79

How then could anyone ever prevail against the holy synod in Chalcedon, which sees and proclaims these things so reverently and at the same time so piercingly, so as to establish the definition of Nicaea, even if he were the most resourceful of all in finding things through falsehood, fabricating non-existent things against the true and real (faith)? But if you revile and blame it for firmly keeping this one, but for introducing by chance a second definition, what is this second definition introduced by it? The confession, he says, of the two natures and the expression 'in two natures.' For the definition of Nicaea does not have this; but it was manifestly introduced by the Fathers in Chalcedon, not having been previously known or named by anyone.

That you are not even able to establish this is clear; for by many of the holy Fathers before it, the expression was both judged and proclaimed as pious; and the writings of those who proclaimed it bear witness, being more full of light and more brilliant than any ray of the sun, even if you are ignorant through lack of education, or pretend to be ignorant for the sake of slander, and a senseless accusation against the pious Fathers and doctrines. But even if there were none, when, as I said, it has been established for a very long time, what prevents so many holy men (or rather, all of Christianity; for this is properly the most holy synod of the (15Α_344> orthodox Fathers) from authoritatively putting this forth and legislating against the syn-heresy of Eutyches?

And after some things, he says: By what argument, and how do you accuse the holy synod in Chalcedon, although it manifestly used patristic expressions, and, as if introducing another definition of faith, revile and mock it here and there both in writing and unwritten? Do not judge by appearance, because of God who said it, but judge a just judgment. What is your accusation against the Fathers in Chalcedon on the same and one subject, and what is the proclamation of those who preceded them? For if it is possible to accuse the one in Chalcedon of another definition of faith because of the expressions contained in the definition of Nicaea, this will surely follow to be said for the same reason also against Cyril and the one hundred and fifty. But if it is not possible against them, how it is against that one, I cannot see. And I urge you to present your madness and objection on unprovable matters; if indeed, even so, being sufficiently ashamed, you might shrink from the madness of such a great composition of falsehood against the truth. 0260 Since also Gregory the advocate of theology will in no way escape your charge against the Chalcedonians; and he will fall under it to the greatest extent according to your law, by articulating beforehand what was incompletely said in Nicaea concerning the Holy Spirit: 'because,' he says, 'this question was not even being raised at that time'; knowing the Spirit with the Father and the Son, and writing to Cledonius to think and teach thus.

But you seem to me to imitate the affliction of defective sight, which, not being able to look up and partake of the sun's splendor, blames the splendor itself as dim, not its own weakness; yourselves being sick on account of the confusion, and slandering those who sufficiently refute this as (15Α_346> impious and incongruous with the truth of the natures in Christ for those who are saved, as not being common luminaries, nor revealers of the truth. For if it is possible to speak the truth about truth, all, both the God-chosen Fathers at Nicaea, and every synod of orthodox and holy men, did not introduce another definition of faith at all through the introduction of their own words, as you declare, talking utter nonsense. and being completely mad; but they firmly ratified it as the first and only one legislated by the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, clarifying it, and as it were explaining and elaborating it, on account of those who wrongly understood and misinterpreted it and its doctrines for their own impiety.

79

Πῶς οὖν τήν οὕτω ταῦτα σεβασμίως ἅμα καί διαπρυσίως ὁρῶσαν τε καί διαγορεύουσαν ἁγίαν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι σύνοδον, ὡς διαπεμπομένην τόν τῆς Νικαέων ὅρον παραστῆσαι, τίς ἄν ἰσχύσειε πώποτε, κἄν πάντων ᾖ ποριμώματος εἰς ἐξεύρεσιν τῶν διά ψεύδους, τά μή ὄντα κατά τῆς ἀληθοῦς καί ὄντως (πίστεως) πλαττομένων; Εἰ δέ καί ὡς τοῦτο μέν τηροῦσαν βεβαίως, ὡς δεύτερον δέ τυχόν ἐπεισάγουσαν ὅρον διαλοιδορεῖτε, καί μέμφεσθε, τίς οὖτος καθέστηκεν ὁ ὑπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἐπεισαγόμενος δεύτερος ὅρος; Ἡ ὁμολογία, φησί, τῶν δύο φύσεων καί ἐν δύο φύσεσι φωνῆς. Οὐ γάρ ἔχει ταύτην ὁ τῆς Νικαέων ὅρος· εἰσήχθη δέ προδήλως ὑπό τῶν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι Πατέρων, οὐ πρότερον γνωρισθεῖσα ἤ ὀνομασθεῖσα παρά τινος.

Ὅτι μέν οὐδέ τοῦτο δύνασθε παραστῆσαι δῆλον· πολλοῖς γάρ τῶν πρό αὐτῆς ἁγίων Πατέρων, ὡς εὐσεβής ἡ φωνή καί ἐκρίθη καί ἀνηγορεύθη· καί μαρτυροῦσι τῶν ταύτην κηρυξάντων οἱ λόγοι, πάσης ὄντες ἡλιακῆς ἀκτῖνος φωτοειδέστατοι καί λαμπρότεροι, κἄν ὑμεῖς ἀγνοεῖτε δι᾿ ἀπαιδευσίαν, ἤ ἀγνοεῖν προσποιεῖσθε διά λοιδορίαν, καί τῶν εὐσεβῶν Πατέρων τε καί δογμάτων ἀνόητον ἔγκλησιν. Εἰ δέ καί μηδέν ἦν, ὁπότε πλεῖστον, ὡς ἔφην, καθέστηκε, τί τό κωλύον ἁγίους τοσούτους (μᾶλλον δέ τόν ἅπαντα Χριστιανισμόν· τοῦτο γάρ κυρίως ἐστίν ἡ τῶν (15Α_344> ὀρθοδόξων Πατέρων ἁγιωτάτῃ σύνοδος) ἐξουσιαστικῶς ταύτην προέσθαι, καί νομοθετεῖν κατά τῆς Εὐτυχοῦς συναιρέσεως;

Καί μετά τινά φησι· Τίνι λόγῳ, καί πῶς τήν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι ἁγίαν σύνοδον, καίτοι πατρικαῖς προδήλως ἀποχρησαμένην φωναῖς, αἰτιᾶσθε, καί ὡς ἄλλον πίστεως ὅρον εἰσάγουσαν, τῇδε κἀκεῖσε καί ἐγγράφως καί ἀγράφως διαλοιδορεῖτε καί διασκόπτετε; Μή καθ᾿ ὄψιν κρίνετε , διά τόν εἰπόντα Θεόν, ἀλλά τήν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνατε. Τίς ἡ ἐπί τῆς αὐτῆς καί μιᾶς ὑποθέσεως τῶν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι Πατέρων ἔγκλησις ὑμῶν, καί τίς ἡ τῶν προλαβόντων ἀνάῤῥησις; Εἰ γάρ ἔστι κατά τῆς ἐν τῇ Χαλκηδόνι ἄλλον αἰτιᾶσθαι πίστεως ὅρον διά τάς ἐγκειμένας τῷ ὅρῳ τῆς Νικαέων φωνάς, τοῦτό γε πάντως ἕψεται λέγειν διά τήν αὐτήν αἰτίαν καί κατά Κυρίλλου καί τῶν ἑκατόν πεντήκοντα. Εἰ δέ κατ' αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστι, πῶς κατ᾿ ἐκείνης, συνιδεῖν οὐκ ἔχω. Παριστᾷν δέ προτρέπομαι τήν ὑμῶν ἐπί τοῖς ἀναποδείκτοις λύσσαν καί ἔνστασιν· εἴ γε κἄν ἄρα οὕτως ἱκανῶς αἰσχυνθέντες, συσταλῆτε τῆς ἀπονοίας τῆς τοσαύτης κατά τῆς ἀληθείας ψεύδους συστάσεως. 0260 Ἐπεί καί Γρηγόριος ὁ τῆς θεολογίας συνήγορος, οὐδέν τι μᾶλλον ἐκφεύξεται τῆς ὑμῶν κατά τῆς Χαλκηδονέων ἐνοχῆς· πλεῖστον δέ ὅσον ὑποπεσεῖται ταύτῃ παρά τόν ὑμέτερον νόμον, προδιαρθρῶν τό ἐλλιπῶς εἰρημένον τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ περί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος· "διά τό μηδέ κινεῖσθαι, φησί, τό τηνικαῦτα τοῦτο τό ζήτημα»· μετά τοῦ Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα γινώσκων, καί Κληδονίῳ γράφων οὕτω νοεῖν καί διδάσκειν.

Ἀλλ᾿ ἐοίκατέ μοι τῆς σαθρᾶς ὄψεως, οὐχ ἱκανούσης πρός ἡλιακῆς αἴγλης ἀνάνευσιν καί μετάληψιν, τήν αὐτήν ὡς ἀμυδράν αἰτιωμένης, οὐ τήν οἰκείαν ἀδράνειαν, ἐκμιμήσασθαι τό πάθος· αὐτοί τά καί νοσηλευόμενοι διά τήν σύγχυσιν, καί τούς ταύτην ὡς (15Α_346> ἀσεβῆ καί ἀνάρμοστον πρός τήν ἐν Χριστῷ τῶν σωζομένων ἀλήθειαν φύσεων ἱκανῶς ἐξελέγχοντας, ὡς οὐ φωστῆρας κοινούς, οὐδέ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐκφάντορας ἐκδιαβάλλοντες. Εἰ γάρ ἔστι τἀληθῇ περί ἀληθείας εἰπεῖν, πάντες, οἵ τε κατά τήν Νικαέων θεόκριτοι Πατέρες, καί πᾶσα σύνοδος ὀρθοδόξων καί ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν, οὐκ ἄλλον πίστεως ὅρον διά τῆς ἐπεισαγωγῆς τῶν οἰκείων ῥημάτων παντελῶς ἐπεισήγαγον, ὡς ὑμεῖς ἀποφαίνεσθε, πλεῖστον παραληροῦντες. καί τό ὅλον μαινόμενοι· ἀλλ᾿ αὐτόν ὡς πρῶτον καί μόνον τῶν ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων τριακοσίων δέκα καί ὀκτώ Πατέρων νομοθετηθέντα βεβαίως ἐκύρωσαν, τρανοῦντες αὐτόν, καί οἷον ἐπεξηγούμενοι καί ἐπεξεργαζόμενοι, διά τούς ἐκεῖνον καί τά ἐκείνου δόγματα πρός τήν οἰκείαν κακῶς ἐκλαμβάνοντας καί παρεξηγουμένους δυσσέβειαν.