if what the bishops of other provinces also saw must be done—as those of Illyricum and Dalmatia—displeases him: let at least that please him which Vigilius himself, or which Sorcius himself, perceived, namely that in causes of this kind the communion of such prevaricators is to be avoided. For this reason, the blessed Stephen too, prelate of the Apostolic See, when he learned that the holy Cyprian and other African bishops had decreed concerning the rebaptizing of all heretics—although, as has been said, with no anathema interposed, nor against any of the more ancient decrees of a general council, nor conniving at heretics had they pronounced such a sentence—nevertheless immediately denounced to him that, if any should dare this, they would be expelled from the Church:
and the Church holds the opinion of Stephen rather than of Cyprian, not only concerning not rebaptizing heretics, but also concerning not tolerating those who rebaptize. But the most prudent man Augustine, in order to refute the Donatists of their schism—who, by the authority of the blessed Cyprian, attempt to defend the sacrilege whereby they repeat baptism—believed that his example sufficed: because, although he held a view of baptism otherwise than very many bishops of other provinces, he nevertheless did not, as the Donatists themselves did, separate himself from the Church. But he would have separated himself, if he had defined an anathema between himself and those who dissented. This example of the blessed Cyprian, then, in no way aids this man's assertion, as you see; but how it rather aids us, you ought to see.
We say, therefore, that just as, although we condemn the rebaptizing Donatists as separated from the Church, we nevertheless do not condemn Cyprian and his associates, who by the interposition of no anathema divided themselves from the Church when they defined concerning baptism what now seems to have given occasion to the error of the Donatists—so, although we condemn the Nestorians as separated from the Church, we nevertheless do not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia, who by the interposition of no anathema divided himself from the Church, or, if he wrote anything which now perhaps seems to have given occasion to the error of the Nestorians.
And just as it suffices us to reject the opinions concerning baptism of Cyprian and his associates, without condemning them under an anathema, so, if perchance Theodore, understanding too little, wrote anything amiss, it suffices us to reject it, without condemning it under an anathema: because the Church has always shown this reverence, in the reward of her peace and in honor to the departed, that not only those who perchance in such questions had erred through the ignorance of human infirmity, but not even their very sayings, as those of heretics, should she condemn under an anathema. For it is not the ignorance of human infirmity, but obstinacy, that makes a heretic. Whence the blessed Augustine in his book On Catechizing the Uninstructed:
「Although,」 he says, 「even those who departed catholic from this life, and left behind to posterity some Christian writings, in certain passages of their little works—either not being understood, or, as is human infirmity, being less able by the edge of their mind to penetrate the more hidden things, and by verisimilitude straying from the truth—have been an occasion to presumptuous and bold men for contriving and begetting some heresy.」 Augustine, then, being catholic, says that those departed catholic from this life who, established in the Church, were through human infirmity less able by the edge of their mind to penetrate the more hidden things, and by verisimilitude strayed from the truth:
nor does he wish them to be called heretics, although they were an occasion to presumptuous and bold men for contriving and begetting some heresy. And therefore the blessed Cyprian and his colleagues, who through human infirmity erred in the question of baptism, or Theodore of Mopsuestia—if it should be shown that he perhaps strayed in something from the truth, and departed this life while remaining in that very error—we do not call heretics, whom we do not deny to have remained in the Catholic Church unto the end. In vain, therefore, did this man gather up for himself I know not what examples not pertaining to the cause, by which he strove to prove that the oft-mentioned Theodore of Mopsuestia had been justly and regularly condemned.
For not so: if any bishop is to be condemned who, dying, made a heretic his heir in his estate by testament, it was not that, to do this, he was unable by the edge of his mind to penetrate the more hidden things, or that by verisimilitude he strayed from the truth; but he committed a manifest crime, not through the ignorance of infirmity, but through the depravity of will. Hence it is that to Philip, saying: 『Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us』 (John 14:8), it was passed over with impunity that for so long a time he had not known Christ. But upon Ananias and Sapphira, withholding part of the price of their estate, the punishment of death immediately followed the offense committed a little before. Otherwise, then, is the simple ignorance of piety judged by the Lord, and otherwise the double conscience of depravity.
And the Apostolic See indeed, through the blessed Gelasius, judges it a wickedness to condemn after death anyone who has died in the peace of the Church, when he says: 「What is above the measure of our power, let us leave to the divine judgment. They will not, however, be able to impute to us the offense of prevarication, if to the living we remit that which, by God's bounty, is possible to the Church—those who demand that we give either pardon or condemnation even to the dead, which it is manifest is not possible for us: because, since it has been said, 『Whatsoever ye shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven』 (Matthew 18:18), those who are clearly no longer upon earth He has reserved not to human, but to His own judgment.
Nor does the Church dare to claim for herself what she perceives was not granted even to the blessed Apostles themselves. For if it is lawful to bind the dead, it is lawful also to loose them; and if it is lawful to inflict condemnation on the dead, it is lawful also to grant pardon.」 But if perchance it seems to anyone to hold that opinion by which some who have died in the peace of the Church are believed to be condemnable—and not rather this opinion of the Apostolic See, which alone understands these things to be reserved to the divine judgment—and if he should concede that, since it is lawful to bind the dead, it is lawful also to loose them, and if it is lawful to inflict condemnation on the dead, it is lawful also to grant pardon: it does not follow that on that account Theodore of Mopsuestia should seem to him also to be condemnable.
For that opinion does not impugn those who, like the blessed Cyprian and his associates, through human infirmity were less able by the edge of their mind to penetrate the more hidden things, and by verisimilitude strayed from the truth; but rather those who are proved to have sinned knowingly and willingly. Moreover, it is also known that judgment was rendered concerning this cause of Theodore at that time when the Apollinarists, the progenitors of the Acephali, with certain of his chapters sought to have him repudiated, and were repelled by John of Antioch and the Eastern council, as also by Cyril of Alexandria and Proclus of Constantinople. But now, in prejudice of the great synod of Chalcedon, his question is revived—a question finished a hundred and twenty years ago and already consigned to oblivion.