YEAR OF OUR LORD DXXXI. THEODORUS SCYTHOPOLITANUS BISHOP. NOTICE.
A I. Theodorus, bishop of Scythopolis, who attended the synod held at Jerusalem under patriarch Peter against Anthimus and other heretics, seems to have been the successor to the Theodorus of whom we speak here. First, to follow Lequien, he joined the Origenists in the tumults which arose after the passage of Saint Sabas to heaven; whence, having become most acceptable to Theodorus Ascidas, he was created bishop of Scythopolis. Regarding this matter, Cyrillus of Scythopolis should be heard in his "Life of Saint Sabas," which Cotelerius published: "When Theodorus," he says, "surnamed Ascidas, leader and prince of the Neolaurites, stood on the side of the Isochristi and defended them, having ensured that many of their bishops and abbots be established in Palestine, he also arranged that Theodorus, the superior of the New Laura, become the custodian of the Cross and metropolitan of the Scythopolitans," etc. Cyrillus narrates these things shortly before the death of patriarch Peter. For he soon adds: "Abbot Conon, therefore, and his companions, having been subjected to various hardships at Constantinople by Ascidas, brought back victory through patience. For a few days having passed, when archbishop Peter had departed from life," etc. Now Peter, bishop of Jerusalem, died, as writers more commonly hold, in the year 544, having succeeded John in the year 524. B From which chronological markings, therefore, the year 551 must be corrected; before we put our hand to writing these Prolegomena, we considered it out of place to bind the libellus of our Theodorus to it, which it was better to relegate to at least the year 553, as will be made evident from things to be said below. For it is certain from its inscription that it was offered among others to Eustochius, patriarch of Jerusalem; who, after Peter was already dead, when Macarius had been assumed into his place and shortly thereafter deposed, ascended the Jerusalem see. His inscription is thus set forth: "Libellus of Theodorus, bishop of Scythopolis. To the most religious and, under God’s protection, placed after God, our lord Justinian, and the most blessed patriarchs Eutychius, Apollinarius, Domninus, and Eustochius, Theodorus, by the mercy of God, bishop of the Scythopolitans." Regarding this little work, Montfaucon says: "The libellus of Theodorus of Scythopolis was C offered to Emperor Justinian, and to the patriarchs Eutychius of Constantinople, Apollinarius of Alexandria, Domninus of Antioch, and Eustochius of Jerusalem. This very Theodorus, after he had followed the errors of Origen, whom he calls anathema and impious, finally repenting, condemns his dogmas with an anathema in this libellus, and by twelve anathemas proscribes as many impious heads of the Origenian doctrine. Whether Origen truly taught all those errors, it is not agreed among the learned. However, the excellent little work issues from codex xxxiv of the Coislinian Library."II. But it is better to hear the learned Lequien discoursing on this libellus of Theodorus: "Furthermore," he says, "it must be carefully observed. Theodorus, in that libellus which he published—while they were still seated—to Eutychius of Constantinople, Apollinarius of Alexandria, Domninus of Antioch, and Eustochius of Jerusalem, who all subscribed to the 5th general synod in the year 553, three indeed by their own hand, but Eustochius by three vicars (and meanwhile [he published it] within that interval of time which flowed from the year 552—in which, at the end of the month of August, Menas having died, Eutychius was substituted—to the year 559, in which the first of them, the Lord, died in the same month of August), [he] says absolutely nothing about the condemnation of Origen in that fifth general synod; nor does he even slightly name Didymus and Evagrius, whom writers commonly report to have been condemned in that synod along with Origen. D Had Theodorus been silent about this solemn proscription of Origen, from which so much praise would have redounded upon Emperor Justinian and the aforementioned patriarchs, if he had known it to have been proclaimed? This mention was certainly neither foreign to the present matter, nor to be neglected by Theodorus, especially since that proscription cast much dishonor upon the Origenian dogmas, which he was abjuring."
III. "But," he adds, "this little work of Theodorus becomes public after the fifth general synod, from the silence of Cyrillus of Scythopolis, who, although he carries his lucubration on the 'Life of Saint Sabas' beyond the time of this general synod, of which he makes mention, nevertheless says nothing about the return of Theodorus, the Scythopolitan prelate, to sound doctrine, with those Origenian errors rejected, for the profession of which, as he himself testifies, Theodorus Ascidas, the greatest protector of the Origenian monks, had taken care that he be promoted to that see. Therefore, that retraction of Theodorus was later, and it had not yet been done when Cyrillus finished his work on the 'Life of Saint Sabas.' Hence, indeed, the assertion ventilated above, by which we established that in the 5th general synod nothing was actually treated or defined regarding the condemnation of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, seems to be not a little corroborated. Tillemont says that, concerning the condemnation of Didymus with Origen and Evagrius by the fifth general synod, it is not unknown that there is much to be said, which he remits to be weighed in the sixth century: by these very words implying that that condemnation of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus is involved in the greatest difficulties. In the index of the bishops of this fifth synod, this Theodorus of Scythopolis is not read, nor is anything else known to us about him. Thus far the famous Lequien."
IV. Furthermore, in these words of the learned man just related, the author does not seem to me to be entirely consistent. For first he says, to the patriarchs of Constantinople, Christ, ἐν τῇ ἀποκαταστάσει, in restitution.