And, the approach having been opened to the adversaries of the Church—so that the dead man (Origen) might be condemned—Theodore, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, beloved and familiar of the princes, of the Acephalan sect, but a most fierce defender of Origen, and a rival of Pelagius, learning that Origen had been condemned, out of grief at his condemnation, to the disturbance of the Church contrived a condemnation against Theodore of Mopsuestia; because Theodore had published many treatises against Origen, and was held hateful and accusable by the Origenists; and especially because the synod of Chalcedon, as is proved, had taken up his praises in three letters. The aforesaid Theodore accomplished his condemnation by such a machination:
While the prince was writing against the Acephali, in defence of the synod of Chalcedon, the same Theodore the Cappadocian, approaching together with his satellites—who under a Catholic name were zealous for the Acephali—with the favour of the Empress Theodora, suggested to the emperor that he ought not to suffer the labour of writing, when by a shortcut he could bring all the Acephali to his communion: "For if those men," he said, "are offended at this in the synod of Chalcedon—that it took up the praises of Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, and the letter of Ibas, which is recognized to be Nestorian in all respects, the synod itself by its own judgment pronounced orthodox—
then if Theodore, together with his sayings and this letter, be anathematized, the synod, as it were reconsidered and purged, will be received by them in all things and in all respects: and when these men have been joined to the Catholic Church without the labour of your piety, the universal Church rejoicing, the praise of your clemency will be everlasting." Hearing these things, the emperor, not at all foreseeing the deceit of the deceivers, gladly accepted their suggestion, and pledged that he would do this most promptly. But again, by cunning fraud, they begged him to dictate a book to the condemnation of the Three Chapters: by which book, once published and made manifest to the whole world, "while the prince would blush to amend it, the cause would become irrevocable;
for they knew that the prince, with his usual fickleness, when a scandal arose, could correct his opinion, and bring himself into peril." The prince assented to them, and promised to fulfil this with gladness, and, abandoning the pursuit of his (other) work, composed one book to the condemnation of the Three Chapters—a book most well known to us all, for our sins. But as for the rest of the things which were afterwards done by the same prince against the bishops and the Catholic Church—how the bishops consenting to the condemnation of the Three Chapters were enriched with gifts, while those not consenting were deposed and sent into exile, or some, lurking in flight, met a happy end amid hardships—since these are known to all, I think they should now be passed over in silence by me.
This, I believe, is clear to all: that through Pelagius the deacon, and Theodore, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, this scandal entered into the Church; which even Theodore himself publicly cried out—that he and Pelagius, through whom this scandal entered into the world, ought to be burned alive. "Beloved of the princes."] Of Justinian indeed, on account of the lying labour he lent in writing books; of Theodora, because, being an Acephalan, he disparaged the synod of Chalcedon; of both together, on account of his flattery and courtly servility, and almost idolatry: Woe to the prelates who love the court, shepherds who desert the sheep, etc. "He contrived a condemnation."] This—if any faith is to be put in Facundus, book I, chapter 2—Domitian of Ancyra confessed:
"Domitian, bishop of the city of Ancyra, of the first province of Galatia, who was a manifest assertor of that very Origenian heresy, by a petition which he wrote to the most blessed pope Vigilius, God wresting it from him, confessed that his accomplices, the Origenists, when they saw that they could not defend their own dogma, nor had any hope remaining to them from the conflict, in order to avenge those things which had been done against Origen, stirred up these scandals of the Church." It is indeed wonderful that Theodore and Domitian, men devoted to Origen, came under suspicion of fellowship with the Acephali. But, such as the times were, all those were called Acephali—at least by the Africans—whom any defender of the two natures believed to be opposed to himself.
Domitian, moreover, did not, like Theodore, reach the times of the fifth synod; for when the Fathers of the synod are enumerated, in the thirteenth place is named Anastasius, bishop of Tabia, acting in the stead of Dorotheus, bishop of Ancyra. "Because Theodore."] It is plain enough that occasion was not wanting to Theodore of Mopsuestia for repeatedly carping at Origen, who by his allegories corrupted almost all the passages of Scripture; for Theodore followed the literal sense so closely that perhaps for this very reason he at times interpreted the Song of Songs more profanely than the ancients could endure.
But what treatises he wrote against Origen, no one to this day has explained, so far as I know, and it would still lie hidden, had not Hebed-Jesu in his Catalogue mentioned five volumes written by Theodore against the Allegorists, which he relates are held among the Syrians, but in the Syriac tongue, into which they were translated from Greek. That by the name of the Allegorists Origen and the followers of Origen are understood, everyone sees. "It took up his praise in three letters."] Namely those which John of Antioch wrote, when it was being treated of condemning the books of Theodore, and which were re-read in the synod of Chalcedon; to these add the letter of Ibas to Maris the Persian, read there also and not disapproved.
"While the prince was writing against the Acephali."] To a writing of this kind there can seem to pertain these words of pope Agatho in his letter to the emperors, when he was treating of the edicts of Justinian, published throughout the whole world for the rectitude of the faith: "One of which, that which was sent to Zoilus, prelate of Alexandria, against the heresy of the Acephali, being sufficient to give satisfaction for the rectitude of the apostolic faith, we—directing it together with this suggestion of our humility to your most tranquil Christianity by the bearers of the present (letter)—offer." And these words of Victor of Tunnuna: "After the consulship of Belisarius, in the second year, the emperor Justinian published books on the Lord's Incarnation, and compelled the Illyrian bishops to subscribe."
The Chronicle errs, for in place of Belisarius one ought to read Basilius; and if the number does not equally err, Panvinius is refuted by the authority of Victor, when he places the ordination of Zoilus in the year 545, and likewise the dissertator (the author of the dissertation), who places it in the year 544; for according to Victor's usage the "second year after the consulship" is that very one which follows the consulship: wherefore, since the consulship of Basilius fell in the year 541, the second year after the consulship of Basilius is 542, in which year, if Justinian wrote a book on the Incarnation against the Acephali, it is necessary that Zoilus was ordained in the year 540 (read 540); for Justinian wrote after Origen had been condemned by decree:
He was indeed condemned after Pelagius had returned to the imperial city, once the ordination of Zoilus had been celebrated at Gaza, and after the petitions of the Palestinian monks had been read and carefully called to examination, and delays had been thrown into Theodore's case by his artifices — delays that could not have occurred except over a suitable span of time. 'For they knew,' etc.] This passage was obscure in the published codices, in which 'piety' (pietas) was read in place of 'fickleness' (levitas); but it had to be restored so as to read: 'For they knew that the emperor, by his customary fickleness, when a scandal arose, could correct his own decision, and that they themselves would come into danger' — as though Liberatus were saying:
I knew that the leader of the Acephali was to be held to his decision by a book written and published, lest by his customary fickleness, when a scandal arose, he should change his decision, and the Acephali themselves come into peril. He composed the book. Concerning this man, as one well known to him, Facundus says much, since he refutes him in twelve books, often in sharp and fiery oration; and that he might do this the more freely, he stated at the outset that the work was not Justinian's, whose faith he praises highly, but the work of others falsely using the emperor's name. 'They acted,' he says (book 12, chapter 1) 'cunningly through their accomplices, as the adversaries of truth are wont to do, so that the very things which they caused to be written were also inscribed under the title of your name,'
thinking that by setting forth the error under your person, they might escape the condemnation, or even the conviction, of their own rashness and falsehood. But we do not wish those writings to be called yours, which we know to be contrary to your faith as it is known to us.' The same author later more fully, book 4, chapter 4. 'They were enriched with gifts.'] He speaks of his own Africans: of Reparatus of Carthage, Firmus primate of the council of Numidia, Primasius primate of the council of Byzacena, Verecundus of Iunca, and Victor bishop of Tunnuna. Of these the first was deposed and sent into exile at Euchaida. The third was sent back to his own see with gifts, after he had subscribed to the condemnation of the Three Chapters. Firmus died in exile after ten years, stubbornly refusing to assent to the Fifth Synod.
Verecundus and Victor were transferred from prison to prison, and at last thrust into monasteries. 'Some lay hidden in flight.'] Facundus hid himself, as he writes in the preface of his book to Mocianus. 'I think these things must now be passed over by me in silence.'] And rightly indeed; for what did the Africans not dare, or what punishments equal to their deeds did they not deserve? Let one of them be heard: 'In the eleventh year after the consulship of Basilius, the African bishops synodally exclude from catholic communion Vigilius the Roman bishop, condemner of the Three Chapters — reserving for him a place of repentance — and in defense of the said Three Chapters they send sufficiently apt letters to the emperor Justinian, by the agent Olympius.'
At that time the seven books of Facundus, bishop of the church of Hermiane, shone forth, in which he most clearly declared that the oft-mentioned Three Chapters had been condemned in the prescript of the catholic and apostolic faith of the Council of Chalcedon. 'Theodore cried out.'] Let the reliability rest with the author who writes too angrily; although Theodore is otherwise sufficiently — indeed for this above all — worthy that his name be infamous, because, abusing the power of the court, he brought upon the Church evils almost greater than the remedies.
And although this affair was undertaken with the frenzied partisanship of factions and with minds incredibly inflamed, yet the admirable wisdom of God brought it about — as Evagrius observes — that wisdom which turns even evils themselves into good, so that such great hatreds gave way to the good of the Church, and the errors of Origen and of Theodore of Mopsuestia were condemned, errors all the more harmful in proportion as they paraded themselves under greater names.