But so far indeed were either the most reverend Ibas, or his letter, from this suspicion—that he is said to have excused Nestorius—that not even the judges themselves, Photius and Eustathius and Uranius, when this same letter had been objected and re-read, compelled the said bishop Ibas to pronounce anathema against Nestorius. For it is not true what these men set down in their book—men to whom it is pleasing to lie just as much as it is permitted with impunity—saying: «Finally Photius and Eustathius, lovers of God, beholding the denial made by Ibas concerning the letter, gave a judgment for the destruction and exclusion of the impiety of the letter to Mari:» which judgment, as we said above, Ibas, approaching the holy synod, asked to be read.
But the judgment runs thus: that Ibas in his own church should openly anathematize Nestorius, the prince of malignant impiety, and those who use either his books or his codices. It is therefore not true what they have said, since neither is it shown, as we have already taught, that Ibas denied that the letter to Mari was his; nor did the venerable bishops Photius and Eustathius judge that Ibas in his own church should openly anathematize Nestorius, the prince of malignant impiety, and those who use either his books or his codices. But the said bishop Ibas, of his own accord and out of abundance—no one compelling or requiring this by force—promised it, as is shown by the definition of the said bishops Photius and Eustathius.
For when the venerable bishop Uranius was now absent—who had sat with them as judge in this case at the emperor's command—and the judges offered themselves to the parties as mediators of peace, after some matters they said, when many things had been stirred up which are inserted in the acts: ‹We, leaving for a little the order of cognizance, and looking to the common utility of the holy Churches, have made ourselves mediators to the parties in place of judges, and using many counsels, everywhere setting forth piety, we have prepared bishop Ibas—since he himself was minded toward the satisfaction of the things that had been said—to give in writing what he held or thought concerning our pious faith: which he also did.›
«And out of abundance the said most reverend man promised that he would openly anathematize, in the church of his own city, the prince of malignant impiety, and those who think as he does, and who use either his books or his codices. He confessed, moreover, that he believes as the letters contain which passed between John, of reverend and most holy memory, bishop of the great city of Antioch, and Cyril, bishop of Alexandria—of which letters the minister was Paul, of blessed memory, bishop of the city of Emesa—from which letters also a universal consent was effected.»
Behold, the venerable Photius and Eustathius, having become mediators of peace from being judges, say that they themselves did not judge—as it is feigned—for the destruction and exclusion of the impiety of the letter to Mari, so that Ibas, having returned, should in the church of his city openly anathematize Nestorius; they judged that he had spoken, not for the excusing of Nestorius, but for the injury of the Easterns and the rest who together with them had not been awaited—words which certain men in that letter wrongly interpret. Otherwise they would not say that Ibas, having returned, had out of abundance promised to anathematize Nestorius in the church of his city, but they would rather say that they themselves had of necessity demanded this from him.
This too undoubtedly appears at the same time, that with their wonted fraud they subtracted what we have set down from these same acts—namely, that bishop Ibas confessed that he believed thus, as the letters contain which passed, through the mediation of Paul bishop of the city of Emesa, between John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria, of blessed memory—lest from this testimony of the bishops Photius and Eustathius, which they falsely claimed to have been made for the destruction and exclusion of the venerable Ibas's letter, the truth of that letter should rather be shown. For they did not pass over this point in silence either.
But if to anyone the things we say still seem obscure, and he desires to know the matter more fully, he must be admonished only to read those same acts—not that he needs help to understand them. For what here seems obscure, there is found clearer than light. But that too is altogether false which they said in the same book of their lies: «The holy synod, not content either with the denial made by Ibas concerning the letter to Mari, nor even with the testimony made by the clergy of Edessa in his favor, but confirming the judgment of Photius and Eustathius, requested Ibas, for the destruction and exclusion of the impious letter to Mari, to anathematize Nestorius and his dogmas, which that same letter extolled with praises.»
For where did either the most reverend Ibas deny that letter to be his own, or where did that letter extol Nestorius and his dogmas with praises, as they say—he who said of Nestorius that he had written harmful books which were a scandal to those who heard them, because he denied blessed Mary the Mother of God? But let them recite from it those very praises which they say it gives to Nestorius and his dogmas. But if there is nothing they can recite, they ought to have blushed to lie so often and so openly. For it irks me, I confess, and it altogether shames me, to refute so many lies; and passing over many, I am by necessity compelled to refute some.
But although it is incumbent on them to prove what they have said, we for our part, besides the evidence of the letter itself—which contains nothing of the kind—prove also, from the very sentence of the said council of Chalcedon (concerning which they have fabricated a testimony), that the most reverend Ibas not only did not praise Nestorius and his dogmas in his letter, but even, as we long ago proposed to demonstrate, made no excuse for Nestorius.
For when, before the council of Chalcedon, this same letter was re-read out of the acts of the bishops Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius, the council noted this only in it, that it had blamed blessed Cyril, the intention of his chapters being less understood—not that it had excused Nestorius. For it gave such a sentence, as we taught in the fifth book: «Long ago indeed, from the things re-read, the most reverend Ibas was shown to be innocent: for in those things in which he was seen to blame, speaking ill of the most blessed Cyril, in the later passages, rightly confessing, he rejected those things wherein he had blamed him: but because he excused Nestorius, he is not found to have been reprehended by the synod; which without doubt it would reprehend, if he were excusing that Nestorius whom it had itself condemned:
» much more so, if he even affected him with praises, as they say. The sentence, therefore, of this same synod, if any credit is given it, proves that Nestorius was in the letter of Ibas neither praised nor excused. And this sentence made him anathematize not only Nestorius, but even Eutyches, which these men were unwilling to say: although bishop Ibas had not been accused concerning the Eutychian dogma, but rather was complaining that he had suffered injustice and false charges from Eutyches himself.
But because that holy Synod, which had assembled not only to condemn Eutyches but also to confirm the condemnation of Nestorius, recognized that the letter of Ibas himself was orthodox and most contrary to both Nestorius and Eutyches, it judged it worthy to take this letter to itself as a companion in the condemnation of the heretics whom it was refuting. But if the Eutychians suppose that the Synod ought to have spurned, as if it were Nestorian, his letter which confesses two natures of Christ in the unity of person, then it would assuredly have excused Nestorius in so far as it touched itself, and would have made him a stranger to the charge of heresy. This too we showed in the previous book, as we had promised.
Hence let those who have said that this letter is Nestorian beware, lest they themselves rather seem to be excusing Nestorius, when they affirm that according to his teaching they confess that of two natures there is one person, which is the one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. For this letter cannot rightly be said to have defended Nestorius, since its confession is seen to be contrary to the Nestorian dogma; and the holy Synod, seeing this, judged it not undeservedly to be orthodox.
But to me it seems less apparent how shameless are those who falsely allege that in the letter of the venerable Ibas Nestorius was excused, if they are refuted in their lie merely by the testimony of the bishops Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius, or even by the Synod of Chalcedon, unless they be confounded also by the example of the very accusers of Ibas, by whom we show them to be more slanderous and shameless. For those accusers brought forward that same letter only for this end, as the acts in which it is contained demonstrate, namely to prove from it that Ibas had disparaged the blessed Cyril, not that he had wished to excuse Nestorius;
and although they wished this same Ibas to appear a Nestorian, they sought to prove it rather from his disparagement of the blessed Cyril than from any excusing or praise of Nestorius, as is now further pretended. For they said of him that he is a Nestorian and that he calls the blessed bishop Cyril a heretic. And what need was there of this roundabout course—that one who had disparaged the blessed Cyril, the condemner of Nestorius, should thereby be shown to be a Nestorian—when this could have been shown more compendiously from the very excusing of Nestorius or the praise of his dogmas, if that letter had excused him in the manner these men say? But if not even by the slanderers themselves is any such thing found objected from that same letter,
how far do these men appear to have surpassed the malice and shamelessness of those others, in that what those men ventured to object neither in the complaints lodged before the emperors, nor in the episcopal trials more than once held before the Council of Chalcedon, nor in that great and universal Council itself, these men now charge after the sentence of that same Council! For those men, obstinate as they were and blinded by their very obstinacy, yet saw that it would be both shameful for themselves and incredible to others if they were to say that in that letter Nestorius had been defended; whereas our wise men have thought this not only sayable for themselves but even credible to us. But let them see whether it becomes those men so to lie; for us, at any rate, let them acknowledge that what they lie about is incredible.
You perceive therefore, most clement emperor, that the letter of the venerable Ibas is cleared of the false charge of having excused Nestorius even by the testimony of his own accusers, and needs no assertion from anyone in a matter in which his very accusers sufficiently excuse it. But what shall we say of the calumnies of our own times—that what then shamed the most shameless accusers, now shames not the judges, and what manner of judges? Not of human, but, as they reckon, of divine authority. For they are judges of judges and judges of the dead. And from these things at least which were done concerning the venerable Ibas, we have proved abundantly and more than enough that it is by malevolent interpretation that the claim is bandied about, that Nestorius was excused in his letter.
And if anyone consider also this, that the same venerable Ibas could not go against the judgment of the holy John of Antioch—to whom so great an authority is ascribed—and of the other Easterns and of others who assembled with them at Ephesus from divers provinces, who, though Nestorius had been condemned without the judgment to which they had been assigned, nevertheless did not judge him to be absolved, he far more manifestly recognizes that Ibas in no way excused him.
And I think his accusers too had considered this, so that, although with long premeditation they were contriving so many unheard-of calumnies against the said most reverend Ibas, they nevertheless judged it most shameless to say, against the conscience of all, that Ibas had at any time before many persons excused Nestorius. For when, after the condemnation of Nestorius himself, the Eastern bishops and the most reverend Ibas himself came with the holy John of Antioch to Ephesus, they complained only of the chapters of the blessed Cyril, that they had there been approved, as their writings declare; but they made no complaint about the condemnation of Nestorius—which the venerable Ibas himself also thus related in this letter:
«But two days after his deposition we came to Ephesus; and when we learned that, in the condemnation of Nestorius which was carried out by them, they had set down the twelve chapters which were composed by Cyril—being contrary to the true faith—and had confirmed them and consented to them as though they accorded with the true faith, all the Eastern bishops condemned that same Cyril, and decreed excommunication against the other bishops who consented to his chapters.» It was therefore only on account of the chapters of the blessed Cyril, whose intent they did not understand, and not on account of the condemnation of Nestorius, that the most reverend Ibas said the Eastern bishops were offended.
How then could he himself excuse Nestorius—who was writing harmful books—against the judgment of the blessed John of Antioch, who held the primacy therein, and of the whole Eastern Council, and his own judgment? Or how could his accusers hope that anyone would believe them, if they should hereby charge him against public knowledge? And therefore, whether that letter be said to be Ibas's, or be alleged by his accusers to be forged, it is not to be supposed that they would forbear to accuse him on this ground, if they saw this to be credible. Yet it is still more absurd to imagine that the accusers, while forging that letter under the name of the venerable Ibas, that he might appear a Nestorian,
yet would attempt to object nothing to him, either in the great episcopal trials before the Council of Chalcedon or in the Council itself, concerning a defense of Nestorius. For if those words by which it is said, «They deposed Nestorius from the episcopate with no judgment or inquiry made,» and again, «But Nestorius, because he was hateful to his own city and to its more eminent men, could not return thither,» signify that Nestorius was excused, why should they be believed to have forged these against the bishop, when they did not accuse him on account of any excusing of Nestorius? Whence it is sufficiently intimated both that that letter is Ibas's, and that he is falsely said to have excused Nestorius.
But not only after the condemnation, but even before he was condemned, the same Nestorius is found to have been faulted by the Eastern bishops through the aforesaid holy John of Antioch. For writing to him, because he idly refused to name the blessed Mary the Mother of God, he speaks thus: «I for my part exhort your Holiness to correct the word, not as accusing you, nor, so to speak, as to a childish contentiousness. But because it has been said by you, both often and to many, as we have learned, that, not blushing at this pious confession, you refuse the name alone; whereas, if any of the great men in the Church should also require this of you, you would never refuse to call the holy Virgin Mother of God also.
Accordingly, I exhort you to your own [judgment], wherein I have known that you do not err: the name and word for that thing has long been established, written, and spoken by many Fathers. It is not therefore right to deny a Word whose reality you are proven to hold in mind in your understanding. This name, then, none of the ecclesiastical teachers refuses. For those who have used it are both many and distinguished; while those who have not used it did not blame those who do. And in vain, as it appears, do we—as if for the sake of a twofold examination—fall into the depraved opinions of heretics, and despise the consciences of the brethren, smitten without any profit accruing;
refusing a name whose meaning we receive well and most excellently, we err greatly—nay rather we are in peril concerning the unspeakable dispensation of the only-begotten Son of God. For there follows, from the removal of this name or of its signification, both that he is not God who took upon himself the unspeakable dispensation of the body for us, and that God the Word did not empty himself and take the form of a servant, showing toward us the inestimable greatness of his mercy, as was done by this divine dispensation.» Since therefore Nestorius is shown to have been rebuked by the Easterns even before his condemnation, and after the condemnation,
although by men indignant and grievously bewailing their own injury, yet he was not absolved, but, while the venerable Cyril and Memnon bishop of Ephesus were condemned on suspicion alone, they left Nestorius in the condemnation which he had deserved—how would even the most pertinacious accusers of the venerable Ibas not blush, with the memory of so many things resisting them, to say that he made Nestorius excused in his letter? They saw therefore that, in view of the great things we have recounted, it would be credible to no one that it was said in excuse of Nestorius, «They deposed Nestorius from the episcopate with no judgment or inquiry made;»
but that it was rather on account of the chapters of the blessed Cyril, which he afterward interpreted, as though Nestorius had been condemned with judgment and inquiry not made; or because Ibas, as we have already said above, disdained to call it judgment and inquiry where the Eastern bishops and those of the other provinces were not present, who had together been appointed inquirers and judges. They saw also that not even that which we have likewise refuted in many ways could be understood as said in his excuse, in which he says, «But Nestorius, because he was hateful to his own city and to the more eminent men in it, could not return thither.» And so, shameless though they were, they reckoned it base for themselves to calumniate on this ground;
and they thought it easier to be believed by the judges—what it is of great horror to relate—that the bishop Ibas said, «I do not envy Christ who became God; for in so far as he was made, so also was I made»—than that he should be said, against the conscience of so many, to have defended Nestorius in that letter.