Attend now, Augustus, by how clear and manifold a reasoning this too is demonstrated, which I promised I would next demonstrate: that the abettors of the heretics wished to deceive us by an open lie, in saying that the letter of the venerable Ibas had not been accepted by the Council of Chalcedon. There, while it was being read, on the basis of the preceding acts held before the most reverend bishops Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius—the charges which Theophilus the deacon, who was his adversary, had brought against the aforesaid bishop Ibas—with the bishops sitting together, such a sentence was given: «We have learned from the sentence of the most reverend bishops that the most reverend bishop Ibas has been shown to be innocent.
For when his letter was read, we recognized that he is orthodox, and on this account we decree that both the honor of the episcopate and the Church from which he was unjustly expelled in his absence be restored to him.» You see how the heretics, through their henchmen, wished to mock us by boasting that this letter had not been accepted by the council—when it is plain that, from the reading of it, its author Ibas was judged by the council to be innocent and orthodox, and on this account they decreed that he should receive both the honor of the episcopate and the Church from which he had been unjustly expelled. They knew, therefore, that the piety of the Church could not bear it, if the letter which the synod approved were said to be condemnable—or rather the synod itself, because it judged it orthodox.
For they presumed not only to blame and reject Ibas's letter itself, as we have already said, as though it were Nestorian, but also those who approve of it, who call it correct and do not subject it to anathema. And who are more to be understood as its approvers than the Fathers who had assembled at Chalcedon and judged it orthodox? Knowing these things, therefore, and reckoning that they could thus draw the consent of Catholics into the condemnation of that very letter, they boasted that it had not been received by the great council—although we know that in it the pronouncement was again made thus:
«From the things that have just been read it is clear that the most reverend Ibas is innocent of all the charges brought against him, and from the re-read rescript of the letter which was produced by his adversary, his composition appeared orthodox.» Could we then, against these most evident sentences concerning the said letter—when, after its condemnation, the heretics began to reproach us, saying that the Council of Chalcedon pronounced orthodox the letter which by our judgment is Nestorian—could we say that this is false, and on the contrary demonstrate that the council itself also reprobated and condemned it?
You perceive, therefore, emperor, that the enemies of justice wished to mock the Church of Christ, and to call us away from the truthful assertion by which that same letter can be better and more strongly defended, and to divert us to the empty refuge of a false denial—namely, that we should now for the moment affirm it to be Nestorian, denying that it had been received by the council, and afterward, being convicted by those same men of a manifest and shameless lie, since it was received, there would remain nothing that we could answer in defense of that very council. And therefore we do not accept the counsel of lying, nor will the heretics, our own likeness, be able to bring this about. For we both say it was received, and we show that it was received altogether:
because the Church's defense on behalf of truth is always truthful, nor was it ever in need of falsehood. But first we must examine of what sort are those things which they have, through their partisans, boasted for our deception, that we might deny it was received. First, then, let us see whether we should say or believe what they have tried to persuade: that it was not the letter of the venerable Ibas, but some writing of petition and supplication—which the whole clergy of the city of Edessa had sent to the bishops Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius on behalf of that same bishop Ibas—which the synod pronounced orthodox.
But what shall we answer when afterward either they themselves, or those whom the heretics favor, say to us that that writing—the petition and supplication of the whole clergy of the city of Edessa—was named in the synodal acts, whereas the sentence of the synod, from the re-reading of his letter, testified that he appeared orthodox; and that, because the bishop Ibas asked that that petition and supplication, given by the whole clergy of the city of Edessa to the bishops Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius, be read out on his behalf, the sentence of the synod—as the very words which we have set down declare—pronounced concerning the rescript of Ibas's own letter, which was produced by his adversary, that his composition appeared orthodox?
Most easily, then, will they prove—if indeed any proof is needed here—that it is one thing which the bishop Ibas asked to be read out on his behalf, and another which the man who was his adversary brought forward against him. But they will also add this: that it was not even pertinent to the matter that it should be pronounced concerning the petition and supplication of the clergy of the city of Edessa that its composition was orthodox, since rather the synod's sentence was awaited concerning the letter of Ibas, as to whether they would judge it heretical or orthodox. When, therefore, they would also object that which was likewise said in the same synod: 'For some time now, indeed, the most reverend Ibas has been shown innocent from the things re-read;
for in those things wherein he seemed to blame, speaking evil of the most blessed Cyril, in later ones, confessing rightly, he spat out those things for which he had blamed him'—shall we then mutter against it? Shall we be able even to draw breath? For what had the bishop Ibas said about the blessed Cyril in that petition and supplication which the whole clergy of the city of Edessa had sent on his behalf, which he might be said in later ones to have spat out? But if anyone reads his letter sent to Maris the Persian, which we will set down in the following book, he will there recognize all these things. But behold, if by manifold documents they show that the synod judged orthodox the letter of Ibas, concerning which Ibas himself had been accused;
do we too show where the whole clergy of the city of Edessa was accused, so that they sent a petition and supplication not orthodox on behalf of that same bishop Ibas, such that it would seem necessary to the synod to pronounce concerning it that its composition was orthodox? Or even if this could be shown, the approval of that petition and supplication would absolve the bishop Ibas, and not the petitioners themselves. For we must also recite the words of that very sentence, if perhaps, just as was done concerning the letter of Ibas, some one of the Fathers said in that synod: 'The writing of the petition and supplication of the whole clergy of the city of Edessa appeared to us orthodox.'
But we shall be able to show no such thing, and we know full well that there was no need for that petition and supplication to be pronounced orthodox, concerning which no such question was at issue; but in order to lead us into the condemnation of that letter, the abettors of the heretics invented these things. For why, when the bishop Ibas was accused, should the whole clergy of the city of Edessa be pronounced orthodox; or, when the whole clergy of the city of Edessa was pronounced orthodox, should the bishop Ibas be absolved? Finally, that they boasted these things by fraud, they themselves disclosed—whether unwillingly or unwittingly, the truth wresting it from them.
For after their many and varied contrivances, after great and fruitless labors by which they tried with empty words to obscure the open light unto the deception of the gullible, in that same book of theirs they said: «John the heretic, blaming the holy synod, is shown to have the same opinion as the letter to Maris; but confessing it to have been expelled and destroyed by the holy synod, he likewise confesses that the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia was also expelled by it. And since the slanderers do not look to the things defined in the final order, but to those things perhaps said by certain persons before the completion of the judgment;
those who hold a right intention ought to recognize that in synods those things prejudge nothing which were perhaps said by certain persons before the completion of the judgment, in comparison with those things which are defined by all together in the final order, even though they may appear discordant with the common reckoning. Finally, holy Anatolius said that Dioscorus was not condemned on account of the faith, and this neither prejudged the common reckoning of the synod, nor freed Dioscorus from judgment while he persisted in the perversity of Eutyches.» Among all these things, then, I now forbear to argue that in this book it has not been proved that some John the heretic held the same opinion as the letter to Maris, nor that, having so held it, he was to be detested.
I forbear to argue that neither has that been proved, which is boasted—that the same John confessed that the aforesaid letter had been destroyed and expelled by the holy synod. I forbear that it prejudges nothing against Theodore that he is reported likewise to have said it was expelled from the synod, since if it were demanded of him, he could not prove it. This is the one thing I wish to say: that, although with anxious and inconstant words, they betrayed that they knew that that letter had been received by the synod, but that they invented all those things in order to mock us.
For how, being ignorant that the synod had pronounced a sentence concerning it, would they say that in synods those things prejudge nothing which were perhaps said by certain persons before the completion of the judgment, in comparison with those things defined by all together in the final order? Therefore, though with certain discordant elements, they nevertheless confessed that they knew the synod had passed judgment concerning the letter of the venerable Ibas. This too they likewise betray in the later parts of that same book of theirs, saying thus: «And these things indeed have been said, that it might be shown to all that, in the things which were done in synods, even if some discordance, as often happens, had arisen among the judges, nevertheless no one attends to those things that are said piecemeal, but to those which are defined by all in the final order.
» But it suffices us to have recognized their deceits even by their own confession. For the rest, neither do we assent to these contrivances. First, indeed, lest with them we be caught not only as liars, but even as unstable in the very lie itself—namely, that we should say that the synod pronounced, not concerning the letter of Ibas, but concerning the writing of petition and supplication of the whole clergy of the city of Edessa; but that in synods those things prejudge nothing which were perhaps said by certain persons before the completion of the judgment. Next, because the same sentences concerning the letter of Ibas are found to have been promulgated not before the completion of the judgment, but, as they say, in the final order; and to be the sentences not of some, but of all, whom no one contradicted. For it is demanded of us and said:
'Prove the discordance of the council which you allege; show where, when some pronounced the letter of Ibas orthodox, others contradicted that it was impious and profane; and after the discordance which you allege to have occurred before the completion of the judgment, demonstrate the concordant sentence of the synod in the final order, rejecting this Nestorian and blasphemous letter; otherwise that synod too was Nestorian, which judged such a letter orthodox.' It appears, therefore, that, all these lies having been vainly contrived, so great a synod can be made to seem not excused but rather inexcusable, as though it had nothing whereby it might be truthfully defended.