block of innovation, bring as a charge the letter of the bishop of the city of Rome, and so forth.

Now in this confession of the most wise John of Antioch and of the whole East, sent to the most holy Proclus and to the emperor Theodosius—by the example of which the synod of Chalcedon defended the letter of the admirable bishop of the city of Rome, that is, of blessed Leo, inasmuch as through that confession it is shown that the said John of Antioch both rejected the slanders of the heretics and proclaimed the apostolic teaching, and through which (as we taught in the first book) it was also confirmed that the Lord Jesus Christ is one of the Trinity—Theodore is praised with far greater commendation than Theodoret is in the letter of the venerable Ibas. For indeed, writing back to Proclus concerning the confirmation of his tome sent to the Armenians, the same John, together with the synod of the East, says this:

'Not only do we, the living, continually endure such calumnies from those who wish to throw the Churches into confusion; but even he who passed well from this life, the blessed Theodore, who for forty-five years shone brightly in teaching and overthrew every heresy, never anywhere in his lifetime suffering any disparagement from the orthodox—after his departure hence after so long a time, after many contests, after ten thousand books written against the heresies, and after he had been approved in the sight of priests, of emperors, and of peoples—is now in peril of enduring what belongs to heretics, and of being proclaimed as next to them.' And to the emperor Theodosius, who at that same time governed the helm of the world, he speaks thus:

'For Theodore—when we name him, we name a man who attained an illustrious end in the episcopate, who for nearly fifty years fought bravely against all heresies, and who in the expositions which he delivered in all the Eastern churches, and by which he is manifestly shown to have been highly approved in the royal city, was by no one whatsoever, neither among the greater nor among his equals, judged a heretic; but on the contrary, by all the priests, on account of the grace of teaching that was in him, he was ever held in admiration, and possessed a higher honour through his glory; and not by the priests only, but by your most sacred grandfather—we say the thrice-blessed and the one who, taking the scepters of empire from God, transmitted them to you, Theodosius.'

'For that great emperor, having become filled with desire to see the man, was a great hearer of his teaching in his church; nor did he think he had ever found another teacher of such a kind, indeed greatly admiring his teaching, delighted by his conversation, and then struck with amazement at him whom now certain men despise, as though they assumed the lot of approving and rejecting the teachers who have passed away, according to their own will. And indeed already by your own imperial majesty, on account of reverence for him and for his spiritual wisdom, testimony has often been given to him, and he has been honoured by your letters.' And again, lower down, concerning him:

'This is that most beloved disciple of the great Flavian, pontiff of the holy Church of God of the Antiochenes, and the fellow-disciple of the blessed John, bishop of Constantinople, whose memory you have revived, thereby bringing the greatest glory of piety upon your empire.' They say also other things, which shall more fittingly be recalled at the time when we shall bring forward the testimonies of the other holy Fathers as well, by which they likewise bore witness to the same Theodore. And since John of Antioch and the rest of the Eastern bishops, with praises, in those same letters—the form of which the synod of Chalcedon confesses it attended to in its definitions—commended Theodore of Mopsuestia as one proclaiming the apostolic teaching, and at the same time received the letter of blessed Leo:

how should not the letter of Ibas, for the praise of Theodore, be condemned to the nullification of that very thing—or, if (as has been said) the synod did not pronounce it orthodox, nor was it brought to its examination? For if, because Theodore, as they say, was indeed the master of Nestorius, but blasphemed with a greater impiety than he; and if, because all the sayings of Theodore against Christ surpass the madness of the devil—then not he alone is justly condemned, but also the letter which praised him:

the synod of Chalcedon too will be justly condemned, which not only received as Fathers the greatest praisers of Theodore himself—the aforesaid bishop of Antioch and the rest of the Eastern bishops—but even confesses that in its own definitions it followed those very letters by which they praised him. You perceive, therefore, most clement emperor, that even if we ourselves should, against the testimony of our conscience, deny that the letter of the venerable Ibas was judged orthodox in the synod, and add to this falsehood that other one as well—that it was not even brought to its judgment—the aforesaid synod cannot be defended by us if we condemn that same letter for the praise of Theodore.

And those who appear in the Church as false brethren—who I wish were outside—now offer no resistance to the deniers, but rather are even praised. This they craftily insinuated in order to lead us astray, so that afterwards it might be said to us by them, or by those heretics who are outside: 'You who justly condemned Theodore, because all his sayings surpass the madness of the devil, and therefore consequently rejected also the letter of Ibas, and denied that it was received by the synod—imputing it indeed as a crime if it were said to have pronounced orthodox a letter which praised a blasphemer and an impious man—how is it that you accept that very synod of Chalcedon, which most evidently testifies that those letters proclaimed the apostolic teaching and rejected the slanders of the heretics;'

'in which the teaching of Theodore is praised with far greater proclamation than in the letter of Ibas?' And it is a graver offence that the synod subjected itself to the judgment and authority of those letters, than if it had judged ill (which you deny) concerning the letter of Ibas itself. But they will add this too, saying: 'This is that apostolic teaching of your Leo which you magnify, whose letter the synod of Chalcedon attempted to excuse by the testimony or example of those letters which extolled with the greatest praises the profane Theodore, condemned by you for his impiety.' When they have objected these things, what shall we answer, I beseech you?

What shall we say, sealing our own mouths by our own judgment, except perhaps this one thing that remains, and to which all things compel us: that that synod did not judge rightly concerning the dogmas of the Christian faith? For this follows, if it is a crime of heresy to have praised Theodore, who is proclaimed in those letters whose form the aforesaid synod confesses it attended to in its own decrees, by which it approved the letter of blessed Leo. But if we wish its authority to remain unimpaired for us, we shall not call the letter of the venerable Ibas Nestorian for the praise of Theodore, whom we find to have been praised yet more amply in those letters which the synod so highly preferred.

But just as those are convicted by the testimony of those very letters, who—although they are bound by the authority of the council of Chalcedon, by which those letters were praised—refuse to call the Lord Jesus Christ one of the Trinity: so too those will be convicted by the testimony of the same letters, who, while approving the decrees of the same council with like faith, wished the letter of the venerable Ibas, which praised Theodore, to be repudiated as though Nestorian. And these things are asserted even if, as we have already said, the synod did not pronounce it orthodox, nor could it be shown to have been read out before it.

But since they confess that it was read out there, let us grant them even more, and let us pass over in silence even this opinion of the synod, by which it pronounced that the most holy John of Antioch, rejecting the slanders of the heretics and proclaiming the dogma of the apostolic teaching, sent the confession of the whole East, as though from one mouth, to the most holy Proclus and to him who at that same time governed the helm of the world: so that, just as it is denied that the same synod pronounced the letter of the venerable Ibas orthodox, so also let it be denied that it approved the aforesaid letters of the most wise John and of the whole Eastern council, in which Theodore of Mopsuestia is praised far more amply, and that it attended to their form in its definition, as we have shown.

Even so, will not the aforesaid letter appear, for whatever cause, to the reproach of the synod itself? For if it is to be believed that it pertains to zeal for the catholic faith that, after nearly a hundred years, it was condemned as though Nestorian, then that holy synod restrained heresy with a Nestorian heresy, since it did not condemn that same letter when it was read out before it—if, that is, that synod alone, and not the whole Church of Christ spread everywhere abroad, which has always received the decrees of that synod with great authority, is at fault. It is therefore beyond doubt that the synod of Chalcedon can be defended not by a false denial, devised by heretics for the deception of the credulous, but by the sole reasoning of truth:

which we, with God's help, having dispelled the frauds and falsehoods of those heretics themselves, will render.