Constitutum Pro Damnatione Trium Capitolorum [Definitio Fidei Sancti Chalcedoniensis Concilii]

THE CONSTITUTUM OF POPE VIGILIUS FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF THE THREE CHAPTERS, ISSUED IN THE YEAR OF CHRIST 554.

THE DEFINITION OF FAITH OF THE HOLY COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON.

Aetius the archdeacon of Constantinople, New Rome, said: The holy and great and universal synod which, according to the grace of God and the sanction of our most pious and most Christian emperors Valentinian and Marcian Augusti, was assembled at Chalcedon, the metropolis of the province of Bithynia, in the martyrium of the holy and venerable martyr Euphemia, defined the matters appended below.

Our Lord and Savior Christ, confirming the knowledge of faith, said to his disciples: My peace I give to you, my peace I leave to you; that no one may disagree with his neighbor in the doctrine of piety, but may equally show forth the preaching of the truth. But since the most wicked one does not rest, rising up by his tares to scatter them among the sowings of piety, and always inventing something new against the truth, for this reason our Lord, in his accustomed providence for the human race, stirred up this pious and most faithful prince to zeal for the faith, and summoned to himself from everywhere the leaders of the priesthood, so that by the grace of our Lord, with Christ working, he might remove every pestilence of falsehood from the sheep of Christ, and make them fat with the shoots of truth.

This indeed we have also done, by a common decree driving out the doctrines of error, renewing the whole faith of the Fathers, proclaiming in all things the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen, and reckoning as members of the household, who have received the composition of this piety, the Fathers who afterwards assembled at great Constantinople, the hundred and fifty, who themselves also subscribed to the same faith. We define, therefore, preserving the order and all the forms of the faith, that which was once done at Ephesus by the holy synod, whose presidents were, of holy memory, Celestine, bishop of the city of Rome, and Cyril of the Church of Alexandria: namely, that the exposition of the right and immaculate faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy and most blessed Fathers, gathered at Nicaea under the prince Constantine of pious record, shines forth; and that the definitions of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers at Constantinople also hold, for the destruction indeed of the heresies then arisen, but for the confirmation of this same catholic faith of ours.

The symbol at Nicaea of the three hundred and eighteen.

We believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who was born of the Father before all ages, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, who for us men and for our salvation descended, and was incarnate and made man and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended into the heavens, about to come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. But those who say: There was a time when he was not, and before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made out of nothing, or out of another subsistence or substance, saying that the Son of God is either convertible or mutable, these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

Likewise of the one hundred fifty holy Fathers who were gathered at Constantinople.

We believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, true God from true God, born, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, who for us men and for our salvation descended, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and was buried, and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, again to come with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there will be no end, and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, to be adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son, who spoke through the holy prophets, and in one catholic and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism and the remission of sins. We hope for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Indeed, this wise and salutary symbol of the divine grace would have sufficed for the full knowledge of piety and for confirmation. For it teaches the perfection of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and faithfully sets forth the Lord's becoming man to those who receive it. But since those who attempt to reject the preaching of the truth have, through their own heresies, brought forth new expressions—some presuming to corrupt the mystery of the Lord's dispensation on our behalf and refusing to say of the Virgin Mary that she is the Mother of God, while others introduce confusion and mixture, and foolishly contrive that the flesh and the Godhead are one nature, and monstrously say through confusion that the divine nature of the Only-begotten is passible—for this reason, wishing now to close off every device against the faith, this present holy and great and universal synod, teaching this preaching to be unshaken from the beginning, has defined principally that the faith of the three hundred eighteen holy Fathers remain inviolable. And on account of those who in later time fought against the Holy Spirit, it confirms the doctrine handed down by the Fathers gathered at Constantinople, the one hundred fifty, concerning the substance of the Spirit, which they made known to all—not as though introducing something lacking in the preceding, but declaring by the testimonies of the Scriptures their understanding concerning the Holy Spirit against those who attempted to reject His dominion.

But against those who strive to corrupt the mystery of the dispensation, and who shamelessly rave that he who was born of the holy Virgin Mary is a mere man, it received the synodal letters of blessed Cyril, bishop of the church of Alexandria, to Nestorius and to others throughout the East, which are suitable for refuting the madness of Nestorius. And for the interpretation of those who with pious zeal desire to know the saving symbol, it also fitted the great letter of the most blessed and most holy archbishop of the elder city, Leo, which was written to the archbishop Flavian of holy memory for the destruction of the evil understanding of Eutyches, as being both in agreement with the confession of that great Peter and existing for us as a kind of common pillar against depraved doctrines, for the confirmation of right doctrines, indeed for their understanding. For it opposes those who strive to tear apart the mystery of the divine dispensation into two sons; and those who have dared to say that the deity of the Only-Begotten is passible, it expels from the sacred assembly. And it resists those who seek a tempering or confusion in the two natures of Christ. And those who say that the form of a servant which he assumed from us is of a heavenly or of some other substance, it drives away as madmen. And those who indeed fabricate two natures of the Lord before the union, but contrive one after the union, it condemns.

Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all teach with one accord that one and the same Son and Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed: the same perfect in divinity, the same perfect in humanity, truly God and truly man, the same composed of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, consubstantial with us according to humanity, like us in all things without sin, begotten of the Father before the ages according to divinity, but in these last days the same for us and for our salvation born of Mary the Virgin, the Mother of God, according to humanity, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being in no way removed because of the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring into one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, Only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old spoke of him and as Jesus Christ himself taught us, and as the creed of the Fathers handed down to us. Therefore, these things having been set forth by us with all care and diligence on every side, the holy and universal synod defined that it is lawful for no one to bring forward, or write, or compose, or hold, or teach any other faith.

But those who are found to compose another faith, or to set forth, or to teach, or to hand down another creed, whether to those wishing to be converted from paganism to the knowledge of the truth, or from the Jews, or from any heresy whatsoever—these, if they be bishops or clerics, are to be alienated, bishops from their episcopate and clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen, they are to be anathematized.

Leo, to his most beloved brother Flavian.

Having read the letters of your belovedness, which we marvel were so late, and having reviewed the order of the episcopal proceedings, at last we have learned what scandal had arisen among you against the integrity of the faith, and the things that were previously laughed at, hidden, have now been laid open to us; by which Eutyches, who seemed honorable by the name of presbyter, is shown to be very imprudent and exceedingly unskilled; so that it has already been said of him by the prophet: He refused to understand so as to do good; he meditated iniquity in his bed. But what is more iniquitous than to hold impious opinions and not to yield to the wiser and more learned teachers? But they fall into this folly who, when they are hindered by some obscurity from knowing the truth, have recourse not to the prophetic voices, not to the apostolic letters, nor to the evangelical authorities, but to themselves; and therefore they become masters of error, because they have not been disciples of the truth. And the rest which is contained in the same letter up to the end. Given on the Ides of June, in the consulship of Asterius and Protogenes.

I. Since we have set forth the exposition of the blessed Council of Chalcedon and the letter of the blessed Leo concerning the holy and orthodox faith, which is one and the same as that of the three preceding synods, namely Nicaea, Constantinople, and the first Ephesus, and, with God's help, your fraternity and the universal Church knows that we persist in it with all the devotion of a sincere mind, we have believed it very necessary, for the sake of preserving reverence for it in all things, that we should diligently discuss all matters concerning the questions of the three chapters set down above and define them with the cautious promulgation of a sentence. We judge it fitting, therefore, first, as we proposed, to declare by the clearest demonstration what is contained in the letter said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian. When, then, Ibas the bishop had been shamelessly assailed by Samuel, Mara, and his other clerics, and as though for a grave crime—the holy faith being attacked by him—the letter to Maris the Persian had been set against him by the same accusers, and he had also been absolved by the bishops Photius and Eustathius, to whom at that time the hearing had been delegated by the prince Theodosius of pious memory; and afterwards, for the same crimes from which he had been cleared, through those nefarious acts of the second Council of Ephesus, in his absence, by the responses of false witnesses asserting most strongly that the same letter to Maris was his, he had been condemned, coming to the holy Synod of Chalcedon he is read to have alleged these things for his own purgation.

Concerning the Council of Chalcedon, in the session held on the bishop Ibas, among other things it says thus (Session 9): The most reverend Ibas, bishop of the city of Edessa, entering, said: Having suffered injustice and false fabrications from Eutyches, though absent at forty stations' distance, and having been condemned, I have come here to entreat your clemency, and I approached the sacred and immortal summit, and your magnificence ordered that with this holy and universal synod the proceedings against me be examined. I beseech you therefore to recognize that I have borne a false accusation and calumny from certain clerics. Order therefore that the things judged by the most reverend bishops Photius and Eustathius be read out. For Uranius, bishop of the Hemerii, acting in all things for the favor of Eutyches, prepared certain clerics to accuse me, and to transmit the judgment to himself and to the aforesaid. And I have been found innocent of the blasphemies that were brought against me, and a judgment was given by the aforesaid most reverend bishops, indeed convicting the accusations made against me as calumny, but testifying that I am catholic. Order that all things done in my absence at Ephesus be annulled and that justice be preserved for me, who am in no way culpable, and that the episcopate together with the Church be restored to me. For all the clerics of Edessa also, through whom they wrote to the aforesaid bishops, testify that I am catholic, and that I am alien to the nefarious blasphemies that are brought against me; and the rest.

Likewise from the eleventh session of the same synod: The aforesaid most reverend man Ibas, entering, said: I beseech your magnificence and this holy universal synod. Eutyches brought false charges against me concerning a certain false faith, and did not permit me to enter the holy synod. And after other things: For this reason, as I have already explained, I approached the sacred and immortal summit, and he commanded your magnificence and the holy synod to hear the proceedings that were brought against me. And you have learned from the decree that I was found blameless in nothing.

II. It is clear, therefore, from the very beginning when Ibas, bishop of the city of Edessa, is shown to have entered the holy Council of Chalcedon, that the letter which is compiled as written by him to Maris the Persian—that he denied it was his—so much so that he most openly confesses in the acts of that abominable second Council of Ephesus that he suffered injustice and false fabrications at the hands of Eutyches. But it is established that in the same second hearing at Ephesus, against the aforesaid bishop in his absence, this was most especially demanded, that the accusers should strive by the responses of witnesses already produced to show that Bishop Ibas had confessed that the letter written to Maris the Persian was his. From which cause it appears that he was condemned by an unjust sentence, as he himself complains.

Because Bishop Ibas asserts that he was falsely accused by fabricated fictions and a false charge, and was assailed by calumny in the wicked second council of Ephesus, it is most evidently declared by the often-mentioned Bishop Ibas that the letter written to Maris the Persian was denied to be his. To this is added that the wicked acts of that council, together with the production of the responses of the witnesses brought forward by the adversaries of Bishop Ibas, by which they falsely endeavored to show that the letter was his, indicate nothing else than that in the judgment of the aforementioned Photius and Eustathius it could not be proved to be the same Bishop Ibas's. For if it had been proved there, they would have used the acts kept before Photius and Eustathius in the second synod of Ephesus rather than witnesses. For the necessity of producing witnesses is imposed not concerning manifest matters but concerning uncertain ones. Hence Bishop Ibas, acting most justly before the holy council of Chalcedon and refuting those same false witnesses, complains that, in his absence, at the second council of Ephesus he suffered an accusation brought by fabrications rather than by truth; inasmuch as he knew that in the judgment of the aforesaid bishops Photius and Eustathius he had been convicted by no objection on the part of those same accusers; and on the other hand, to demonstrate his innocence more fully, he requested that the judgment of the bishops Photius and Eustathius be read out, in whose judgment, when a libel had been offered by the accusers, it was thus (Act.

For our part, we indeed wished to live all the time of our life without strife. But since the things boldly done against our Church and the most holy faith of our Fathers by our venerable bishop Ibas, being very close to injustice, impelled us to descend to this accusation; and the rest. And when it had been decreed by the same judges through an interlocution that, descending from the general accusation, the accusers should designate one by one in writing the chapters which they said against Bishop Ibas, nothing else, as far as pertains to the causes of the faith—that is, that he seemed to impugn the faith of the Fathers, as the accusers had said—is known to be contained by the accusation they submitted in writing, except only this: that he calls the blessed Cyril a heretic, and by this is shown to be a Nestorian. For thus it says: Because he is a Nestorian, and calls the blessed Bishop Cyril a heretic; which the letter written to Marinus the Persian is certainly known to contain most of all in itself. And that the judges immediately testified in their interlocution that they had undertaken this on account of the grave weight of the charge of heresy, saying thus (Act. 10): When a chapter follows upon the rebuke, bearing the peril of the soul, we judge it superfluous to make an inquiry into the rest. Therefore the things which have been manifestly declared both by the canons and the laws, and are openly hateful to those who fear God, choose these first and insist upon them.

But this seems to us to be sound: first, indeed, that he who performs the priesthood ought to be of right faith, and thus to be free from all luxury, and the rest.

III. Who, then, would doubt that from this the judges said that the chapter pertains to the peril of the soul, and from this it is to be judged that he is not of right faith who called blessed Cyril a heretic, since nothing else was said in the accusation before this interlocution proposed concerning causes pertaining to the faith except that he is a Nestorian and called blessed Cyril a heretic. From this it is sufficiently clear that the letter written to Maris the Persian, which defined the doctrines of blessed Cyril, by which it is established that Nestorius, who did not consent to them, was condemned, to be contrary to right faith, called blessed Cyril a heretic, was in no way approved by the adversaries of Ibas the bishop because it was his, nor did the same Ibas confess that it was his because it was his. For if it could have been shown before the presiding judges that the letter was made by Ibas, never would his sentence have deserved to absolve Ibas, since with such great weight of the interlocution they greatly wished the cause of the faith to be inquired into first, which they judged to have been most serious in the case of blessed Cyril, who was said to have been named a heretic by Ibas. For also the subsequent text of the constitution is shown evidently to agree with what has been said in its places attached below.

For at the petition of the bishops Ibas, Photius, and Eustathius, the record of the judgment was read out in the aforementioned holy Council of Chalcedon, and after some other matters the aforesaid judges, while speaking of the order of the accusation brought against Bishop Ibas, are said to have stated in their sentence the following, which stands thus (Act. 9): Therefore, when they were giving certain chapters and asking that a careful inquiry be made into them, we, applying ourselves to the chapters and finding in them a certain insinuation against the most reverend Bishop Ibas, as though he did not believe rightly but taught other things besides the pious doctrine, were necessarily driven by this first to make an inquiry with great diligence. For we commanded the accusers to say what things were said by Bishop Ibas, as they themselves claimed, alien to the pious dogma. They stated certain of these very things. And since there were many difficulties which are inserted in the acts. And after a few words the same judges said thus: And placing piety before all things in our deliberations and inquiring, we prepared the most reverend Bishop Ibas, in that he himself, for the satisfaction of those things which had perhaps been lightly said concerning the faith, understood, to give in writing what he thinks or believes concerning our pious faith; which he also did. Moreover, out of abundance the aforesaid most reverend man promises both in the church of his own city and openly to anathematize Nestorius, the prince of malignant impiety, and those who believe as he does, and those who use either his books or codices.

But he confessed that he believed as the letters contain which had come between John of reverend and holy memory, bishop of the great city of Antioch, and Cyril, bishop of the great city of Alexandria, to which letters Paul of blessed memory, bishop of the city of Emesa, ministered, from which a universal consensus is produced. He consented also to all things which were recently done by the holy synod which convened in the royal and Christian city of Constantinople, and to hold all things which were pleasing in the metropolitan council of Ephesus which was moved by the Holy Spirit, and to judge the things established at Nicaea as equal to this, and to consider no difference of the one from the other. And we greatly praised his holiness because he prudently took care to heal those who were harming his opinion of doctrine either by suspicion or in any other way, and the rest.

IV. Therefore, the statement having been carefully weighed which was brought forward by the venerable men Photius and Eustathius, in which it is said that, with the accusers giving the chapters—which certainly could not have been given, as is read above, except in writing—the charge inserted there against Bishop Ibas was found to have been made, namely that he did or taught other things contrary to pious doctrine, it is clear that the judges pronounced nothing other than that, with the matter, as they themselves record, subtly investigated, the accusation against Bishop Ibas had been brought forward calumniously through the fabrications of an inserted charge, not out of zeal for the truth.

And what is it that in the chapters presented in writing the accusers brought against Bishop Ibas of Edessa, except that he was a Nestorian, calling blessed Cyril a heretic, whom he affirms to have fallen into the heresy of Apollinaris and to have written a heretical letter, which is said to have been written to Maris the Persian? Hence it is clear that this same letter was not [written] by Bishop Ibas, since the judges testify that what that same letter contains was charged against him through the falsity of an insertion; and it is manifest that the passage established above agrees with the question concerning Bishop Ibas, through which it is complained in the holy and reverend Council of Chalcedon that Uranius the bishop, acting in favor of Eutyches, had prepared certain clerics who should press his accusation. From this it is sufficiently apparent that the judges Photius and Eustathius, by their sentence, tore apart that same insertion while keeping silent the name of the one who inserted it, which Bishop Ibas openly marked out in the holy Synod of Chalcedon by expressly naming the fabricator. It is therefore not doubtful that this which was charged against Ibas for the purpose of incriminating blessed Cyril and in favor of the heresy of schism, and that the letter contains it, is manifestly shown to have been contrived by the accusers through the cunning of insertion, both by the denial of the accused and by the definition of the judges.

There is also added to the same document of the constitution that, for the satisfaction of those things which had been said lightly by the accusers, Bishop Ibas was understood to have given in writing what he thinks or understands concerning the pious faith. From this it appears consequently that the accusers of Bishop Ibas are marked in all things with falsehood, who, having fallen through the rash heat of animosity, are shown to have accused Bishop Ibas lightly rather than truthfully, to such an extent that against those things which the tenor of the letter written to Maris the Persian asserted in disparagement of blessed Cyril and his twelve chapters, and which were objected by the same levity and falsehood of the accusers, Ibas could not be convicted of having said; and moreover the same Ibas showed in writing what he understood concerning the pious faith, as if he did not judge it sufficient for his purity that he could not be convicted of having said anything against the right faith, unless he also published by his own sentence how he had always retained that faith in his mind. This would not have been necessary either for the judges or for Bishop Ibas himself, if the above-mentioned letter could have been shown both to be his and to have been dictated with an orthodox meaning. Wherefore it must be carefully attended to what is said: that for the satisfaction of those things which had been said lightly, Bishop Ibas was inclined to show in writing what he understood concerning the pious faith.

For it is evidently clear that the text of the letter to Maris is found to be contrary to pious doctrine, so that although the charges against Bishop Ibas are established by the levity of the accusers rather than by the truth of the matter, nevertheless, lest even that which had been falsely said of him should derogate from his catholic faith, he readily hastened to show, against that man's impiety, what he held concerning the pious faith. For it would not have been necessary for him to set forth in writing what he held concerning the sincerity of the orthodox faith, unless in that letter which had been charged against him he were giving proof of the stain of perfidy which he shunned. It is established, therefore, both that the letter which is confirmed by the levity of the accusers is not his, and that it is adverse to the right faith of Me; against whose objection the right faith is set forth from writing. Again, consequently and more evidently, for the purgation of Bishop Ibas, it is asserted in the same document that it was judged—or rather, by what was judged—that Bishop Ibas, out of abundance, promised that he was entreated clearly to anathematize Nestorius, the prince of malignant impiety, and those who hold as he did, or who use his books or codices; and that he held all things which had been pleasing in the Council of Ephesus, which was moved by the Holy Spirit, and that he differed in nothing from the Council of Nicaea.

Furthermore, the letter which is read as written to Maris the Persian is shown not only not to contain the things done in the first council of Ephesus, but even to have rejected and condemned them with a grave execration: inasmuch as it records that Nestorius was condemned neither by judgment nor by inquiry, and defines with sacrilegious obstinacy of error that blessed Cyril fell into the heresy of Apollinaris and wrote things similar to it, and had called the twelve chapters of blessed Cyril full of all impiety and contrary to the right faith. Whence it is most evidently declared that, from the profession of Bishop Ibas, by which, as the judges attest, he professes to keep and receive in abundance all the things done in the first council of Ephesus, it follows that the letter was denied to be his. For if it had been established that the letter was his, in which, as has been said, the first synod of Ephesus is attacked, the judges would not say that Bishop Ibas had promised in abundance, among other things, to hold all the things that pleased the first council of Ephesus, but rather, to declare his correction, they would say that the aforesaid bishop was necessarily compelled to receive those things which had indeed been disapproved by him through the letter. For Ibas would not be said to have professed as bishop in abundance, if, compelled by the very necessity of the matter, he confessed it so as to appear orthodox. And to this clear reasoning the words of the same judgment contained below correspondingly contribute, in which it is said (Act.

For we have praised his holiness because he was wisely minded to take care of those who by suspicion or in any way were damaging his reputation by their teaching, and so on. From these words it is most clearly evident that, over and above this, Bishop Ibas had also professed that by which not only the truth, which had not been proved concerning him, but even suspicion, if it could have attached, would be cleared away. But since the letter written to Maris the Persian is read to contain not things that create some suspicion, but the most open and manifest crimes of the first council of Ephesus and of the twelve chapters of blessed Cyril, it has come into doubt for no one that the letter of Bishop Ibas had been by no means proved, since he was shown to be free even from suspicions, over and above. And how can he be accused of a reprehensible deed as regards the truth, who wished to be shown free even from suspicion?

VI. These things therefore being so, as justice likewise persuades, consistently and by one and the same impulse, there follows also the interlocution delivered by the legates of the apostolic see, by which, from the own decree of the venerable bishops Photius and Eustathius, concerning both the things which the accusers submitted in writing and the things which they spoke among the proceedings, that is, it confessed that Bishop Ibas is found blameless and free from every accusation, and it only requests this, that whether Photius and Eustathius, venerable men, acknowledged their own sentence, they should signify by their own declaration. For thus it stands (Act.

Paschasinus and the remaining bishops said through the presbyter of the apostolic see: The most holy bishops who by their own decree declared the most reverend Ibas both blameless and free from every accusation—if they acknowledge their own sentence, let them say so. The most reverend Photius, bishop of Tyre, said: The decree is ours as well. The most reverend Eustathius, bishop of Berytus, said: The subscription is mine; and the rest. From this inquiry, since the judges had only warned them about acknowledging the sentence, doubting nothing about the quality of the sentence—indeed even approving it because through it Bishop Ibas was found free from every accusation—it is clearly and openly shown that the undoubted consent of the legates of the apostolic see also acceded to the decree of the venerable bishops Photius and Eustathius, because, as has been said, Bishop Ibas had stood free from every accusation. Therefore, when what Bishop Ibas produced on his own behalf had been read out and judged by the bishops Photius and Eustathius, and, as has been said above, acknowledged by the same judges by a repeated profession, when on the following day the examination concerning the person of the same Bishop Ibas had been brought forward, Bishop Ibas again entered and is read to have complained as follows (Act 10): I beseech your magnificence and this holy universal synod.

Eutyches devised certain falsehoods against me concerning the faith, and did not permit me to enter the holy synod; he sent me through forty lodgings in turn through various ranks; I changed twenty and more prisons, as if there were no prison in Antioch, while those in the order of the comitiani said to me, "You have been condemned." If, therefore, it seems good to your magnificence and to your holy synod to annul the proceedings that were carried out against me without judgment in my absence, it will be in your power. For this reason, as I have already taught, I approached the sacred and immortal summit, and it commanded your magnificence and the holy synod to hear the proceedings carried out against me, and you have learned from the decree that I was found blameless in nothing.

VII. With these matters therefore brought into complaint, it is clear that Bishop Ibas binds himself with the most open lamentations—[perhaps, alleges]—because in the upper secretariat he complained that those things which were carried out against him concerning the faith in those accursed acts of the second synod of Ephesus were fabricated by Eutyches; where, as has already been said above, through the responses of witnesses introduced against an absent man, they especially attempted to show that the letter to Maris the Persian was his. That this letter was denied by Bishop Ibas in this place in a twofold manner, as was also asserted above, is evidently apparent. First, because it is proven that the production of witnesses by his accusers would not have been necessary except against one who denies.

For no one needs the testimony of witnesses against him whom he has seen confess that what he is accused of was done by him. And Bishop Ibas showed this denial of his more clearly out of fear of the accuser, saying: "Nor did he permit me to enter the synod" (Ibid.). For he testifies that he had prepared false witnesses against himself, so that when he complains that his absence was brought about by the zeal of his adversary, he confirms that he could not have been convicted if present. Then, because the present Bishop Ibas in the holy and venerable Council of Chalcedon complains that the things testified against him in the second Council of Ephesus by witnesses and otherwise done were fabricated, he undoubtedly acknowledges that the letter which had been falsely claimed to be another's by the testimony of witnesses there was his own. Hence it also follows fittingly that the holy judges residing there at Chalcedon, by the decree of Photius and Eustathius, found him culpable in nothing, most openly declaring that the things concerning the faith brought against him by the accusers—both in the libel submitted before the bishops Photius and Eustathius, in which they said that he spoke many things against the same Fathers, and in the chapters given in writing, in which they said (Ibid.), "He is a Nestorian, and he calls the blessed Cyril a heretic," and also in these things they say that he publicly addressed him: "I do not envy Christ made God: for insofar as he was made, I also am.

That accusation, namely, of those men, and the points in which they said he was a Nestorian and had called the blessed Cyril a heretic, was falsely brought against him by his accusers, and so too it was established that the words of the venerable bishops Photius and Eustathius were lightly and falsely spoken, to such an extent that by the same decree he was declared free from every accusation and found culpable in nothing. Since this is so, it is clearly shown that the letter written to Maris the Persian, which says that the twelve chapters of the blessed Cyril are full of all impiety and contrary to the right faith, and that Nestorius was condemned without judgment or inquiry, was in no way approved as being by Ibas; inasmuch as he himself most openly confesses that the things his accusers said against him concerning the faith they had spoken falsely; whereas if he had either admitted that the letter was his own, or had been convicted by some proof from his accusers, he would certainly not have been most fully absolved by the judgment of the bishops Photius and Eustathius, in whose examination these matters were agitated. That Bishop Ibas was lightly and falsely, and through a kind of instigation by his accusers, driven by necessity both to anathematize Nestorius and to testify by voluntary profession that he held all the things that pleased the first Council of Ephesus, as those things which were enacted at Nicaea—this excuse, certainly, is shown to have been rejected by Nestorius from the letter which is said to have been written to Maris the Persian.

For this reason it has come into doubt for no one that those things which we assert are falsely said against us, we altogether deny were either said or done by us, and we affirm that we received them in abundance and confirm that we held them before.

VIII. To this, also, for the increase [argument] of undeniably showing that denial, the order of the following proceedings is conveniently connected. For when certain persons had already taken care to oppose a voice of contradiction to the absolution of Bishop Ibas in the holy synod of Chalcedon, and the judges had ordered his accusers to enter, Theophilus the deacon entered with others, and when he was asked whether he had come to accuse Bishop Ibas, he answered thus (Act. 10): The accusers are manifest, and they are not here. I am a deacon, and I know the violence of the city. And if I accuse, the witnesses are not present, and he denies it. Which answer of the accuser makes manifest that Bishop Ibas so denied those things which were objected at the hands of Photius and Eustathius, the bishops, that in the synod of Chalcedon, when the same man knew that they were to be objected by him, he confirms that they were to be denied by Bishop Ibas.

Hence the contention of certain persons is greatly to be wondered at: they claim that the letter written to Mir Persa, which the accusers brought forward as a grave charge and which was again produced at the synod of Chalcedon from the acts held before the bishops Photius and Eustathius, to convict, as they thought, the bishop Ibas—they falsely assert that this same bishop Ibas admitted it to be his own; whereas, as was said above, his accusers, having experienced his earlier denials, testify most certainly that he would deny the things which they knew were to be charged against him from the aforesaid acts. For so fully did they know, in that judgment of the bishops Photius and Eustathius, that the bishop Ibas, sustained by the strength of his conscience, had denied the things which had been put forward by the accusers, that in the holy synod of Chalcedon also, with Photius and Eustathius themselves present, by whose judgment the matter had formerly been handled, they affirm that he would again deny it. For an accuser would never say that the bishop Ibas would deny it, with those same men again sitting in judgment, if he knew that he had already confessed before them in the earlier trial. After this, when the interlocution of the judges sitting at Chalcedon asked the accusers of the bishop Ibas whether they could produce written proofs concerning any matter, the deacon Theophilus said: I have the records which were made concerning these things at Berytus, and those at Ephesus, and the rest.

IX. It must be observed, therefore, that Ibas's adversaries said they had nothing else to bring forward against him in the Council of Chalcedon except the records of what had been done concerning him before the bishops Photius and Eustathius and afterwards at the second Council of Ephesus. From this it is clear that they did not judge these things sufficient for themselves; indeed, they rather reckoned that it would work against them if only the proceedings conducted against Ibas before the aforementioned bishops Photius and Eustathius were read, in which he was shown to be convicted neither by witnesses nor by his own confession, unless they had also demanded that those things be brought forward which were wickedly done at the second Council of Ephesus, in which they employed those falsehoods by which they said that Ibas had falsely confessed that the letter written to Maris the Persian was his own. It is certain, therefore, that Ibas's adversaries had no document of proof against him, as they thought, except this alone: that in that synod which ought not to be called a synod, Ibas by his absence established that it had been fabricated against him. The judges presiding at the holy Council of Chalcedon, moved by the truth of the matter, set this aside by the justice of their interlocution, asking the bishops Thalassius and Eusebius, who were then present at the second Council of Ephesus with others, whether the present Ibas had experienced a hearing before them. They said (Act 10): He was not present.

When this reply became known, the Eastern and Pontic bishops in the Council of Chalcedon cried out: "No one condemns Abaentem." Their interlocution, thus pronounced, clearly voids the proceedings against Bishop Ibas in the second Council of Ephesus, and consequently remits the whole matter to the acts of those men, that is, of Photius and Eustathius, by whose sentence they already knew that Bishop Ibas had been acquitted. This is shown more clearly in the following interlocution of the judges, who forbade the nefarious acts of the second Council of Ephesus against Bishop Ibas—regarded as an execration and a lie of its own—to be read again. For so that it may be more openly manifest that Bishop Ibas is understood to have undeniably denied all the charges that had been brought by his adversaries in the trial of the bishops Photius and Eustathius, and that were now to be brought against him in the holy Council of Chalcedon from the acts which Theophilus was producing, the questioning of the judges residing at Chalcedon, or the response of Bishop Photius, laid this open without any obstacle of ambiguity; which are as follows (Ibid.): The most magnificent and most glorious judges said: "Was Ibas, then, the most reverend, convicted by his accusers?" Photius the most reverend bishop said: "No," and so on. What can be said clearer than this proof, what more evident, than that what the accuser was about to propose, he confirmed that Bishop Ibas would deny?

Does Photius himself, the judge before whom the matter was formerly conducted, also testify to this, confessing that Bishop Ibas was not convicted, and that he undoubtedly denied the charges brought against him? And the order of the subsequent proceedings declares that this denial pertains especially to the letter written to Maris the Persian. For when, to the documentary evidence which they had submitted in writing in the trial of Photius and Eustathius—namely, that he was a Nestorian and had called the blessed Cyril a heretic—they had produced those blasphemies which they thought they would prove by witnesses, that is, "I do not envy Christ made God" (Act. 10), and when, their witnesses having been rejected, they could show nothing of these things, returning to those matters which they had formerly submitted in writing, they raised the objection contained in the letter written to Maris the Persian, namely, that he had called Cyril of blessed memory and his twelve chapters heretical. The fathers Photius and Eustathius, the judges, applying themselves more diligently to this, as they themselves have professed above, now questioning the same Bishop Ibas, now demanding proofs from the accusers, earnestly and most sagaciously inquired whether anything had been said by the often-mentioned Bishop Ibas in disparagement of the blessed Cyril after the unity of the Churches was made.

In response to these things Bishop Ibas, by all his objections, attacked the letter that is read as written to Maris the Persian, asserting that after the unity and peace made between blessed Cyril and the Easterners, he had in no way disparaged blessed Cyril.

X. Furthermore, the oft-mentioned letter written to Maris the Persian confirms that already after unity and peace had been restored to the Churches, blessed Cyril had fallen into the heresy of Apollinaris and had written things similar to it, and he asserts that his twelve chapters are contrary to the right faith, and that Nestorius was condemned without a judgment and without an investigation having been held. But the writer of the letter says that this did not come about through the error of his own understanding or of anyone else's, so that blessed Cyril would be thought to have written heretical dogmas; but rather, the same fabricator of the letter, persisting in that depravity, so appeared to assert that the orthodox dogmas of blessed Cyril were heretical, that he claims blessed Cyril rather withdrew from them, as if renouncing what he had wrongly written. Whoever reads with a pious and upright heart understands that all these things are contrary to the profession of Bishop Ibas, which he defends against the objection of his adversaries. For the judges themselves, when they were examining Bishop Ibas as to whether anything had been said by him even with slight disparagement after the unity, if they had approved that so openly blasphemous letter to be his, would not have allowed it to pass without punishment, nor would they have said that he was not convicted.

But what greater injury to the blessed Cyril can be sought or inflicted than to declare heretical his doctrines, which he set forth at the first Council of Ephesus, by whose orthodox proclamation he is, both living and dead, venerable and reverend to all? And since it is established that the letter written to Maris the Persian—after blessed Cyril of memory and John, bishop of the city of Antioch, were united—attacks those doctrines of the blessed Cyril with profane utterance in every way, who of sound mind could fail to perceive that Ibas, in denying that he had said anything against the blessed Cyril after the union, did not deny the letter, which after that union declares his doctrines to be heretical? Unless perhaps someone so departs from the reasoning of human sense as to believe that Ibas said nothing contrary concerning the blessed Cyril, if he testifies that he wrote heretical things, and to think that the same Ibas preserved reverence toward his person, if he accused the holy teaching by which he is reverend to all. And therefore, if it is a singular injury to the blessed Cyril to have condemned his doctrine, and an open profession of heresy appears to derogate from the catholic proclamation, if the letter of Ibas were approved, in which both are manifestly contained, Bishop Ibas, by denying both, would never have deserved to be absolved from either.

To this is added the fact that it is shown more clearly than light that no time at all can be found—neither before the union nor after the union of blessed Cyril with the Orientals was made—at which that same letter is shown to have been written by Bishop Ibas. For the very tenor of the letter clearly shows that it was made after unity and peace had been restored to the Churches, in derogation of blessed Cyril and his doctrines; but Ibas testifies that after the union of blessed Cyril with the Orientals was made, he said nothing of the kind. It is established that the letter mentioned was not written by the same Ibas either before the union, because this is not read in the tenor of the same letter, nor after the union, because Ibas denies this by his own profession.

XI. And so that it may be altogether unambiguous to no one that Ibas the bishop persisted in the same denial with which he had begun, and that from the words of the present Ibas you may judge that he so understood it, and that the accusers wished it to be taken as a denial, and were unable to prove it, we must weigh the words of the judges' interlocution itself and of the prosecution of the accusers, which are read in the holy Synod of Chalcedon from the acts of Photius and Eustathius, which are as follows (Act 10): The most reverend bishops, that is, Photius and Eustathius, said: If the most reverend Bishop Ibas appears to have called him a heretic after the death of blessed Cyril, and to have held him as a heretic, show it.

Maras said: We approve. And without doubt the judges would not still be seeking to have it approved, nor would the accusers be promising that they would prove it, if Bishop Ibas had not denied this. Although those things which appeared above in the proceedings held before Photius and Eustathius, and in their judgment, in many ways from the interlocutions of the judges and the prosecutions of the accusers and the exceptions of Ibas himself, were abundantly sufficient to demonstrate the denial of Bishop Ibas, nevertheless even if something less were read as expressed in the judgment of the bishops Photius and Eustathius, the single profession of Bishop Ibas denying the letter, which is contained in the Synod of Chalcedon, would suffice. For when the letter written to Maris the Persian had been read from the proceedings held before Photius and Eustathius, Ibas immediately opposed the voice of one denying it, saying: Let your clemency order the letter of the clerics of Edessa to be read again, so that you may know that I am a stranger to those things which have been imputed to me and that I have suffered violence. Here first it must be carefully noted that after the text of the letter written to Maris the Persian had been read, the judges sitting at Chalcedon are shown to have passed over that same letter in silence, inasmuch as they knew it had already been refuted so many times by the denials of the accused.

For if they had seen that there was anything in it that would benefit the absolution of Bishop Ibas, immediately, moved by the reading of it, they would have decreed that the accusers were producing those things in vain from the acts of the bishops Photius and Eustathius on the charge of heresy, by which, on the contrary, Bishop Ibas was shown to be orthodox; and finally they would not have ordered by their interlocutions that the letter of the Edessenes be reviewed, which Bishop Ibas asked to be read again on his behalf against the letter said to have been written to Maris the Persian, if through it which the accuser had produced the merit of the accused was shown to be praiseworthy rather than more blameworthy. What of the fact that Bishop Ibas himself, when that same letter to Maris the Persian had been read again, did not undertake to defend its quality, nor to show the uprightness of his own faith from the profession of that same letter. For immediately, if it contained that the doctrines were his own or were not right, he would have risen up against his accusers, saying: With a blind heart they attack me, so as to object to me as a charge of heresy those things by which I can be proved orthodox. Nay, they showed themselves to be heretics, who accuse as heretical a letter whose composition establishes the catholic faith.

But Bishop Ibas, knowing that the letter was not his and was in every way hostile to pious doctrines, opposed to it rather that letter of the Edessenes, which testified that he had never said anything against the catholic faith, following that which the holy Council of Chalcedon, as entered above, cited, saying: For all the Edessene clerics also, through the aforementioned bishops, wrote and testify that I am catholic (Act. 9). To such an extent, then, both in the judgment of Photius and Eustathius and afterward in the holy Synod of Chalcedon, denying that the letter to Maris the Persian which was objected against him was his, he knew it to be contrary to the orthodox faith, so that he sought the document of his own faith not from the text of that letter, but from the attestation of the Edessene clerics.

XII.

If, therefore, the judges, not only esteeming nothing from it that would help the case of the accused Bishop Ibas, but indeed seeing that another letter, absolutely contrary to it, was sought for his own purgation, ordered by their interlocutions that it be read out, and the accused Bishop Ibas himself, not to defend that letter to Maris the Persian, but rather to refute it, requested that the letter of the Edessenes be read out, it is established that the letter written to Maris the Persian was denied by the interlocution of the judges and by the profession of Bishop Ibas to be his, and that it was approved as containing wicked doctrines. Therefore Bishop Ibas, stirred by the fervor of his innocent mind, hastening to add a more evident document of denial also at the Council of Chalcedon, requested that the letter of the Edessenes be read out from the acts held there before Photius and Eustathius, which his adversary had produced; the accuser had deliberately omitted this part of those acts, as is shown in what follows, since he knew that Ibas was more evidently helped by it. Then let us consider what the very words of Ibas clearly establish. For he continues, as we recalled above, thus (Act. 10): Let your clemency order the letter of the clerics of the Edessenes to be read out, so that you may know that I am both alien to the things that have been brought against me and have suffered violence.

By these words it is most openly declared that, because immediately after the reading of the letter to Marinus the Persian, Bishop Ibas asserted that he was alien to the charges brought against him and had suffered violence, and for this reason the letters of the clergy of Edessa ought to be reread—evidently, as though pointing with his hand to the very reading of the letter to Marinus the Persian, from whose crime he hastened to be purged, he said, "and I am alien to the charges brought against me," showing that he was demonstrated in all respects to be alien both from the other things which had been objected to him in the preceding passage and from the letter written to Marinus the Persian, which had immediately been reread. Here he also did not omit to add, after the reading of the letter, that very point which is read above—that Bishop Ibas, upon entering the holy Council of Chalcedon, most gravely complained that he had been assailed by false accusations at the second Council of Ephesus, was not permitted to enter the council, and had exchanged prisons more than twenty times—so that it may appear that what, as has been said, upon entering the holy Council of Chalcedon he complained of concerning the injustice inflicted on him at the second Council of Ephesus, pertains to the case of this letter; after the reading of which, asserting that he was alien to the charges brought against him, he added the violence which he had suffered from Eutyches.

Therefore, when there had been read, as Ibas requested, from the records of the judges Photius and Eustathius—to whom the letter of the clergy of Edessa had certainly been directed, and who asked that it be inserted into the records at Photius and Eustathius—which records were produced by the adversaries of Bishop Ibas at the Council of Chalcedon, and for which reason the reading of that same letter was requested, it is recognized from his own words, which are as follows (Act. 10): From many and diverse persons coming to us from Phoenicia we have learned what was done by those who rose up against our most holy and most reverend bishop Ibas, and we were terrified at what was said (For they surpass even those who are without God, and the unbelievers and heretics and Jews and pagans, in the things that were said to us, because in our presence the same most reverend bishop had said: I do not envy Christ made God, since I too, if I wish, can become according to him:) all of us, whom they say heard the things they say, make it manifest to your reverence before the mercy of God that neither from him nor from any other have we ever heard such a thing said, nor has any such thing ever entered our ears, anathematizing ourselves and making ourselves liable to terrible Gehenna, if we know that any such thing was said by him, or anything else contrary to the catholic faith.

For if we had suffered to communicate with him who said any such thing, or to hold masses with him, we would have been liable to the ultimate punishment, as communicating in such an error [Cotelerius reads "horror"], and the rest.

XIII. Since these things are so, it is evidently shown that all the things in which Bishop Ibas was argued to have said, by the accusers both in the written libelli offered and thereafter in the proceedings of those speaking, were not said by Bishop Ibas, and that the clergy of Edessa testified to this. For since they say that they did not know that Bishop Ibas said either such a saying—that is, "I do not envy Christ made God"—or anything similar to this, that is, anything that from whatever side appears to agree with the dogmas of Nestorius, or anything else contrary to the right faith, it is most plainly clear that by their testimony they also cleared Bishop Ibas of the things which the letter written to Maris the Persian contains. For since the oft-mentioned letter, by saying that the blessed Cyril fell into the heresy of Apollinaris and wrote things similar to him, and that his twelve chapters are full of all impiety and contrary to the right faith, and that Nestorius was condemned without judgment and inquiry, appears not only to say something against the right faith, but even by attacking the right faith itself to reject it, while the clergy of Edessa testify that Bishop Ibas their own said nothing contrary to the right faith, it is established from the testimony of the Edessene clergy that the oft-mentioned letter which is read as written to Maris the Persian was refuted.

What Theophilus the accuser pursued next must be attended to more diligently: he did not believe that this letter of the Edessenes was to be omitted, as if superfluous or as subverting the letter written to Maris the Persian, judging it to be of no profit, but he strove with great effort and the whole intention of his mind to assert that these letters of the Edessenes were falsified by the clerics—moved, namely, very greatly by this, that they testified that Ibas had said nothing contrary to the catholic faith. Seeing by that statement that the letter written to Maris the Persian, which speaks most openly against right faith, was immediately impugned, he wished to charge this letter of the Edessenes with falsity, through which he saw that all his objections had been refuted. To establish this matter, the subsequent order of the proceedings is of service. For when Theophilus, the adversary of Ibas, had requested—as already above, so also in this place—that there be sought from the proceedings held in the second Ephesine council what he was endeavoring to establish, from the whole council of bishops residing at Chalcedon, the proceedings held in the second Ephesine council were forbidden to be read. From which prohibition it is clear that the assertion of Ibas the bishop was confirmed, by which he maintained that he had been attacked by Eutyches through calumny and false fabrications; where, since false witnesses had been produced, it is clear that it was fabricated that Ibas the bishop said that the letter written to Maris the Persian was his.

But in these interlocutions of the Fathers which were brought forth by the second synod of Ephesus for the annulling of Eutyches, it is certain that nothing else was confirmed except the deposition of Domnus and the ordination of Maximus. But it is clear that Domnus was condemned for no other crime than that he had forbidden the twelve chapters of blessed Cyril to be preached. Hence it stands by manifest reason and evident truth that, if the holy Fathers residing at Chalcedon had in any way found that the letter to Maris the Persian, which declares the twelve chapters of blessed Cyril to be heretical, and that blessed Cyril himself wrote things similar to Apollinaris, belonged to Ibas the bishop, they would by no means have decreed that he was to be absolved from the graver charge of the same case, since they did not suffer the damnation of Domnus, bishop of Antioch, which was made on the sole ground that the preaching of the same twelve chapters was forbidden, to be overturned, and they confirmed the ordination of Maximus. For how would the same judges in one and the same matter have decreed by their interlocution that Ibas, condemned by the second synod of Ephesus, be absolved, and have allowed Domnus to remain condemned, unless they had approved that he whom they decreed to be absolved was not liable on the same charge?

For when at the holy synod of Chalcedon the detraction of blessed Cyril and of his twelve chapters was so execrable that on their account they allowed Domnus, condemned in the reprobate second synod of Ephesus, to remain condemned, how great was the innocence of Ibas the bishop that shone forth at the remembered holy synod of Chalcedon, so that it defined that he be absolved in the wicked examination of the same second synod of Ephesus, having been adjudged for the same crime. In which cause he would never have shone forth as innocent, if that wicked letter of the same Ibas the bishop to Maris the Persian could have been shown.

XIV. Therefore, all matters having been treated and set forth with clear reasoning, by which—both from the proceedings held before Pholius and Eustathius, bishops, and from their judgment, and in many other ways—it evidently appeared that Bishop Ibas denied in all respects that the letter written to Maris the Persian was his, and could never be convicted by its objection, it remains that we declare by a similar truth how the oft-said letter written to Maris the Persian appears to stand alien to the sense or definition or professions of the venerable Fathers residing at Chalcedon, and to oppose their sentences.

So that this may be made manifest to the senses of all, we must first consider what our Fathers, sitting in the synod of Chalcedon, professed in the preaching and reception of the letter of our predecessor of blessed memory, Pope Leo, or in the explanation of the holy faith, and what they handed down to be held by pious doctrine; so that, these things having been examined, it may be shown from them how greatly the letter written to Maris the Persian is dissonant and contrary to their definition and tradition, and for this reason it may appear that it was in no way approved by the judgments of our Fathers. In the fourth session of the synod of Chalcedon, when after the reading of the letter of Pope Leo of blessed memory our Fathers were speaking concerning the confirmation of the same letter, they said thus (Act. 4): Anatolius, the most reverent bishop of royal Constantinople, said: The letter of the most holy and apostolic archbishop Leo is consonant with the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers who were at Nicaea, and of the one hundred and fifty who afterwards were gathered at Constantinople, who confirmed the same faith, and also with those things which were done in the Ephesine [synod] under the most blessed and most holy Cyril by the universal and holy council, when it condemned the accursed Nestorius. Wherefore I consented, and I gladly subscribed to the same letter.

Paschasinus and Lucentius, most reverend bishops, and Bonifacius the presbyter, vicars of the apostolic see, spoke through Paschasinus: It is manifest and cannot be doubted that the one faith of the most blessed pope, ruler of the apostolic see, agrees with that of the three hundred eighteen Fathers at Nicaea, and that it errs in no way—but also with that of the one hundred fifty priests gathered at Constantinople, who confirmed the same faith, and also with the decree of Cyril, a man of holy memory, at Ephesus, when Nestorius was condemned for his error—it is in no respect whatsoever discordant; and therefore also the letter of the most blessed pope, which is recognized to have expounded that faith on account of the error of Eutyches, is seen to be joined to that faith in one sense and one spirit. Maximus, most reverend bishop of Antioch in Syria, said: The letter of the most holy archbishop Leo of royal Rome agrees with the expositions of the three hundred eighteen holy Fathers at Nicaea, and of the one hundred fifty at Constantinople, the new Rome, and with the faith expounded at Ephesus by the most holy bishop Cyril; and I have subscribed. And after the others had spoken similar things, thirty-two Illyrian bishops dictated from a chart into the notes through Sozon, bishop of Philippopolis, as follows (Act.

We keep the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, which is our salvation, and we pray to complete our life in it; and we follow and observe all things that are consonant with the aforementioned faith and with the one hundred and fifty, and all things that were done and decreed in the first synod of Ephesus, whose presidents were the most blessed Celestine, prince of the apostolic see, and the most blessed Cyril of the great city of Alexandria, and we have recognized that our holy Father the archbishop Leo is orthodox. And the remaining bishops likewise professed similar things.

XV. These things therefore being so, it came into doubt to no one that our Fathers reverently believed that the letter of the blessed Leo was to be received by them, if they asserted that it agreed with the doctrines set forth both by this synod of Constantinople and by the blessed Cyril in the first synod of Ephesus. And if that letter of so great a pontiff, shining forth with so great a light of orthodox faith, demands to be approved by these comparisons, how is that letter to Maris the Persian, which specifically rejected the first synod of Ephesus and defined the doctrines set forth by the blessed Cyril as heretical, believed by the same Fathers to be called orthodox, since it condemns those by whose comparison the doctrine of so great a pontiff, as has been said, merited praise?

For the acclamation of the universal synod of Chalcedon also most evidently proved that the understanding and doctrine of both, that is, of blessed Leo and blessed Cyril, was one, saying thus (Act. 2): Leo taught piously and truly. Cyril taught thus. Eternal memory to Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught alike. Anathema to him who does not so believe. Hence it comes about that that letter to Maris the Persian is shown not only not to have been received, but even to have been anathematized, since it calls the dogmas of Cyril set forth in the first council of Ephesus heretical; and whoever does not follow them is condemned by the sentence of the holy synod of Chalcedon to the penalty of anathema. To this is added also the judgment of the same venerable synod of Chalcedon, expressed in the exclamation of faith, which, in the place cited, reads thus (Act. 5): We define, therefore, preserving the order and all the forms of the faith, that the holy synod which was held at Ephesus, whose presidents were Celestine, bishop of the city of Rome, of holy memory, and Cyril of the church of Alexandria, did indeed set forth the exposition of the right and immaculate faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy and most blessed Fathers gathered at Nicaea under Constantine, prince of pious memory, to shine forth; and that the things defined by the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers at Constantinople also hold, for the interruption indeed of the heresies that had arisen, but for the confirmation of our same catholic faith. The symbol at Nicaea of the three hundred and eighteen. And after other things (Act.

5) But for those who strive to corrupt the mystery of the dispensation, and shamelessly rave that he who was born of the holy Virgin Mary is a mere man, it receives the synodal letters of blessed Cyril, bishop of the Church of Alexandria, written to Nestorius and to others throughout the East, which are fitting and sufficient to convict the madness of Nestorius; and the rest.

XVI. Behold, it is clear to the senses of all the faithful that our holy Fathers assembled at Chalcedon, when they had already given their judgment concerning the exposition of the catholic faith, professed that they were preserving the order and all the forms of the faith which were held in the first council of Ephesus, over which Celestine of blessed memory and blessed Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, presided, just as at Nicaea and Constantinople, testifying that their own faith is without doubt the same as theirs. From this it appears that whatever disagrees with the order or the forms held in the first council of Ephesus, and is shown to be contrary to them, also assails the judgments of the blessed Fathers of Chalcedon. Furthermore, the letter written to Maris the Persian, which calls blessed Cyril a heretic and his twelve chapters impious and contrary to the right faith, and declares Nestorius condemned without judgment or inquiry, is shown to be contrary to every order and to all the forms held in the first synod of Ephesus.

Hence (in order that the absurdity of their decrees may be very clearly demonstrated—namely, that that letter is considered to have been accepted which most openly attacks their own judgment concerning the faith—so that through this not only the preceding Fathers, but even themselves, which is a thing unlawful even to say, may be seen to be destroyed by some contradiction. For all such things as were said or were to be said in derogation of the first Council of Ephesus are shown, by the clearest light of truth, to have been condemned also in this exposition of the faith which the holy Fathers of the Synod of Chalcedon set forth, from the words that follow, which are as follows (Ibid.): Therefore, with all scrupulousness and diligence having been arranged by us on every side, the holy and universal synod defines that it is lawful for no one to bring forward, or write, or compose, or hold, or teach another faith. But those who have dared to compose another faith, or to bring forward, or teach, or hand down another creed to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, whether from paganism, or from the Jews, or from any heresy whatsoever—these, if they be bishops or clerics, are to be alien bishops from the episcopate, and clerics from the clergy; but if they be laymen or monks, let them be anathematized.

Since, therefore, our Fathers have said that they keep the order and all the forms of the faith of the first Council of Ephesus, and that it is permitted to no one to bring forward, write, or hold, or hand down another faith, or to teach otherwise, and that all who presume such things are condemned, but that the letter written to Maris the Persian, which attacks through and through the exposition of blessed Cyril in the first teaching of Ephesus, we do not doubt was composed not only otherwise but even contrarily: it is evident that the sentence of the same condemnation is comprehended in the synodal judgment, and therefore by those by whom the letter to Maris the Persian is read as most openly condemned beforehand, it is much more clear that it was not received.

XVII. Nor ought it to disturb any of the faithful that certain persons strive by stealth to assert in what way the things said in this letter to Maris can be shown to be, as it were, consistent with those things which they say well; since it is the custom of heretics to conceal their poisons with colored words and to premise words which appear to accord with orthodox professions, and to reserve from indulgence malignant approaches through which the pestilence of their error may be introduced, as the prophet testifies concerning them: They have softened their words above oil, and they themselves are darts (Ps. 54:22); and again: For in many things they were with me (Ps. 54:19). Concerning whom also the Apostle, the teacher of the Gentiles, says: Having indeed a form of godliness, but denying its power (2 Tim. 3:5).

For it does not profit Nestorius to confess two natures and one Son, although this profession is common also to the orthodox, since the same Nestorius, refusing to say that there is one subsistence of two natures, which is the property of the orthodox, clearly reveals that he fraudulently said “two natures and one Son.” Hence, because the aforesaid letter to Maris the Persian, through this so manifest evil which he asserted concerning blessed Cyril and the Fathers who first assembled at Ephesus, is not doubted—what its writer, in defending Nestorius, thought about receiving his depraved doctrine—he who wrote such impious and abominable things concerning the condemners of the same Nestorius and their holy doctrines, it becomes known by open truth that the same letter to Maris the Persian was written with the fraud and perversity of the Nestorian sense. And therefore, although for preserving reverence for the holy Synod of Chalcedon alone, and for excluding the snares of the heretics who lie that the letter to Maris the Persian was approved by our Fathers, these things seem more than enough which are testified above in many ways—that our Fathers could in no way have judged that it should be received—by which, from the very beginning when Bishop Ibas is seen to have entered the holy Synod of Chalcedon, it is complained that he suffered violence and false accusations in the second Ephesine [synod], from the acts of Photius and Eustathius and their judgment concerning Ibas, it was made clear that the letter was not [his].

That after the text of the same letter to Maris had been read from the proceedings of Photius and Eustathius in the Council of Chalcedon, he shows most manifestly by the words of one who also denies it, when he requested that the other letter to Maris, of the Elessenes, be read on his behalf in order to exclude it. What the testimony of Theophilus, the enemy of Ibas the bishop, abandoned by the support of truth, demonstrates no less by evident reasoning—the testimony, namely, of him who did not presume to assert that same letter to Maris the Persian which he had objected, but rather that one which Bishop Ibas had demanded be read on his behalf, and yet he attempted incompetently to accuse it of falsity. What the sentence of our own Fathers residing at Chalcedon made clear without ambiguity, when they allowed Domnus, accused in the same matter, to remain condemned and Ibas to be absolved—which is shown more evidently and in multiple ways by the decrees of the same venerable Synod of Chalcedon, saying that their faith is that which the letter assailing Maris contains, and that by this it was condemned by the judgment of those whose interlocution is feigned to have been accepted.

XVIII. Although, therefore, from the light of the truth written above it appears indubitably that we are constrained by no necessity to inquire from the text of whose letter some of those residing at Chalcedon declared in their discussions that the same bishop appeared to be catholic—since it is abundantly sufficient for us that it has been most evidently demonstrated that concerning the letter written to Maris the Persian they could bring forward no such judgment. For this sufficiently supports us against the machinations of the heretics, who wish this letter to Maris the Persian to be seen as received by the holy Synod of Chalcedon—since we have not only taught that it was not seen as received, but have also shown that it was altogether refuted by our Fathers, inasmuch as they condemned it among the enemies of the right faith by a most evident sentence brought forward.

Therefore, because, as we have said, against the adversaries of the holy synod of Chalcedon—whether it can truly be shown that it was received or not received—it seemed to us that this was the task, and for those who superfluously suspect that it was received, we have rather declared from the very utterances of the Fathers that it was rejected, it is not necessary that we be compelled to say concerning which letter our Fathers in those their interlocutions had in mind; then it should be abundantly sufficient for us that concerning this matter—[perhaps, that although this]—from whatever source the question is turned, they did not have it in mind; nevertheless, with the interlocutions of each of the Fathers inspected and fitted to the uprightness which we discussed above, this also, concerning which letter they spoke, will easily be able to appear to those pursuing pious understanding. Where first of all it must be diligently and sagaciously observed by us that our Fathers with one sense and one mind were in agreement concerning the absolution of Bishop Ibas, when they pronounced the sentence saying that the same Bishop Ibas was approved innocent of all the things which had been charged against him by his accusers. For the interlocution of the legates of the apostolic see in its first part stands thus: The letter having been reread, we have recognized from the sentence of the most reverend bishops that the most reverend Ibas is approved innocent; which the interlocution brought forth by Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, evidently follows, expressing that he had been found innocent of those things which the accusers had brought against him. For thus it says (Act.

The faith and reading of the most reverend bishops and judges demonstrate, together with all that followed, that the most reverend Ibas is innocent of the charges which his accusers brought against him. And to this, establishing still more plainly the understanding of those above, the sentence of Maximus of Antioch is fittingly joined, which reads as follows: From those things which have just been read again, it is manifest that the most reverend Ibas has been found innocent of all the charges brought against him.

XIX. It is fitting, therefore, to consider how the interlocution of those three judges who hold the first place is to be added to, and joined with, the sentence for the rejection and condemnation of the letter to Marinus the Persian—even though brought forth from a different mouth, yet dictated by one Spirit. For what is it that is said through the decree of Photius and Eustathius, and shown from the reread documents, that Ibas is approved innocent of all things which his accusers brought against him, except that that letter, tending to the disparagement of the doctrine of blessed Cyril and to the defense of Nestorius—undermining, so to speak, the very foundations of the orthodox faith—was, as it truly is, charged against bishop Ibas by his adversaries as a great crime, and is found to be alien to him, and is most evidently condemned by the decrees of the three Fathers mentioned above, as has been said. For he will not seem to be justly pronounced innocent of all things brought against him by his accusers, if the letter to Marinus the Persian—which is the greatest part of the crimes, indeed in which all the crimes charged against him are contained—is not shown to be excluded by these interlocutions.

And therefore, since it is certain that, if his letter were shown, he could not be pronounced innocent, it follows that, because he was pronounced innocent, his letter was not [his]. Since, then, by these interlocutions—which were brought forward with fitting sense and zeal for the absolution of Bishop Ibas, especially to exclude and refute the letter to Maris the Persian—it has been most openly demonstrated, it follows that we ought to examine with equal truth the definitions of the other Fathers who hold the same opinion, the interlocutions of the most reverend bishops Juvenal and Eunomius being for a little while passed over in silence; although we have shown in their own place that they, from another angle, nevertheless agree with this same sense. And so Thalassius, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, speaks thus (Act 10): With the most reverend bishops Photius and Eustathius approving the case of Ibas and not adjudging him, persuaded by their opinion, I also wish him to be held in the priesthood, just as it seemed good to the most holy prelates, because he especially undertook, in the acts, to anathematize those things which his accusers had set down against him in writing. To whom, a lover of the faithful and of perspicuous truth, is it not clear that the whole account which we gave above concerning the letter to Maris the Persian, as denied or refuted, and which we showed to agree with the interlocutions of the preceding Fathers, is also fully and briefly set forth by this sentence of the most reverend Thalassius brought forward here?

For when he says that Photius and Eustathius, who approved the case of Ibas and did not adjudge him [guilty], followed the sentence, and consequently adds that Ibas the bishop himself, to the culmination of his innocence, condemned the charges that were brought against him in writing by the accusers, he shows beyond doubt that both in the examination of the Council of Chalcedon and in that judgment of Photius and Eustathius the dictation and conscience of Ibas were found to be free from the charge of that letter to Maris the Persian, so that there everything was rejected, not only with the adversaries not proving it, or with Ibas the bishop denying it, but even with him condemning it. Hence it is established that the letter to Maris the Persian, containing the crimes that the accusers had objected, was condemned not only by the judgment of the Fathers sitting at Chalcedon, but also by the sentence of Ibas himself, as the aforementioned Fathers, instructed by the decision of Photius and Eustathius, affirm. The sentences also of Eusebius of Ancyra, Stephen of Ephesus, Diogenes of Cyzicus, and Romanus of Myra in Lycia, though delivered in different places, confirm the decrees of the earlier judges with one and the same sense. For some, by making mention of the judgment of Photius and Eustathius, and others, by proving the innocence of Ibas the bishop from the condemnation of Nestorius and his heresy, testify that the letter to Maris the Persian, which excuses Nestorius and calls blessed Cyril a heretic, not only did not diminish Ibas the bishop, but was even condemned by him.

John bishop of Sebastia, Seleucus bishop of Amasia, Constantine bishop of Melitene, Patricius bishop of the Tyans, Peter bishop of the Gangrians, and Artanius bishop of Trebizond, likewise consented, saying (Act. 10): The definition of the most reverend bishops Photius and Eustathius shows the most reverend Ibas to be innocent. In like manner, moreover, his denial makes us more favorably disposed toward him in that he received it. By this interlocution of the aforementioned priests it is evidently apparent that through these two things Ibas the bishop was found innocent of the charges brought against him, that is, from the definition of the bishops Photius and Eustathius and from his own denial. Furthermore, by the definition of Photius and Eustathius it is declared that, although he had been falsely assailed by his accusers, nevertheless for the satisfaction of the falsely alleged charges he was readily minded to profess in writing what he held concerning the right faith, and out of abundance anathematized Nestorius, and said that he held all things which were pleasing in the first council of Ephesus. Then, because his denial also, by which he asserted that even in the council of Chalcedon, after the reading of the letter to Maris the Persian—which is contrary to the most open and pious confession of the same bishop Ibas—he stood aloof from the things brought against him, would make the minds of the judges more favorably disposed to believe that, having spurned and refuted the things which he denied, he had only those things before as well which he professed to have held and received.

With these things thus shown, it is clear that the letter to Maris the Persian stands contrary to all the things which Ibas said he had received, and rather defends those things which Bishop Ibas anathematized, and was in no way dictated by Bishop Ibas.

XX. For so that it might be made manifest to all that Ibas, by denying the things which were brought forward by the accusers, rendered more certain those things which he confessed concerning the pious faith, the interlocution speaks thus: And his denial made us more favorably disposed in regard to what he received. As if he were saying: For this reason we accept as more credible the things which he professed concerning the pious faith, because he denied those things which had been objected against him, so that he might not appear to show what he thought concerning the pious faith as one convicted by the truth of the objections, correcting himself as it were out of necessity, but rather, being cleared by the denial of the objections, he should be believed to have also previously held the same view as he professed to hold. For just as the confession of a deed can make a guilty man guilty even in regard to the past, so a denial that has not been convicted rendered him innocent even concerning past matters. To this denial, through which Bishop Ibas is shown to have refuted the letter to Maris the Persian, the interlocution of the bishops Eunomius and Juvenalis is fittingly applied. Which interlocutions must first be shown, with God's help, to be in harmony, and then it must be taught how they confirm that the letter was denied by Ibas, which stand thus (Act. 10): Juvenalis, the most reverend bishop of Jerusalem, said: Those who are converted, the divine writings command us to receive them.

Therefore we also receive those returning from the heretics. Hence I foresee that the most reverend Ibas deserves clemency, because he is both an old man and, so that he may hold the rank of bishop, is catholic. Eunomius, bishop of Nicomedia, said: Indeed, from the things that have been read out, the venerable Ibas has already been approved as innocent. For in those matters in which by speaking he seemed to blame the most blessed Cyril wrongly, in the latter part he confessed rightly and refuted the things which he had blamed. Hence I also decree that he, anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches and their impious doctrines, and agreeing with the things written by the most holy archbishop Leo and by this universal synod, is worthy of the episcopate. Therefore, before this, we must examine the interlocution of Eunomius, which, asserting more plainly the understanding of Bishop Ibas, sets forth what Bishop Juvenalis also felt from that matter. For saying that Ibas was proved innocent from the things read out, he approves without ambiguity the judgment of Pholius and Eustathius, just as of the earlier Fathers, so that in these words he seems also to comprehend the denial of Bishop Ibas and, on behalf of the same Ibas, the attestation of the letter of the clerics of Edessa.

For this reason, duly attending to the order of the proceedings held before Photius and Eustathius, lest any scruple remain in the minds of some against Ibas the bishop from the fact that at some time before the union of the Churches, understanding otherwise, he had spoken against the doctrine of blessed Cyril, he necessarily clears him, showing that Ibas, with his understanding corrected, receiving the orthodox dogmas of blessed Cyril and confessing that they are right, refuted the error of his former understanding, which he held before the union of the Churches, most evidently demonstrating that the letter which is read as written to Maris the Persian was denied by Ibas the bishop to be his. For since he approves him as departing from those things which Ibas had said about blessed Cyril before the union of the Churches, and after the union confessing that they were rightly held, while the letter written to Maris the Persian after the union falsely claims that the words of blessed Cyril are heretical and fabricates that he himself fell into the heresy of Apollinaris, it is certain that this letter was denied by Ibas also by the testimony of the present interlocution. To this understanding the sentence of Juvenal the bishop agrees without ambiguity; which, when it establishes that Ibas was orthodox, shows that the letter which was written to Maris the Persian was denied by him, as being inimical to right dogmas, and, in agreement with the decrees of Photius and Eustathius and the rest, approves the judgment.

Since, however, he says that the one who was to be converted ought to be received, agreeing with Eunomius's statement, concerning the doctrines of the blessed Cyril, about which he had formerly thought otherwise before the union, he approves that he, now rightly thinking as he ought, has been converted to a sense of fitting understanding. By this, as has already been shown in many ways, it is established that that letter which speaks contrary things after the union was not the letter of Ibas the bishop.

XXI. Although, therefore, it has been fittingly and sufficiently demonstrated, both from all the assertions recalled above and from the statements of the Fathers who sat at Chalcedon, which agree with one another in all respects concerning the absolution of Ibas the bishop, that the letter to Maris the Persian, hostile to right doctrines and contrary to the same Ibas's profession, was denied by him, and refuted in many ways by the judgment of the Fathers, and that by this it is clear that it could have been received by no one from the number of those same Fathers—which letter he himself, to whom it was objected, also rejected by denying it was his, and everywhere condemned what was brought forth by the same Fathers' judgment concerning the pious faith—nevertheless, from abundance it is fitting to understand of which letter the statement of the legates of the apostolic see, or of Maximus of Antioch, seems to have been spoken, and to demonstrate that that which ought to adhere in the minds of the faithful, namely that nothing contrary is found in the decrees of the Fathers, holds true. It is most plainly believed that our Fathers made mention in their statements of the letter of the clerics of Edessa, which Ibas the bishop asked to be read out on his behalf.

He hastened to read again that letter of the Edessene clergy, from that part of the proceedings held before Photius and Eustathius which his adversary had so cunningly and fraudulently omitted, in order to refute that letter of Marinus which had likewise been read against him from those same proceedings; for by it his adversaries strove to show that Ibas had rightly attacked the aforementioned letter to Maris the Persian, and had said that the doctrines of the blessed Cyril, handed down in the first council of Ephesus, were full of all impiety and contrary to the right faith. Hence it was necessary that the letter which had long ago been delivered by the directing Edessene clerics, the bishops Photius and Eustathius, and had been reviewed in their judgment and inserted into those same proceedings, should be read again at the Council of Chalcedon as well, at Ibas's own request for his purification; and among other things it says this (Act 10): "Anathematizing ourselves and making ourselves liable to the terrible Gehenna, if we knew that any such thing was said by him, or anything else contrary to the catholic faith. For if we had suffered to communicate with him who said any such thing, or to hold the masses with him, we would have been liable to the final punishment, as communicants in such error," and the rest.

So that by this claim of the Edessene clergy—that he said nothing of the kind, nor anything else contrary to the orthodox faith—they might exclude all those things contained in the letter to Maris the Persian that were contrary to the right faith, and which the adversaries, to the disparagement of Bishop Ibas, were fabricating as having been said by him; and so that the same Bishop Ibas might most openly confirm his denial, in which he had said a little earlier that "I am also apart from those things which have been brought against me."

XXII. Therefore, the legates of the apostolic see, having this letter of the Edessene clergy before their eyes, when they had first said from the reading of the documents and from the judgment of the bishops Photius and Eustathius that Ibas was proven innocent, they followed them, saying (Acts 10): "For his letter having been rejected, we have recognized him to be catholic"; so that first, from the very order of the proceedings held before Photius and Eustathius concerning that letter—that is, the letter of the Edessene clergy, which is shown to have been read last in their presence—they may be believed to have so judged by their own interlocutions. But as for what they seem to have signified concerning his letter—that is, Bishop Ibas's—by designating this letter of his rather than the one he asked to be read on his behalf, they show rather that that letter to Maris the Persian, which was brought forward against him, was not his, by that manner of speaking which all men undoubtedly use both concerning others and concerning themselves, so that the documents, charters, and letters are said to be theirs who use them on their own behalf, and whose interests they are shown to serve.

For those most holy examiners would judge to be the letter of Ibas—whom they were absolving—rather that letter to Maris the Persian, which his adversaries had brought forward for the purpose of attacking Ibas on account of the grave crimes contained in that letter, or that letter of the Edessenes, which clears him of all the charges brought against him; rather that letter to Maris, which Ibas himself, as has been shown in many ways, denied to be his when it was charged against him, or that letter of the Edessenes, which he demanded to be read out for the refutation of that letter to Maris and for the approval of his own orthodox faith; rather that letter to Maris the Persian, which, if it were proven to be his, establishes that the same men rightly attacked it, or that letter of the Edessenes, which testifies that he said nothing against the catholic faith; rather that letter to Maris the Persian, after the reading of which the said bishop Ibas declared that he was also a stranger to the things that had been brought against him, or that letter of the Edessenes, through which Theophilus, his adversary, recognizing that he had been convicted, strove to weaken him with a charge of falsehood. Therefore that letter to Maris the Persian is most justly considered by all, and ought to be considered, to be the letter of the accuser—who brought it forward and did not prove it—rather than of Ibas, who denied it.

Now this must nonetheless be more keenly examined: by which letter in particular was the orthodox bishop Ibas judged by the vicars of the apostolic see—by that one to Maris the Persian, which, since it most openly contradicts the first synod of Ephesus and the exposition of blessed Cyril given there, which the council of Chalcedon confirms and follows, shows its author to be a heretic; or by this one of the Edessenes, which, confirming by the interposition of a terrible oath and anathema that Bishop Ibas never said anything contrary to the catholic faith, caused him to be pronounced orthodox, cleared of the adversaries' objection; by that one to Maris the Persian, which the holy synod of Chalcedon struck with the penalty of anathema among those who do not believe as Cyril expounded in the first synod of Ephesus; or by that one of the Edessenes, which, consonant with the judgment of the same Fathers, inflicts anathema on those who communicate with anyone saying anything against the catholic faith. All these things are seen to agree also with the interlocution of Maximus, bishop of Antioch, in the same truth that has been set forth; who, by naming the rescript of the letter, is shown to have meant not that one to Maris the Persian, but the letter of the Edessene clerics.

For how is Maximus the aforementioned to be thought to have said anything orthodox about the letter to Maris the Persian, by which it is certain that the first Council of Ephesus and the doctrine of blessed Cyril preached there are attacked, when—as we have already fully said above—while judgment was being made about receiving the letter of Pope Leo of blessed memory, he decreed that it was to be received for this reason, that it agreed with the faith expounded by blessed Cyril at Ephesus, saying thus (Act. 4): The letter of the most holy archbishop of royal Rome, Leo, agrees with the expositions of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers at Nicaea, and of the one hundred and fifty at Constantinople, the new Rome, and with the faith expounded at Ephesus by the most holy bishop Cyril; and I have subscribed. Who, then, is found so removed from all reason of humanity as to believe that this priest in a matter or definition of faith showed himself so contrary to himself that he who, by comparing the letter of so illustrious a pontiff and doctor—that is, of blessed Leo—clearly containing pious dogmas with the doctrine of blessed Cyril expounded at Ephesus, judged it orthodox, would on the contrary say that the writing of that letter was orthodox, which by its heretical voice strives to overturn the very dogmas of blessed Cyril?

Since, therefore, it is impossible that one and the same judge in the definition of faith should be seen either to have rejected what pleased him or to have said that the same thing pleased him which he rejected, it must be clear to all that he judged not concerning that letter to Maris the Persian, but rather concerning this one of the Edessenes, which was brought forward later, because its dictation was declared orthodox.

XXIII. Nor let anyone be moved by the fact that in the same interlocution mention is made of a rescript of the letter which was brought forward by him who is its adversary, so that from these words—as the enemies of the orthodox faith desire to assert for the impugning of the first Council of Ephesus—it should be understood that Maximus, bishop of Antioch, judged thus concerning that letter which is read as being to Maris the Persian, which his adversaries brought forward against Ibas the bishop in the judgment of Photius and Eustathius. That this is far from the sentiments of the same Maximus we have proved above by suitable and manifold reasoning. For that which was brought forward as written by his adversary, it is not doubtful that it was said concerning this one of the Edessene clerics.

For when Theophilus, the adversary of Ibas the bishop, had brought forward nothing else against him at the Council of Chalcedon except the proceedings held before Photius and Eustathius, and, as is clearly apparent, had maliciously suppressed that part of the proceedings in which the letter of the clergy of Edessa was contained, and had caused to be read out only that part through which he thought Ibas the bishop had been burdened, then Ibas the bishop, so that it might be more evidently established, requested that there be read again, from the very documents which had been brought forward by the same adversary, that part which had been fraudulently omitted by him, through which the letter that had been read against him is proved to have been excluded, so that by this means the adversary Theophilus might be more effectively shown to be convicted by what he himself had brought forward. Hence also Maximus the bishop, expressing the force of suitable proof (Act. 10), after the letter of the clergy of Edessa had been read again from those documents which the adversary had brought forward, pronounced Ibas to have been shown to be orthodox. But so that the contentious minds of the heretics may be more fully overcome, it is shown in various ways that this letter of the Edessenes was not brought forward by Ibas at the Council of Chalcedon as something new, but was long ago contradicted by Photius and Eustathius the bishops and inserted into their proceedings. For first, from the fact that it is read to have been given to them at the time of the trial, it is in no way doubted that it was handed over to those to whom it was directed; since in their trial Ibas needed to be aided by it for the purgation of the charges that had been brought.

Then, because in the same letter the Edessene clergy are read to have earnestly asked the aforementioned Photius and Eustathius that they take care to insert it into their acts; which the very order of the judgment also demanded be done. That these things were so done is shown not only by the truth of the present reasoning, but is also attested by the profession of Ibas himself, brought forward above both in the Council of Chalcedon and in the examination of Photius and Eustathius. Indeed, when bishop Ibas entered the holy Council of Chalcedon, while he asserts that he was absolved by the decision of Photius and Eustathius, he speaks thus (Act. 9): For all the Edessene clergy also, through whom they wrote to the aforesaid bishops, testify that I am catholic: showing undoubtedly that it was written to them, and that in their judgment already, by the rescript of the Edessene clergy, he was absolved from all the charges and declared catholic. Then, when in that part of the acts held before Photius and Eustathius which, as has been said, his adversaries asked be read against him, the aforementioned bishop rejected the three witnesses whom his adversaries strove to produce against him in the judgment of Photius and Eustathius, he spoke thus (Act. 10): Our clergy is very numerous, of two hundred names more or less; for I do not retain the number. All the clergy have testified whether I am orthodox or heretic, both through written confessions, which have also been sent to the most holy bishop Domnus, and they have made use of them for your reverence.

If the testimony of so many clerics agrees with the three witnesses who, as he himself says, came with them to Constantinople to accuse, and now stand with them, it is yours to judge. From this it clearly appears that in the very trial of Photius and Eustathius he made mention of the letter of the Edessene clergy to refute the witnesses produced by the adversary, so as both to show that it had already been handed to the judges, and, once the reply of the whole Edessene clergy was known to those same judges, to demand that the testimonies of a few clerics ought not to be admitted. Hence there is no doubt that by the adversaries, out of deliberate design, that part of the proceedings was passed over in which the letters of the Edessene clergy on behalf of Ibas were contained, and that Ibas necessarily requested that this same letter of the Edessene clergy be read again from that part which had been suppressed, and that for this reason Bishop Maximus declared, from the rejected reply in the proceedings produced by the adversary, that the wording of that same letter, that is, of the Edessenes, was declared orthodox. But that part of the proceedings in which Bishop Ibas was more clearly cleared of the charges was omitted by the adversaries, and is shown in other ways as well.

For in the same sentence of Photius and Eustathius, in which they report all that was done by Ibas the bishop in his trial, it is contained that Ibas the bishop readily gave in writing what he believed concerning the pious faith, and moreover anathematized Nestorius, and promised that he would speak these things in the church of his own city, and other things which are shown by the tenor of the same judgment. All these things that part of the proceedings, reread at the Council of Chalcedon according to the wish of the adversaries of Ibas the bishop, does not contain. Yet their sentence declares that the proceedings were in the judgment of Photius and Eustathius. By this it is established without doubt that those parts were maliciously suppressed by the adversaries which, when written, would have profited Ibas the bishop more. For that these things were inserted in the acts before Photius and Eustathius the bishops is in no way to be doubted, as the sentence of Thalassius, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, residing at Chalcedon, shows without ambiguity, which after other things says thus: Because he especially received in the acts that he anathematized in writing those things which his accusers had brought against him. And this certainly, because it is not read in that part of the proceedings which was reviewed at the desire of the adversaries of Ibas, it is manifest from these things which Photius and Eustathius report as done in their judgment, which were inserted in the acts, that the said bishop Thalassius knew.

And therefore it has been proved by the light of all truth that that part of the proceedings also, in which the letter of the Edessene clergy was contained, was suppressed by the adversaries, just as this part also was omitted lest it be read out: which is declared not from that part which the adversaries wished to be read, but from the sentence of the bishops Photius and Eustathius, [concerning] what was done before them.

XXIV. Therefore it appears indubitably from those proceedings which were indeed brought forward by the adversaries, but studiously suppressed in part, that Ibas the bishop asked that the letter of the Edessenes be read out on his behalf, and that Maximus the bishop of Antioch said by his own interlocution concerning the rescript of that letter, which was brought forward by the adversary. But that the wording of this letter could be pronounced orthodox has been very fully approved above, and from this it will appear more clearly, because in his preceding prosecution Ibas asserted from the rescript of the Edessenes that he was proved orthodox. Hence consequently the wording of the same letter of the Edessenes was called orthodox, through which both he himself asked the judges to consider him orthodox, and by their sentence he was declared orthodox. Let the shamelessness therefore of the perverse, followers as much of the Eutychian heresy as of the Nestorian, give way, who strive by heretical fraud to persuade that anyone residing in the Council of Chalcedon could say or think anything orthodox concerning that letter to Maris the Persian, full of all impiety.

For when Bishop Ibas entered at the beginning into the examination of the holy Synod of Chalcedon, he proceeded thus, saying that he had been judged, or ought to be judged, catholic by the attestation of the Edessene clergy, and he maintained before the bishops Photius and Eustathius that for his purgation it ought to suffice that the Edessene clergy had attested by the confessions which they wrote to those same bishops that he was catholic. Again, persisting in the same defense after the reading of his letter to Maris the Persian, when he had demanded that the letter of the Edessene clergy on his behalf, of which he had often made mention, be read again, who could be so great an assailant of such clear truth as not to know from the text of that letter of the Edessene clergy, through which Ibas himself, when accused, asked that he be judged—or perhaps that he be judged—orthodox, that the orthodox dictation was pronounced by the Fathers, and that the same Ibas was pronounced catholic, but that the dictation of his letter to Maris the Persian is judged orthodox, which was also charged against him as a crime of heresy, and if it had been approved, he could have been judged a heretic?

XXV. Therefore we anathematize and condemn the above-written letter which Ibas is falsely alleged to have written to Maris the Persian heretic, which denies that God was incarnate and made man of the holy God-bearer and ever-virgin Mary, but says that a mere man was born of her, whom it calls a temple, so that from this one might understand another God the Word and another Christ; and it accuses Saint Cyril, who was a teacher and preacher of the right faith, as a heretic writing things similar to Apollinaris, and blames the first Synod of Ephesus as having condemned Nestorius without examination and inquiry, and calls the twelve chapters of Saint Cyril impious and contrary to the right faith, and in the same letter defends Theodore and Nestorius and their impious dogmas and writings. Therefore we anathematize and condemn the aforesaid letter to Maris the Persian, in which the nefarious blasphemies designated above are contained. And whoever at any time shall believe that it is to be accepted or defended, or shall at any time attempt to dissolve the present condemnation, we condemn with an equal anathema.

But those who contend that the aforementioned letter addressed to Maris the Persian, containing the blasphemies designated above, was received by the holy Synod of Chalcedon from the present time, once the series of our constitution has become known to them, or who strive to assert that it was pronounced orthodox by any of those same Fathers who sat at Chalcedon, we strike with the equal penalty of anathema; since they not only attempt to inflict injury upon the holy and venerable Council of Chalcedon, but also profess themselves to be stirrers up and renewers of a slumbering scandal, by which the universal Church may again be trampled down; so that they may justly be seen to be struck by the sentence of the Apostle, the teacher of the Gentiles, which says: Would that they were even cut off who trouble you (Gal. 5:12)!

XXVI. Having completed what had to be discussed or defined concerning the settling of the first capital question, that is, concerning the letter to Maris the Persian, it is necessary for us to set forth what the reason of ecclesiastical unity or the safeguard of the faith handed down by the holy Fathers requires to be done concerning Theodore of Mopsuestia and his utterances. We therefore consider that the beginning of this question also has flowed from the foul source of the heretics.

For since the Nestorians many years ago could not insert his impious dogmas under the name of the condemned Nestorius himself into the minds of certain people to deceive them, they found for themselves an opportunity to spread their error through cunning devices, so that from the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia, whom they boast died in the peace of the Church, they might strive to introduce anew the impious dogmas of Nestorius revived with monstrous blasphemies. Their poisons, creeping secretly for long periods, now flowing forth in open profession, have stirred the minds of our people and of the most Christian prince and of all the orthodox, who consider that remedies must no longer be concealed when, through patience and nourished by dissimulation, the destruction of so great an evil seems to have grown. For it has come to no one's doubt that the aforementioned Nestorians publicly and incessantly assert this, saying: We venerate as father not so much Nestorius as Theodore of Mopsuestia, and we embrace his books with the whole devotion of our mind; nor will there be anyone who can withstand us, since our dogma is thus supported everywhere by the widely circulated books of the ancient teacher Theodore. By the voices of these Nestorians no small number of the unlearned common people is deceived day by day through depraved seduction.

Since, therefore, it is evident that through the name of the deceased Theodore and his writings the error of the Nestorian heresy is introduced to the peoples more extensively than Nestorius himself could have brought in while alive, we have believed that we would incur the danger not so much of negligence as of connivance—or perhaps the crime of consent—if we were to allow the remedies of necessary correction, which the dispensation of the endangered Church demands, to be deferred any longer. For it cannot serve as an excuse for Theodore and his sayings, as certain persons vainly spread about, that in the letter to Maris the Persian the name of Theodore or his writings appear to be copiously praised, since it has already been demonstrated in many ways by the preceding assertion that the same letter was justly condemned, as by us, so also by the holy Fathers residing at Chalcedon; and this alone should abundantly suffice for the demonstration of Theodore's evils, that his name and writings are praised there where the blessed Cyril and the first synod of Ephesus are attacked. Although these things are so, we nevertheless did not cease to scrutinize the writings of the same Theodore through more faithful interpreters, although they had in some measure been made public to us before. From this it has now become most clearly evident, by the clearest truth, that the book of the aforesaid Theodore of Mopsuestia contains things contrary to the right faith and to the teachings of the holy Fathers. Hence also the holy Fathers, writing against him, left their books for the instruction of the holy Church.

For among his other blasphemies we find that he evidently said that one is God the Word and another is Christ, who suffered distresses from the passions of the soul and the desires of the flesh, and gradually withdrawing from worse things advanced to better things by progress in works, and by his conduct became immaculate, and was baptized as a mere man in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and through baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit, and merited adoption, and that Christ is adored in the person of God the Word in the likeness of the imperial image, and that after the resurrection he became immutable in his thoughts and altogether impeccable. He also said that the union of God the Word with Christ was made such as the Apostle spoke of a man and a woman, "They shall be two in one flesh," and that after the resurrection, when the Lord breathed upon the disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," he did not give them the Holy Spirit. He also dared to say this, that the confession which Thomas made when he touched the hands and side of the Lord after the resurrection, saying, "My Lord and my God," was not spoken by Thomas concerning Christ (for Theodore does not say that Christ is God), but that Thomas, astonished at the miracle of the resurrection, glorified God and said these things.

And what is worse, even in the interpretation which the same Theodore wrote on the Acts of the Apostles, he made Christ similar to Plato and Manichaeus and Epicurus and Marcion, saying that just as each one of those, from the doctrine which he invented, caused his disciples to be called Platonists and Manichaeans and Epicureans and Marcionites, in like manner also when Christ had invented a doctrine, from it Christians were called. From the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia, by the perversity discovered, it appears evidently that certain persons, most falsely cherishing the sayings of Theodore, opine that the aforementioned Theodore was not condemned in his lifetime, since, having examined the synodal constitutions of our predecessor of blessed memory Damasus, which after the Council of Nicaea were issued by the catholic bishops treating of the Holy Spirit and assembling in the city of Rome, and by Ambrose of blessed memory, bishop of the city of Milan, long before Theodore assumed the office of bishop of Mopsuestia, we find it most fully defined that those who affirm two sons, one before the ages and the other after the assumption of flesh from the Virgin, as it was shown above that Theodore asserted, were struck by the penalty of anathema. Where not only those who at that same time were followers of that heresy, but also those who in succeeding times would follow the same error, are found bound by the chains of the same anathema.

To this condemnation Theodore of Mopsuestia must also have been subject, who became a follower and preacher of a pre-condemned heresy. For we do not otherwise receive those whom we now find entangled in the Arian or in any other heresy whatsoever, already condemned by the penalty of anathema, except that in the pre-condemned errors which they follow, they themselves are also found to be condemned. Nor do we perceive that this should be omitted, that those who in their books and disputations teach that two sons are to be believed, yet deny that they profess two sons, since it profits them nothing to deny this with empty words, when by their own dogmas, and even by their books, they are convicted of deceitfully asserting it. For thus indeed Nestorius, as we have already said above, pretending to confess two natures and one Son, and that one is he who was born of God the Father, and another who was begotten of the Virgin mother, persisting in his disputations to persuade this with every intent of fraud, could not escape the penalty of the condemnation he owed, nor could that deceitful profession of one Son free him, when his doctrine was convicted of containing another: because the followers of perversity of this kind are punished by their own authors; for what they are ashamed to profess, they do not cease to teach, and what they deny should be spoken, they do not write to be read.

XXVII. For all these reasons, therefore, let the universal Church recognize that our intention serves its benefit, lest the people of Christ our God be further led astray. For the sake of that benefit, we have remembered above that it is justly harmed by the name and writings of Theodore, and that we have without any blame descended to those things which we have established by present authority.

And therefore we condemn and anathematize, just as all the other heretics whom it is established were condemned and anathematized by the four holy councils and by the catholic Church, also Theodore, who was once bishop of Mopsuestia, and likewise his impious writings, and the things which Theodoret wrote against the right faith and against the twelve chapters of Saint Cyril and against the first synod of Ephesus, and the things written by him in defense of Theodore and Nestorius: because for the sake of ecclesiastical utility he also requested that the aforementioned writings of Theodoret be condemned, since the often-mentioned Nestorians, under the name of that bishop, who is read to have been received by Pope Leo of blessed memory and by the holy synod of Chalcedon, appear to employ the same writings as support for establishing their own error, not considering that not only did the holy Fathers gathered at Chalcedon, with Nestorius condemned together with his doctrines, also condemn these things, but even the bishop Theodoret himself, in the holy synod of Chalcedon, by open profession rejected all the sayings which appeared to contradict the doctrines set forth by blessed Cyril in the first [synod] of Ephesus, and accepted the definition of the holy council of Chalcedon, in which it is manifest that the doctrine set forth by blessed Cyril in the first [synod] of Ephesus is proclaimed. And so, just as the whole council of the holy synod of Chalcedon declared, it is established that he was received by the same synod.

For this reason it is clear that we are establishing nothing new by this condemnation, but have anathematized those things which both the holy synod of Chalcedon rejected and which Theodore himself, bishop there, also condemned by his own profession.

XXVIII. Therefore we anathematize and condemn the aforesaid three impious chapters, that is, the letter which is called Ibas's to Maris the Persian, in which are contained the execrable blasphemies designated above, and the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia with his abominable writings, and those things which Theodore wrote impiously. And whoever at any time shall have believed that they are to be accepted or deferred, or shall have attempted at any time to dissolve the present condemnation, we condemn with an equal anathema. But those who, preserving the right faith preached by the aforesaid four synods, have condemned or do condemn the three chapters mentioned, we hold as brothers and fellow priests. But whatever things, whether put forth in my name or in anyone's name in defense of the three chapters mentioned, or found anywhere, we void by the authority of this our most full constitution.

Far be it from the universal Church that anyone should assert that the aforesaid four synods, or any one of them, received all those designated blasphemies, or those who held and followed such things, since it is established by the holy Fathers mentioned above, and especially by the holy Council of Chalcedon, that no one concerning whom there was suspicion was received unless he rejected the blasphemies designated above, or things similar to them, or the heresy of which he was suspected, and denied and condemned the blasphemies concerning which doubt was held about him. And therefore those who, from the present time, with this series of our constitution coming to their knowledge, wish to assert that the aforementioned letter to Maris the Persian, containing the blasphemies designated above, was received by the holy Synod of Chalcedon, or who strive to maintain that it was pronounced orthodox by any of those same Fathers residing at Chalcedon, we strike with the equal penalty of anathema; because they not only attempt to inflict injury on the holy and venerable Council of Chalcedon, but also profess themselves to be instigators and renewers of the lulled scandal, by which the universal Church could again be shaken; so that they may justly be seen to be struck by the sentence of the Apostolic teacher, where he says: Would that those who are troubling you would even cut themselves off. And after the subscriptions.

Given on the seventh day before the Kalends of March, in the 27th year of the reign of our lord Justinian, perpetual Augustus, and in the 13th year after the consulate of Basil, clarissimus vir, at Constantinople.