The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK IV 245
the Cappadocian, with the intention of diverting them in a di¡erent
direction, introduced the matter of Theodore of Mopsuestia and
Theodoret and Ibas, though God in His goodness arranged everything
to advantage so that the profanities might be driven out from both
sides. 122
122 This, again, is a rather confusingly compressed account of the origins of the Three
Chapters controversy. The Origenist problem, which had been increasing in Palestine
during the 530s, came to a head when a local Synod at Antioch issued an anathema
against Origenist doctrines; in Palestine Origenist monks tried to have Ephrem of Antioch’s
name struck from the records, but Patriarch Peter of Jerusalem referred the matter to Justinian;
with the support of Patriarch Menas and of the papal representative Pelagius, the
emperor issued an anti-Origenist edict in 543, which concluded with nine anathemas summarizing
the main Origenist theses under attack (Liberatus 24, p. 140:13^19; Schwartz,
Schriften 47^69). All patriarchs and bishops were required to subscribe; even Theodore
Ascidas agreed, a decision facilitated by the fact that the anathemas focused on Origenist
errors identi¢ed in debates in the fourth and ¢fth centuries rather than on what were alleged
to be their contemporary manifestations: see Grillmeier, Christ II.2 387^402.
Theodore Ascidas, quite possibly with the support of the empress Theodora, recovered
his in£uence with Justinian by proposing that an explicit condemnation of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, might encourage Monophysites to return to communion
with the Chalcedonians; an incidental bene¢t from the perspective of Theodore
Ascidas was that Theodore of Mopsuestia had been a leading opponent of Origenist
thought. This initiative resulted in the issuing of an imperial edict in 544, which condemned
the ‘Three Chapters’, namely the person and works of Theodore, the writings of Theodoret
of Cyrrhus against Cyril of Alexandria, and the letter to Maris the Persian attributed to Ibas
of Edessa. As a result Chalcedon would become more closely connected with Cyril, whereas
Antiochene traditions of Christology would be excluded: see Gray, ‘Noah’ 201^5.
Although Justinian asserted his acceptance of Chalcedon and intention that his new initiative
should not be seen as an attack on the Council, the edict still provoked intense opposition
in the West and among committed Chalcedonians in the East, since it appeared to
question the rectitude of the Council’s decisions, at which Theodoret and Ibas had both
been reinstated as orthodox: Grillmeier, Christ II.2 421^5. In order to overcome this, Justinian
had Pope Vigilius forcibly removed from Rome in 546 and brought to Constantinople;
after a year of severe pressure, Vigilius agreed to subscribe to this edict in 548, but this
merely provoked local Councils in western provinces to reject the Pope and his decision. In
the face of this opposition, Vigilius suggested the convocation of a general Council, and
meantime withdrew his agreement to the condemnation of the Three Chapters. When
Justinian issued a Declaration of Faith in 551, this appeared to preempt the decisions of
any Council (which Justinian preferred to avoid), but Vigilius refused to accept this and
prepared to pronounce anathemas against Menas and Theodore Ascidas, the architects of
Justinian’s doctrinal policy. Justinian meantime deposed Zoilus of Alexandria and Peter of
Jerusalem for their refusal to agree to the condemnation of the Three Chapters, but at last
accepted the inevitability of a Council to resolve the dispute.