Theodoret was at Antioch when Count Rufus brought him the edict. His friends would have detained him, but he hurried away." On reaching Cyrus he wrote to his friend Anatolius warmly protesting against the cruel and unjust action taken against him, and informing the patrician that Euphronius, a military officer, had travelled hard on the track of Rufus to ask for a written acknowledgment of the receipt of the edict of relega-tion. (9) The letters written at this crisis by the indignant pen of the maligned scholar and saint (10) have a peculiar value, at once biographical, literary, and theological. To Euse-bius bishop of Ancyra he sends an important catalogue of his works. To Dioscorus, the chief of the cabal against him, he sends a summary of his views on the incarnation and the nature of our Lord, couched in such terms as might perhaps in earlier days have shortened his great controversy with Cyril. But the opponents of Theodoret were not in a mood to be moved by any formulation of the terms of his faith. Dioscorus received the letter with insult, and publicly joined in the shout of anathema which he permitted to be raised against his hated brother. (11) The condemnation of Eutyches by Flavian's Constan-tinopolian Synod had roused the Eutychian party to leave no stone unturned to secure its reversal and crush it and all who upheld it. Of the latter Theodoret was the most prominent, the ablest and perhaps the holiest. Hence he was the natural representative and personification of the doctrines that Dioscorus sought to decry and degrade. (12) The sixth Council of Ephesus of evil fame met in the Church of St. Mary the Virgin on August 8,449. Eutyches was acquitted. Flavian was condemned. Ibas of Edessa, Domnus of Antioch, and Theodoret of Cyrus were deprived of their sees. The disgraceful scenes of violence which marked every stage of this shameful ecclesiastical gathering have been described again and again with the vivid detail (13) rendered possible by the exactitude of contemporary
narrative, but, inasmuch as Theodoret was condemned in his absence we are concerned here less with the manner in which his condemnation was brought about than with the steps he took to protest against and to reverse it.
To the prisoner of Cyrus courier after courier would bring intelligence of the riots and tricks of the council. At last came news of the crowning wrong. On the indictment of an Antiochene presbyter named Pelagius, Theodoret was condemned as an enemy of God, a disseminator of poison, a false teacher deserving to be burnt. In support of the accusation was quoted the careful theological statement addressed by Theodoret to the monks in the Euphratensis and the Osrhoene which appears as Letter CLI., as well as citations from his works at large. Dioscorus described the absent defendant as a blasphemous enemy of God and the Emperor whose life had been spent in damning souls. The-odoret was sentenced not merely to deposition from his see but to degradation from the priesthood and to excommunication, and his books were ordered to be burnt. (1) So the great council ended with the deposition of Flavian of Constantinople, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Daniel of Carrae, Irenaeus of Tyre, Aquilinus of Biblus, and Domnus of Antioch as well as of Theodoret. (2) Eutyches the heretic Archimandrite was restored and the brutal Dioscorus seemed master of Christendom. One word of manly Latin had broken in on the supple suffrages of the servile orientals, the "Contradicitur" of Hilarius the representative of the Church of Rome.
To that church, and to its illustrious bishop, Theodoret naturally turned in his hour of need. He implored his friend Anatolius to get him permission to plead his own cause in person in the West, or if not to let him retire to his old home at Nicerte. (3) The latter alternative was conceded. In this retreat he received many proofs of the affectionate regard of his friends and offers of more practical help than his modest necessities demanded. (4) Thence products of his facile pen travelled far and wide. The whole series of letters written at this period gives touching testimony to the gentle and forgiving spirit of the sorely tried bishop. There is nothing of the bitterness and fierce anger which appear sometimes in the earlier controversy with Cyril. He is refined, not soured, by adversity, and, though he never approached nearer to canonization than the acquisition of the inferior title of Blessed, he appears in these dark days as no unworthy specimen of the suffering saint. (5) The chief interest of these letters is in truth moral spiritual and theological. This, however, has been obscured by the ecclesiastical interest which has been given them by the unwarranted attempt to represent Theodoret's letter to Leo as an "appeal" to the see of Rome in the later and technical sense of the word. Whether St. Hilary of Arles ever did or did not give the lie to his short life of strennous protest against the growing aggrandizement of the see of Rome, there is no doubt that before his death at the age of 41 in 449 his suffragans had been released by Leo from allegiance to a Metropolitan disobedient to the Roman chair, and that Valentinian had issued an edict confirming Leo's claims and making the authority of the Bishop of Rome supreme in the West. (1) It would be useful to maintainers of the Roman supremacy if they could adduce instances of any assertion or acceptance of similar authority in the East. So it has been said that Theodoret appealed to the Pope. (2) In a sense this is of course perfectly true. Theodoret did appeal to the Pope. But the whole superstructure of papal supremacy, so far as Theodoret is concerned, is really based upon a poor paronomasia. The bishop of Cyrus "appealed" to the bishop of Rome as any bishop believing himself to lie under an unjust sentence might appeal to any other bishop, and as Theodoret did appeal to other bishops. It is quite true that the church of Rome had many claims to honour and regard, as Theodoret himself felicitously and opportunely points out, and that the present occupant of its throne was a man of unblemished orthodoxy and of commanding personal dignity. But to recognise these facts is a long way from admitting that this very dignified see had either de facto or de jure any coercive jurisdiction over the Metropolitans of Alexandria or of Hierapolis, to the latter of whom Cyrus was subordinate. Theodoret himself quotes the crucial passage in St. Matthew's gospel (3) apparently without any idea that the "Petra" means all the successors of the "Petrus." (4) What Theodoret asked from Leo was not the sentence of a superior but the sympathy and support of an influential brother. What made it so peculiarly important that he should gain the ear and the approval of Leo was that Rome had been wholly unconcerned in the intrigue which condemned him. He could have had no more idea of papal authority in the later ultramontane sense than he could of the decrees of the Vatican Council. Bound as he was to do his utmost to vindicate not so much his own position and doctrinal soundness, as the truth now trampled on by the combined factions of Alexandria and the court, he naturally turned to Leo as alike the most respected and most independent bishop of his age. (5)
Leo, however, could do little or nothing to help him. Theodosius, completely under the influence of Chrysaphius and Dioscorus, was quite satisfied as to the proper constitution and equity of the Latrocinium.
PART V. -- THEODORET AND CHALCEDON.
NOW, not for the last time in history, an important part was played by a horse. In July, 450, Theodosius, while hunting in the neighbourhood of his capital, was thrown from the saddle into a stream, hurt his spine, and a few days afterwards died. (6) With him died the cause of Eutyches and of Chrysaphius. The eunuch was promptly executed, and at last a Council was conceded to reconsider and rectify the crimes and blunders of the Latrocinium. (7) But the Empress and her venerable husband did not wait for the Council to undo some of the wrong done to Theodoret, and the large place he filled in the eyes and estimation of the oriental world is shewn by the interest shewn at Constantinople in his behalf. (8) The decree of relegation appears to have been rescinded, and he was free to present himself at the synod. On the first assembling of the five hundred bishops, (9) under the
presidency of the imperial Commissioners, (1) the minutes of the Latrocinium were read; the presence of Dioscorus was protested against by the Roman representation as having dared to hold a synod unauthorized by Rome; and the claim of Theodoret to sit and vote, allowed both by the imperial Commissioners and by the westerns, since Leo (2) had accepted him as an orthodox bishop, was vehemently resisted by the Eutychians. He entered, but at first did not vote, and his enemies at last succeeded in wringing from him a personal anathema not only of Nestorianism, but of Nestorius. The scenes reported in detail are too characteristic alike of the earlier Councils and of Theodoret to be omitted.
"The illustrious Presidents and the honorable Assessors ordered that the most religious bishop Theodoret should enter, that he might be a partaker of the Council, because the holy Archbishop Leo had restored the bishopric to him; and the most sacred and pious Emperor determined that he was to be present at the Holy Council. And on the entrance of the most religious Theodoret, the most religious bishops of Egypt, Illyricum and Palestine called out: 'Have mercy upon us! The faith is destroyed. The Canons cast him out. Cast out the teacher of Nestorius.' The most religious bishops of the East and those of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace shouted out: 'We had to sign a blank paper; we were scourged, and so we signed. Cast out the Manichaeans; cast out the enemies of Flavian; cast out the enemies of the faith.' Dioscorus, the most religious bishop of Alexandria said: 'Why is Cyril being cast out, who is anathematized by Theodoret?' The Eastern and Pontic and Asian and Thracian most religions bishops shouted out: 'Cast out Dioscorus the murderer. Who does not know the deeds of Dioscorus?' The Egyptian and the Illyrian and the Palestinian most religious bishops shouted out: 'Long years to the Empress!' The Eastern and the most religious bishops with them shouted out: 'Cast out the murderers!' The Egyptians and the most religious bishops with them shouted out: 'The Empress has cast out Nestorius. Long years to the orthodox Empress! The Council will not receive Theodoret.' Theodoret, the most religious bishop, came up into the midst and said: 'I have offered petitions to the most godlike, most religious and Christ-loving masters of the world, and I have related the disasters which have befallen me, and I claim that they shall be read.' The most illustrious Presidents and the most honourable Assessors said: 'Theodoret, the most religious bishop, having received his proper place from the holy Archbishop of the renowned Rome, now occupies the place of an accuser. Wherefore, that there be no confusion in our proceedings, allow the things which have had a beginning to be finished. No prejudice will accrue to anyone from the appearance of the most religious Theodoret. Every argument for you and for him, if you desire to make one on one side or the other is of course reserved.' And after Theodoret, the most religious bishop, had sat down in the midst, the Eastern, and the most religious bishops who were with them, shouted out: 'He is worthy! He is worthy!' The Egyptians and the most religious bishops who were with them shouted out: 'Do not call him a bishop! He is not a bishop! Cast out the fighter against God! Cast out the Jew!' The Easterns and the most religious bishops who were with them shouted out: 'The ortbodox for the Council! Cast out the rebels! Cast out the murderers!' The Egyptians and the most religious bishops who were with them shouted out: 'Cast out the fighter against God! Cast out the insulter of Christ! Long years to the Empress! Long years to the Emperor! Long years to the orthodox Emperor! Theodoret has anathematized Cyril.' The Easterns and the most religious bishops who were with them shouted out: 'Cast out the murderer Dioscorus!' The Egyptians and the most religious bishops with them shouted out: 'Long years to the Assessors! He has not the right of speech. He is expelled from the whole Synod!' Basil, the most religious bishop of Trajanopolis, in the province of Rhodope, rose up and said: 'Theodoret has been condemned by us.' The Egyptians and the most religious bishops with them shouted out: 'Theodoret has accused Cyril: We cast out Cyril if we receive Theodoret. The Canons cast out Theodoret. God has turned away from him.' The most illustrious Presidents and the most honourable Assessors said: 'The vulgar cries are not worthy of bishops, nor will they assist either side. Suffer, therefore, the reading of alI the documents.' The Egyptians and the most
religious bishops with them shouted out: 'Cast out one man, and we will all hear. We shout out in the cause of Religion. We say these things for the sake of the orthodox Faith.' The most illustrious Presidents and the honourable Assessors said: 'Rather acquiesce, in God's name, that the hearing of the documents should take place, and concede that all shall be read in proper order.' And at last they were silent, and Constantine, the most holy Secretary and Magistrate of the Divine Synod, read these documents." (1)
One more sad incident must be given -- the demand made at the eighth session that Theodoret should pronounce a curse on his ancient friend. "The most reverend bishops all stood before the rails of the most holy altar, and shouted "Theodoret must now anathematize Nestorius." Theodoret, the most reverend bishop, passed into the midst, andsaid: "I have made my petition to the most divine and religious Emperor, and I have laid documentsbefore the most reverend bishops occupying the place of the most sacredArchbishop Leo;and if you think fit, they shall be read to you, andyou will knowwhat I think.' The most reverend bishops shouted 'We want nothing to be read -- onlya nathematize Nestori-us.' Theodoret, the most reverend bishop, said: 'I was brought up by the orthodox, I was taught by the orthodox, I have preached orthodoxy, and not only Nestorius and Eutyches, but any man who thinks not rightly, I avoid and count him an alien.' The most reverend bishops shouted out: 'Speak plainly; anathema to Nestorius and his doctrine -- anathema to Nestorius and to those who defend him.' Theodoret, the most reverend bishop said: 'Of a truth I say nothing except so far as I know it to be pleasing to God. First I will convince you that I am here, not because I care for my city, not because I covet rank. Because I have been falsely accused, I come to satisfy you that I am orthodox, and that I anathematize Nestorius and Eutyches, and every one who says that there are two Sons.' Whilst he was speaking, the most reverend bishops shouted out: 'Speak plainly; anathematize Nestorius and those who think with him.' Theodoret, the most reverend bishop, said: 'Unless I set forth at length my faith I cannot speak. I believe' -- And whilst he spoke the most reverend bishops shouted: 'He is a heretic! He is a Nestorian! Away with the heretic! Anathema to Nestorius and to any one who does not confess that the Holy Virgin Mary is the Parent of God, and who divides the only begotten Son to two Sons.' Theodoret, the most reverend bishop, said, 'Anathema to Nestorius and to whoever denies that the Holy Virgin Mary is the Parent of God, and who divides the only begotten Son into two Sons. I have subscribed the definition of faith, and the epistle of the most holy Archbishop Leo.'" (2)
PART VI. --RETIREMENT AFTER CHALCEDON, AND DEATH.
Some doubt hangs over the question whether after his vindication at Chalcedon Theodoret resumed his labours at Cyrus, or occupied himself with literary work in the congenial seclusion of Nicerte. Garnerius makes it about the time of his quitting Chal-cedon that Sporacius charged him with the duty of writing on the Heresies, (3) and if so his five books on this subject would seem to have constituted the first fruit of his comparative leisure. Sporacius (4) he styles his "Christ- loving Son," and no doubt owed something to the aid of the influential ''Comes domesticorum," who was present at Chalcedon, when the question of his admission to the Council was being agitated. To this period has also been referred his commentary on the Octateuch. (3) On Dr. Newman's statement that Theodoret made over the charge of his diocese to Hypatius (one of his chorepiscopi, who had been entrusted with his appeal to Pope Leo) and retired into his monastery, and there regaining the peace which he had enjoyed in youth, passed from the peace of the Church to the peace of eternity, Canon Venables (6) remarks that there is no authority for so pleasing a picture, and that Tillemont (7) contradicts it altogether. Garnerius quotes his congratulation to Sabinianus (8) on leaving Perrha as suggestive of what conduct he might have preferred. It is at least certain that during this period he received a long and sympathetic letter from
Leo, from which it is clear that the Roman bishop reposed great confidence in him. (1) It is characteristic of one in whom the mere man was merged in the theologian and ecclesiastic that, as of the year of his birth, so of the year of his death, we have no specific information, and are compelled to form our conclusions on evidence which though valuable, is not overwhelming. Theodorus Lector, the composer of the Historia Tripartita, in the 6th century, states (2) that Theodoret prepared a sepulchral urn for the burial of the famous ascetic Jacobus; that he predeceased Jacobus; but that Jacobus was buried in it. (3) Evagrius (4) mentions Jacobus Syrus as still living when the Emperor Leo sent his Circular Letter to the bishops in 458, though then he must have been in extreme old age. And Gennadius, who lived not long after Theodoret, says that he died in the reign of Leo. The evidence is not strong. Theodoret may have died some years before Jacob. But Gennadius probably knew. On the whole we may conclude that there is some probability that Theodoret survived till 458; none that he lived longer. Like Lucius Cary, Viscount Folkland, to whom, in his isolation, Dean Stanley (5) compares him, Theodoret must have expired with the cry of "Peace, Peace," in his heart, if not on his lips. Garnerius is careful to prove that he died in "the peace of the Church," and appeals in support of this contention to the laudatory testimony of Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I., Pelagius II., and Gregory the Great. The peace of the Church, in the narrower sense, has not always been accorded to holy men and women who have assuredly departed this life in the faith and fear of their Lord. In its truer and holier connotation it coincides with a state in which we trust we may contemplate the godly old man of Cyrus, forgetting the storms that had beaten now and again on the life he was leaving behind him, and stepping quietly into the calm of the windless haven of souls, -- the Peace not of man, but of God.
PART VII. --THE CONDEMNATION OF "THE THREE CHAPTERS."
A sketch of the life of Theodoret might well be supposed to terminate with his death. But it can hardly be regarded as complete without a brief supplementary notice of the posthumous controversy which has contributed to his fame in ecclesiastical history. The Council of Chalcedon was designed to give rest to the Church, and to undo a great wrong, and catholic common sense has since vindicated its decisions. But it was not to be supposed that the opinions and passions which had achieved a combined triumph at Ephesus in 449 would die away and disappear in consequence of the imperial and synodical action of 451. The face of the world was changing. The vandal Genseric captured and pil-laged Rome. The Teutonic races were pushing to a foremost place, and accepting first of all an Arian Christianity. Clovis represented orthodoxy almost alone. Theodoric, the Arian Ostrogoth, mastered Italy. Then the turning tide saw Rome once again a city of sole empire, but not the chief city. The victories of Belisarius made of Rome a suburb of Constantinople, and empire and theology swayed and were swayed by the policy of Justinian and the palace plots of Theodora. All through monophysitism had had its friends and defenders. Metropolitans, monks, and mobs had anathematized one another for nearly a century. At Alexandria Dioscorus had won almost a local canonization, and the patriarch Timotheus, nicknamed "the Cat," had left a strong monophysite party, consolidated under Peter the Stutterer as the "acephali." (6) At Antioch Peter the Fuller had anathematized all who refused to accept the Shibboleth he appended to the Trisagion, "who wast crucified on our account." Leo, Marcian's successor on the Eastern throne, had followed Marcian's theology, and Zeno, Leo; but the usurper Basiliscus had seen elements of strength in a bold bid for monophysite support. Zeno, on the fall of Basiliscus, had attempted to atone the disunited sections of Christendom by the henoticon, or edict of unity, but the henoticon had been for years a watchword of division. Anastasius had favoured the Eutychians. And in his reign Theodoret had been twice condemned, at the synods of Constantinople and Sidon, in 499 and 512. (7) Justin I., the unlettered barbarian, supported the Chalcedonians, but in 544 Belisarius
bad made the Eutychian Vigilius bishop of Rome. When Justinian aspired to become a second Constantine, and give theological as well as civil law to the world, it was proposed to condemn in a fifth oecumenical council certain so-called Nestorian writings, on the plea that such a condemnation might reconcile the opponents of Chalcedon. The writings in question were the Letter of lbas of Edessa to Maris, praising Theodore of Mopsnestia; the works of Theodore himself, and the writings of Theodoret against Cyril. These three literary monuments were known as "the Three Chapters." (1) Of the controversy of the Three Chapters it has been said that it "filled more volumes than it was worth lines." (2) The Council satisfied nobody. Pope Vigilius, detained at Constantinople and Marmora with something of the same violence with which Napoleon I. detained Pius VI. at Valence, declined to preside over a gathering so exclusively oriental. The West was outraged by the constitution of the synod, irrespective of its decisions. The Monophysites were disappointed that the credit of Chalcedon should be even nominally saved by the nice distinction which damaged the writings, but professed complete agreement with the council which had refused to damn the writers. The orthodox wanted no slur cast upon Chalcedon, and, however fenced, the condemnation of the Three Chapters indubitably involved such a slur. Practically, the decrees of the fourth and fifth councils are mutually inconsistent, and it is impossible to accept both. Theodoret was reinstated at Chalcedon in spite of what he had written, and what he had written was anathematized at Constantinople in spite of his reinstatement.
The xiii Canon of the fifth Council runs as follows, "if any one defends the impious writings of Theodoret which he published against the true faith, against the first holy synod of Ephesus and against the holy Cyril and his twelve chapters; and all that he wrote in defence of the impious Theodorus and Nestorius, and others who held the same opinions as the aforesaid Theodorus and Nestorins. defending them and their impiety, and accordingly calling impious the doctors of the church who confess the union according to hypostasis of God the Word in the flesh; and does not anathematize these writings and those who have held or do hold similar opinions, above all those who have written against the true faith and the holy Cyril and his twelve chapters, anti have remained to the day of their death in such impiety; let him be anathema."
In this condemnation the works certainly included are Theodoret's "Objections to Cyril's Chapters," some of his letters, and, among his lost works, the "Pentalogium," namely five books on the Incarnation written against Cyril and his supporters at Ephesus, of which fragments are preserved, and two allocutions against Cyril delivered at Chalcedon in 431, of which portions exist in the acts of the fifth Council, and do not exhibit Theedoret at his best.
The Council has at least preserved to us an interesting little record of the survival at Cyrus of the memory of her great bishop, for it appears that at the seventh collation, held at the end of May, notice was taken of an enquiry ordered by Justinian respecting a statue or portrait of Theodoret which was said to have been carried in procession into his cathedral town, by Andronicus a presbyter and George a deacon. (1) A more important tribute to his memory is the fact that, though it officially anathematized writings some of which, composed in the thick of the fight, and soiled with its indecorous dust, Theedeter himself may well have regretted and condemned, the Council advisedly abstained from directly condemning a bishop whose character and person were protected by the notorious iniquity of the robber council that had deposed him, the friendship of the illustrious Leo, and the solemn vindication of the church in Synod at Chalcedon, as well as by his own confession of the faith, his repudiation of the errors of Nestorius, and the stainless beauty and pious close of his long life.
No better reconciliation between Chalcedon and Constantinople can be proffered than that which Garnerius quotes from the letter said to have been written by Gregory the Great, though sent in the name of Pelagius II, to the Illyrians on the fifth council, "It is the part of unwarrantable rashness to defend those writings of Theodoret which it is note-
rious that Theodoret himself condemned in his subsequent profession of the right faith. So long as we at once accept himself and repudiate the erroneous writings which have long remained unknown we do not depart in any way from the decision of the sacred synod, because so long as we only reject his heretical writings, we, with the synod, attack Nestorius, and with the synod express our veneration for Theodoret in his right confession. His other writings we not only accept, but use against our foes." (1)
PART VIII. -- THE WORKS OF THEODORET.
Of authorities for the works of Theodoret we may first cite himself. In four of his letters he mentions his own writings; viz.: in lxxxii, to Eusebius of Ancyra; in cxiii, to Leo of Rome; in cxvi, to the Presbyter Renatus; and in cxlv, to the monks at Constantinople. Of these the first was written in 445 and the last three in 449 and a reference to them will show the works mentioned. It is to be noticed (3) that no allusion is made to the refutation of the twelve chapters; to the defence of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, nor to the Dialogues, though all are held to have been written before the Latrocinium. It may have been, as Garnerius conjectures, that Theodoret did not judge it politic at this time to call attention to these particular works, but the assumption is not based on strong grounds, and Theodoret never appears as one unwilling to avow his convictions, which indeed, were perfectly well known.
Gennadius, presbyter of Marseilles, who died in 496, writes "Theodoretus, bishop of Cyrus, is said to have written many works: those, however, which have come to my knowledge are the following; of the Incarnation of the Lord, against the presbyter Eutyches, and Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, who deny that there was in Christ human flesh, -- powerful writings wherein he proves, as well by argument as by scriptural evidence, that Christ had very flesh of the substance of His mother, which He took from the Virgin, and very Godhead, which by eternal generation He received, in being generated, from God the father begetting Him. There exist also his books of Ecclesiastical History, which he wrote in imitation of Eusebius of Csarea, beginning from the end of the books of Eusebius down to his own time, viz.: from the twentieth year of Constantine down to the reign of Leo I, in whose reign he died." (4)
Photius, in the ninth century, says that he has read the Ecclesiastical History; twenty-seven books against Heresies, among which he reckons the "Eranistes;" five books "Hreticarum Fabularum;" Daniel, the Octateuch, King, ive in praise of Chrysostom; with Commentarles on Chronicles, and the Twelve Minor Prophets.
Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus in the fourteenth century, Hist. Ecc. xiv. 54, writes: "Theodoretus, Syrian by birth, was a follower of the great Chrysostom, whom he set before him as a model of style. His own was flowing and copious, eloquent and easy, and not destitute of Attic grace." He mentions expositions of difficult passages of the Old Testament; Commentaries on the Prophets and the Psalms; the "de Providentia;" a volume "On the Apostles;" the Confutation of heresies, called "the battle between truth and falsehood;" the refutation of Cyril's "Twelve Chapters;" the Ecclesiastical History; the "Philotheus," a History of the Lovers of God; three books on the divine doctrines, and five hundred (?) letters.
The following is the catalogue of extant works as given by Sirmondus and followed by Garnerius.
(i.) Exegetical. Questions on the Octateuch, the Books of Kings and Chronicles; the Interpretation of the Psalms, Canticles, the Four Greater, and the Twelve Lesser Prophets; an exposition of all the Epistles of St. Paul, including the Hebrews.
(ii.) Historical. The Ecclesiastical History, and the "Philotheus," or Religious History.
(iii.) Controversial. The Eranistes, or Dialogues, and the Hreticarum Fabularum Compendium.
(iv.) Theological. The Grcarum Affectionum Curatio, the Discourse on Charity, and the De Providentia.
(v.) Epistolary. The Letters.
(vi.) To these may be added the Refutation of the Twelve Chapters, and the following given in the Auctarium of Garnerius.
(1.)Prolegomena and extracts from Commentaries on the Psalms.
(2.)Part of a Commentary on St. Luke.
(3.)Sermon on the Nativity of St. John the Baptist.
(4.)Portions of Sermons on St. Chrysostom.
(5.)Homily preached at Chalcedon in 431.
(6.)Fragments of the Pentalogium, extracted from Marius Mercator, (1) who attributed the work to the instigation of the devil. Lost works. (2)
(1.) The Pentalogium, of which fragments are preserved in the Auctarium. (2.) Opus mysticurn, sive mysteriorum fidei expositiones, lib. xii.
(3.) Works "de theologia et Incarnatione," identified by Garnier with three Dialogues against the Macedonians, and two against the Apollinarians, erroneously attributed to Athanasius.
(4.)Adversus Marcionem.
(5.)Adversus Judos (? the Commentary on Daniel).
(6.)Responsiones ad qusitus magorum Persarum.
(7.)Five sermons on St. Chrysostom.
(8.)Two allocutions spoken at Chalcedon against Cyril in 431.
(9.) Sermon preached at Antioch on the death of Cyril.
(10.) Works on Sabellius and the Trinity, of which portions are given by Baluz. Misc. iv.
PART IX. -- CONTENTS AND CHARACTER OF THE EXTANT WORKS.
(a) The character of the Commentary on the Octateuch and the Books of
Kings and Chronicles is indicated by the Title "
Question viii. "What spirit moved upon the waters?" Theodoret's conclusion is that the wind is indicated.
Question x. "Why did the author add, 'And God saw that it was good'?" To persuade the thankless not to find fault with what the divine judgment pronounces good.
Question xix. "To whom did God say 'let us make man in our image and likeness'?" The reply, carefully elaborated, is that here is an indication of the Trinity. Question xx. "What is meant by 'mage'?" Here long extracts from Diodorus, Theodorus, and Origen are given.
Question xxiv. "Why did God plant paradise, when He intended straightway to drive out Adam thence?"
God condemns none of foreknowledge. And besides, He wished to shew the saints the Kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world. (5)
Question xl. "What is the meaning of the statement 'The man is become as one of us'?" Theodoret thinks this is said ironically. God had forbidden Adam to take of the fruit of the tree of life, not because he grudged man immortal life, but to check the course of sin. So death is a means of cure, not a punishment.
Question xlvii. "Whom did Moses call sons of God?" A long argument replies, the sons of Seth.
Question lxxxi suggests an ingenious excuse for Jacob. "Did not Jacob lie when he said, I am Esau thy firstborn?" He had bought the precedence of primogeniture, and therefore spoke the truth when he called himself firstborn.
Exodus. "Question xii. What is the meaning of the phrase 'I will harden Pharaoh's heart'?" This is answered at great length.
The information given in these notes, as we might call them, is theological, exegetic, and explanatory of peculiar terms, and is often of interest and value. On the fourteen Books of Questions and Answers Canon Venables, (1) quoting Ceillier, remarks that the whole form a literary and historical commentary of great service for the right comprehen sion of the text, characterized by honesty and common sense, and seldom straining or evading the meaning to avoid dangerous conclusions.
(b) On the Psalms and the rest of the Books of the Old Testament the Commentary is no longer in the catechetical form, but is styled Interpretation. (2)
The Psalmist, Theodoret observes, (3) in many places predicts the passion and resurrection of our Lord, and to attentive readers causes real delight by the variety of his prophesying. In view of some recent discussions concerning the authorship of certain Psalms it is interesting to find the enthusiast for orthodoxy in the 5th century writing "It has been contended by some critics that the Psalms are not all the work of David, but are to be ascribed in some cases to other writers. Accordingly, from the titles, some have been attributed to Idithum, some to Etham, some to the sons of Core, some to Asaph, by men who have learned from the Chronicles that these writers were prophets. (4) On this point I make no positive statement. What difference indeed does it make to me whether all the Psalms are David's, or some were the composition of others, when it is clear that all were written by the active operation of the Holy Spirit?"
The importance of the commentary on the Psalms may be estimated by the fact that it is longer than all the catechetical commentary on the preceding Books combined.
The interpretation on the Canticles follows spiritual, as distinguished from literal, lines. The lover is Jesus Christ;--the bride, the Church. From the prologue it appears that Theodoret held all the Old Testament to have been rewritten, under divine inspiration, by Ezra. This is regarded as the earliest of the exegetical works.
The original commentary on Isaiah has been lost. The only existing portions are passages collected from the Greek caten by Sirmond and edited in his edition, but the opinion has been entertained (5) that these passages should be referred to Theodore of Mopsuestia who also commented on Isaiah, and who is sometimes confused with Theodoret by the compilers of the Greek caten. The commentary on Jeremiah includes Baruch and the Lamentations. (6)
(c) The epistles of St. Paul, among which Theodoret reckons the Epistle to the Hebrews, are the only portions of the New Testament on which we possess our author's commentaries. On them the late Bishop Lightfoot writes, "Theodoret's commentaries on St. Paul are superior to his other exegetical writings, and have been assigned the palm over all patristic expositions of Scripture. See Schrockh xviii. p. 398. sqq., Simon, p. 314 sqq. Rosenmuller iv. p. 93 sqq., and the monograph of Richter, de Theodoreto Epist. Paulin, interprete (Lips. 1822.) For appreciation, terseness of expression and good sense, they are perhaps unsurpassed, and, if the absence of faults were a just standard of merit, they would deserve the first place; but they have little claim to originality, and he who has read Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia will find scarcely anything in Theodoret which he has not seen before. It is right to add however that Theodoret modestly disclaims any such merit. In his preface he apologises for attempting to interpret St. Paul after two such men who are 'luminaries of the world:' and he professes nothing more than to gather his stores 'from the blessed fathers.' In these expressions he alludes doubtless to Chrysostom and Theodore." (7)
As a specimen of the mode of treatment of a crucial passage, of interest in view of the writer's relations to the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies, the notes on I. Cor. xv. 27, 28 may be quoted. "This is a passage which Arians and Eunomians have been wont to be constantly adducing with the notion that they are thereby belittling the dignity of the only-begotten. They ought to have perceived that the divine apostle has written nothing in this passage about the Godhead of the only-begotten. He is exhorting us to believe in the resurrection of the flesh, and endeavours to prove the resurrection of the flesh by the resurrection of the Lord. It is obvious that like is conformed to like. On this account he calls Him 'the first fruits of them that have fallen asleep,' and styles Him
'Man,' and by comparison with Adam proves that by Him the general resurrection will come to pass, with the object of persuading objectors, by shewing the resurrection of one of like nature, to believe that all mankind will share His resurrection. It must therefore be recognised that the natures of the Lord are two: and that divine Scripture names Him sometimes from the human, and sometimes from the divine. If it speaks of God, it does not deny the manhood: if it mentions man it at the same time confesses the Godhead. It is impossible always to speak of Him in terms of sublimity, on account of the nature which He received from us, for if even when lowly terms are employed some men deny the assumption of the flesh, clearly still more would have been found infected with this unsoundness, had no lowly terms been used. What then is the meaning of 'then is subjected'? This expression is applicable to sovereigns exercising sovereignty now, for if He then is subjected He is not yet subjected. So they are all in error who blaspheme and try to make subject Him who has not yet submitted to the limits of subjection. We must wait, and learn the mode of the subjection. But we have gone through long discussions on these points in our contests with them. It is enough now to indicate briefly the Apostle's aim. He is writing to the Corinthians who have only just been set free from the fables of heathendom. Their fables are full of violence and iniquity. Not to name others, and pollute my lips, they worship parricide gods, and say that sons revolted against their fathers, drove them from their realm, and seized their sovereignty. So after saying great things of Christ, in that He shall destroy all rule and authority and power, and shall put an end to death, and hath subdued all things under his feet; lest starting from those fables of theirs they should expect Him to treat His father like the Dmons whom they adore; after mentioning, as was necessary, the subjugation of all things the apostle adds 'The Son Himself shall be subject to Him that did put all things under Him.' For not only shall He not subject the Father to Himself, but shall Himself accept the subjection becoming to a son. So the divine apostle, suspecting the mischief arising from the pagan mythology, uses expressions of lowliness because such terms are helpful. But let objectors tell us the form of that subjection. If they are willing to consider the truth, He shewed obedience when He was made man, and wrought out our salvation. How then shall He then be subjected, and how shall He then deliver the kingdom to God the Father? If the case be viewed in this way, it will appear that God the Father does not hold the kingdom now. So full of absurdity are their arguments. But He makes what is ours His own, since we are called His body, and He is called our Head. 'He took our iniquities and bore our diseases.' (1) So He says in the Psalm 'my God, my God, look upon me, why hast Thou forsaken me. The words of my transgressions are far from my health.' (2) And yet He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth. But a mouth is made of our nature, in that He was made the first fruits of the nature. So He appropriates our frequent disobedience and the then subjection, and, when we are subjected after our delivery from corruption He is said to be subjected. What follows leads us on to this sense. For after the words 'then shall the son be subject to Him that did put all things under Him,' the Apostle adds 'that God may be all in all.' He is everywhere now in accordance with His essence, for His nature is uncircumscribed, as says the divine apostle, 'in Him we live and move and have our being.' (3) But, as regards His good pleasure, He is not in all, for 'the Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear Him, in those that hope in his mercy.' (4) But in these He is not wholly. For no one is pure of uncleanness, (5) and In thy sight shall no man living be justified (6) and 'If thou Lord shouldst mark iniquities O Lord who shall stand?' Therefore the Lord taketh pleasure wherein they do right and taketh not pleasure wherein they err. But in the life to come where corruption ceases and immortality is given passions have no place; and after these have been quite driven out no kind of sin is committed for the future. Thus hereafter God shall be all in all, when all have been released from sin and turned to Him and are incapable of any inclination to the worse. And what in this place the divine Apostle has said of God in another passage he has laid down of Christ. His words are these. 'Where there is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian . . . but Christ is all and in all.' (7) He would not have applied to the Son what is attributable to the Father had he not of divine grace learnt that He is of equal honour with Him." (8) On the meaning of the passage about them that are baptized for the dead it is curious to
find only one interpretation curtly proffered in apparent unconsciousness of any other being known or possible. Theodoret's words are "He, says the apostle, who is baptized is buried with the Lord, that as he has been sharer in the death so he may be sharer in the resurrection. But if the body is dead and does not rise why then is he baptized?" The dead for which a man is baptized seems to be regarded as his own dead body i.e., dead in trespasses and sin and subject to corruption.
(d) Of the historical works, (i) the Ecclesiastical History needs less description, in that a translation in extenso is given in the text. Its style and spirit speak for themselves. Photius (2) well describes it as "clear, lofty, and concise."
Gibbon, (3) referring to the three ecclesiastical historians of this period speaks of "Socrates, the more curious Sozomen, and the learned Theodoret." Of learning, industry, and veracity the proofs are patent in the book itself. The chief fault of the work is its want of chronological arrangement. (4) A minor shortcoming is what may be called a lack of perspective; a fulness of detail is sometimes conceded to mere episode and parenthesis, while characters and events of high and crucial importance would scarcely be known to be so, were we dependent for our estimation of them on Theodoret alone. Valesius inclines to the opinion that his opening words about supplying things omitted (6) refer to Socrates and Sozomen, and compares him in his composition of a history after those writers (there is just a possibility that he might have completed the parallel by referring to a third predecessor -- Rufinus) to St. John filling up the gaps left by the synoptists. (6) But this view is open to question. Theodoret names no previous writers but Eusebius. A special importance attaches to his account of such events and persons as his local knowledge enables him to give with completeness of detail, as for instance, all that relates to Antioch and its bishops. Garnerius is of opinion that the work might with propriety be entitled A History of the Arian Heresy; all other matter introduced he views as merely episodic. (7) He also quotes the letter (8) of Gregory the great in which the Roman bishop states that "the apostolic see refuses to receive the History of 'Sozomenus' (sic) inasmuch as it abounds with lies, and praises Theodore of Mopsuestia, maintaining that he was up to the day of his death, a great Doctor." "Sozomen" is supposed to be a slip of the pen, or of the memory, for "Theodoret." But, if this be so, "multa mentitur" is an unfair description of the errors of the historian. Fallible he was, and exhibits failure in accuracy, especially in chronology, but his truthfulness of aim is plain. (9)
(ii) The Religious History, several times referred to in the Ecclesiastical History, and therefore an earlier composition, contains the lives of thirty-three famous ascetics, of whom three were women. The "curious intellectual problem" (10) of the readiness with which Theodoret, a disciple of the "prosaic and critical" school of Antioch, accepts and repeats marvellous tales of the miracles of his contemporary hermits, has been invested with fresh interest in our own time by the apparent sympathy and similar belief of Dr. Newman, who asks "What made him drink in with such relish what we reject with such disgust? Was it that, at least, some miracles were brought home so absolutely to his sensible experience that he had no reason for doubting the others which came to him second-hand? This certainly will explain what to most of us is sure to seem the stupid credulity of so well-read, so intellectual an author." (11) Cardinal Newman evidently implies that the evidence was irresistible, even to a keen and trained intelligence. Probably in many cases the explanation is to be found, as has been already suggested in the remarks on Theodoret's birth, in the ready acceptance of the current views of the age and place as to cause and effect. Theodoret believed in the marvels of his monks. Matthew Hale believed in
witchcraft. Neither, that is, was some centuries removed from his own age. Neither need be accused of stupid credulity. The enthusiasm which led him to reckon on finding the noble army of martyrs a very present help in time of trouble because he had a little bottle of their oil, probably that burned at their graves, slung over his bed; and his assurance that the old, cloak of Jacobus, folded for his pillow, was a more than adamantine bulwark against the wiles of the devil, indicate no more than an exaggerated reliance on the power of material memorials to affect the imagination. (1) And it is curious to remark that with all this acceptance of the cures effected by ascetics, Theodoret made a provision of medical skill for his flock at Cyrus. (2)
(e) The works reckoned as theological, as distinct from the
controversial, are three: (i) The twelve discourses entitled
(iii) The Discourse on Divine Love. This love, says Theodoret, is the source of the holy life of the ascetics. For his own part he would not accept the kingdom of heaven without it, or with it, were such a thing possible, shrink from the pains of hell. It was
really love, he says, which led to Peter's denial; he need not have denied if he could have borne to keep aloof, but love goaded him to be near his Lord. (f.) The controversial works are
(i.) The "Eranistes," or Dialogues, of which the translation is included in the text. They contain a complete refutation of the Entychian position, and the quotations in them are in several cases valuable as giving portions of the writing of Fathers not elsewhere preserved. They are supposed to have been written shortly after the death of Cyril in 444, and are intended at once to vindicate Theodoret's own orthodoxy, and to expose the errors of the party protected by Dioscorus.
(ii.) The Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, (A
I. Simon Magus, Menander, Saturnilus, (1) Basilides, Isidorus, Carpocrates, Epiphanes, Prodicus, Valentinus, Secundus, Marcus the Wizard, the Ascodruti, (2) the Colorbasii, the Barbelioti, (3) the Ophites, the Cainites, the Antitacti, the Perati, Monoimus, Hermogenes, Tatianus, Severus, Bardesanes, Harmoniu Florinus, Cerdo, Marcion, Apelles, Potitus, Prepo, and Manes.
II. The Ebionites, the Nazarenes, Cerinthus, Artemon, Theodotus, the Melchise-deciani, the Elkesites, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, MarcelIus, Photinus.
III. The Nicolaitans, the Montanists, Noetus of Smyrna, the Tessarescdecatites (i.e. Quartodecimani) Novatus, Nepos.
IV. Arius, Eudoxius, Etmomius, Aetius, the Psathyriani, the Macedoniani, the Donatists, the Meletians, Appollinarius, the Audiani, the Messaliani, Nestorius, Eutyches. V. The last book is an "Epitome of the Divine Decrees."
This catalogue, it has been remarked, does not include Origenism and Pelagianism. (4) But though Theodoret did not sympathize with Origen's school of scriptural interpretation, there was no reason why he should damn him as unsound in the faith. And the controversy between Jerome and Rufinus as to Origen was a distinctively western controversy. So was Pelagianism a western heresy, with which Theodoret was not brought into immediate contact.
The fourth book is obviously the most important, as treating of heresies of which the writer would have contemporary knowledge. And special interest has attached to the chapter on Nestorius, who is condemned not merely for erroneous opinion on the incarnation and person of Christ, but as a timeserver and pretender, seeking rather to be thought, than to be, a Christian. Garnerius indeed doubts the genuineness of the chapter, and Schulze, in defending it, points out the similarity of its line of argument to that employed in the treatise "against Nestorius," which is very generally regarded as spurious. It may have been added after Chalcedon, when the writer had been forced into the denunciation of his old friend. But the expressions used alike of the incarnation and of Nestorius seem somewhat in contrast with other writings of Theodoret. Schrockh (5) inclines to the view in which Ceillier concurs, that this damning account of Nestorius was really written by his old champion, and accounts for the harshness of condemnation by the influence of the clamours of Chalcedon and the induration which old age sometimes brings on tender spirits. It can only be said that if this is Theodoret, it is Theodoret at his worst.
The heads of the Epitome of Divine Decrees are the following twenty-
nine: Of the Father; of the Son; of the Holy Ghost; of Creation; of
Matter; of ons; of Angels; of AEmons; of Man; of Providence; of the
Incarnation of the Saviour; that the Lord took a body; that He took a
soul as well as His body; that the human nature which He took was
perfect; that He raised the nature which He took; that He is good and
just; that He gave the Old and the New Testament; of Baptism; of
Resurrection; of Judgment; of Promises; of the Second Advent
('E
The short chapter on the Incarnation has a special value in view of the author's connection with the Nestorian Controversy. "It is worth while," he writes in it, "to exhibit what we hold concerning the Incarnation, for this exposition proclaims more clearly
the providence of the God of all. In his forged fables Valentinus
maintained a distinction between the only-begotten and the Word, and
further between the Christ within the pleroma and Jesus, and also the
Christ who is without. He said that Jesus became man, by putting on the
Christ that is without, and assuming a body of the substance of the
soul; and that He made a passage only through the Virgin, having assumed
nothing of the nature of man. Basilides in like manner distinguished
between the only-begotten, the Word and the Wisdom. Cerdon, on the
other hand, Marcion, and Manes, said that the Christ appeared as man,
though he had nothing human. Cerinthus maintained that Jesus was
generated of Joseph and Mary after the common manner of men, but that
the Christ came down from on high on Jesus. The Ebionites, the
Theodotians, the Artemonians, and Photinians said that the Christ was
bare man born of the Virgin. Arius and Eunomius taught that He assumed
a body, but that the Godhead discharged the function of the soul.
Apollinarius held that the body of the Saviour had a soul, (1) but had
not the reasonable soul; for, according to his views, intelligence was
superfluous, God the Word being present. I have stated the opinions
taught by the majority of heresies with the wish of making plain the
truth taught by the church. Now the church makes no distinction between
(
(iii.) Therefutations of the Twelve Chapters of Cyril are translated in the Prolegomena. (1)
In the Epistle of Cyril to Celestinus and the Commonitorium datum
Posidonio (2) Cyril shows what sense he wishes to fix on the utterances
of Nestorius. "The faith, or rather the 'cacodoxy' of Nestorius, has
this force; he says that God the Word, prescient that he who was to be
born of the Holy Virgin would be holy and great, therefore chose him and
arranged that he should be generated of the Virgin without a husband and
conferred on him the privilege of being called by His own names, and
raised him so that even though after the incarnation he is called the
only begotten Word of God, he is said to have been made man because He
was always with him as with a holy man born of the Virgin. And as He
was with the prophets so, says Nestorius, was He by a greater
conjunction (
Nestorius was not unnaturally indignant at this misrepresentation of
his words. and complains of Cyril for leaving out important clauses and
introducing additions of his own. (4) Cyril succeeded in pressing upon
Celestinus the idea that Nestorius. who had vigorously opposed the
Pelagians, was really in sympathy with them. and so secured the
condemnation of his opponent at Rome and at Alexandria, an I published
twelve anathemas to complete his own vindication. These were answered
by Theodoret on behalf of the eastern church in 431. In 433 formal
peace was made, so far as the theological, as apart from the personal,
dispute was concerned, by the acceptance by both John of Antioch and
Cyril of the formula, slightly modified, which Theodoret himself had
drawn up at Ephesus two years before. (5) It is as follows: "We confess
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, to be perfect
God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and body, begotten before the
ages of the Father, as touching His godhead, and in the last days on
account of us and our salvation (born) of the Virgin Mary as touching
His manhood; that He is of one substance with the Father as touching His
godhead, of one substance with us as touching His manhood; for there is
made an union of two natures; wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son,
one Lord. According to this meaning of the unconfounded union we
confess the holy Virgin to be '
This is substantially what Theodoret says again and again. This
satisfied Cyril. This would probably have been accepted by Nestorus
too. (7) What then was it, apart from tire odium theologicum, which
kept Nestorius and Cyril apart? Below the apparent special pleading and
word-jugglery on the surface of the controversy lay the principle that
in the Christ God and man were one; the essence of the atonement or
reconciliation lying in the complete union of the human and the divine
in the one Person; the "I" in the "I am" of the Temple and the "I
thirst" of tire Cross being really the same. "God and man is one
Christ." The position which the Cyrillians viewed with alarm was a
reduction of this unity to a mere partnership or alliance; -- God
dwelling in Jesus of Nazareth as He dwells in all good men, only to a
greater degree;--the eternal Word being in close contact with the son of
Mary (
or only one more in the goodly fellowship of prophets? Was He God, or was He not? There can be little doubt as to the answer Nestorius would have given. There can be none as to that of Theodoret. But on the part of Cyril there was the quite mistaken conviction that Theodoret was practically contending for two Christs. On the other hand Theodoret erroneously identified Cyril with the confusion of the substance and practical patripassianism which he scathes in the "Eranistes," and which the common sense of Christendom has condemned in Eutyches. (g) To Nicephorus Callistus in the 15th century five hundred of Theodoret's letters were known, (1) and he is eloquent in their praise. Now, the collection, including several by other writers, comprises only one hundred and eighty one. The value of their contributions to the history of the times as well as of their writer will be evident on their study. The order in which they are published is preserved in the translation for the sake of reference. A chronological order would have obvious advantages, but this in many cases could only be conjectural. Where the indications of time are fairly plain the probable date is suggested in a note. The letters are divided into (a) dogmatic, (b) consolatory, (c) festal, (d) commendatory, (e) cOngratulatory, (f) commenting on passing events. Of them Schulze writes "Nihil eo in genere scribendi perfectius; nam qu strut epistolarum virtutes, brevitas, perspicuitas, elegantia, urbanitas, modestia, observantia decori, et ingen-iosa prudensque ac erudita simplicitas, in epistolis Theodoreti admirabiliter ita elucent ut scribentibus exempla esse possint." "They not only" says Schrockh, (2) "vindicate the admiration of Nicephorus, but are specially attractive on account of their exhibition of the writer's simplicity, modesty, and love of peace."
From the study of these letters "we rise," writes Canon Venables, (3) "with a heightened estimate of Theodoret himself, his intellectual power, his theological precision, his warm-hearted affection for his friends, and the Christian virtues with which, notwithstanding some weaknesses and an occasional bitterness for which, however distressing, his persecutions offered some palliation, his character was adorned."
The reputation of Theodoret in the Church is a growing reputation, and the practical canonization which he has won in the heart of Christendom is a testimony tO the power and worth of character and conduct. Though never officially dignified by a higher ecclesiastical title than " Beatus" he is yet to Marcellinus "Episcopus sanctus Cyri" (4) and to Photius (5) "divinus vir." His earnest, sometimes bitter, conflict with the great intellect and strong will of Cyril, and apparent discomfiture in the war which raged, often with dire confusion, up and down the long lines of definition, have not succeeded in robbing him of one of the highest places among the Fathers of whom the Church is proudest. He exhibits, each in a lofty and conspicuous form, all the qualities which mark a great and good churchman. His theological writings would have won high fame in a recluse. His administration of his diocese, as we learn it from his modest letters, would have gained him the character of an excellent bishop, even had he been no scholar. His temper in controversy, though occasionally breaking out into the fiery heat of the oriental, is for the most part in happy contrast with that of his opponents. His devotion to his duty is undeniable, and his industry astonishing. It is impossible not to feel as we read his writings that he is no self-seeker arguing for victory. He believes that the fate of the Church rests on the fidelity of Christians to the Nicene Confession, and in his championship of this creed, and his opposition to all that seems to him to threaten its adulteration or defeat, he knows no awe of prince or court. Owing but one Lord, he is true through evil and good report to Him, and his figure stands out large, bright, and gracious across the centuries, against a background of intrigue and controversy sometimes very dark, as of a patient and faithful soldier and servant of Christ. (6) If his shortcomings were those of his own age, -- and in an age of virulent strife and of denial of all mercy to opponents his memory rises as a comparative monument of moderation, -- his graces were the graces of all the ages. (7) Were it customary, or even possible, in our own church and time to maintain the ancient custom of reciting before the Holy Table the names approved as of good men and true in the past history of the Holy Society, in the long catalogue of the faithful departed for whom worshippers bless the name of their common Lord, a place must indubitably be kept for Theodoretus, bishop of Cyrus.
MANUSCRIPTS AND EDITIONS OF SEPARATE WORKS.
The editions of the Ecclesiastical History are the most numerous, though of several others there are many. Of the collected works the following are the principal.
(i)Editio princeps, of Paulus Manutius, Latin Version only. Rome 1556.
(ii)J. Birckman, fol. 2 voll. Latin only Cologne 1573·
(iii)J. Sirmond, 4 voll. fol. Greek and Latin, Paris 1642.
To this the Auctarium of J. Garnier, with his dissertations was added in
(iv) John Lewis Schulze, Greek and Latin, based upon the preceding, in 5 voll. Halle, 1774.
(v) Migne's edition of the foregoing. Paris 1860.
(The last-named is the Edition used for the translation in this work.)
The MSS. authority for the works of Theodoret is strong. The afore- named editions are based on MS. in the libraries of Augsburg, Florence, Rome and Naples. To works on Theodoret mentioned in the notes may be added: --S. Kupper, Ausgew, Schriften des sel. Theodoret aus dem Urtext fibers. E. Binder, Etudes sur Theodoret. Geneva, 1844.
Specht, Theodor yon Mopsuestia, und Theodoret von Cyrus. Munich, 1871.
THE ANATHEMAS OF CYRIL IN OPPOSITION TO NESTORIUS.
(Mansi T. IV. p. 1067-1082, Migne Cat. 76, col. 391. The anathemas of Nestorius against Cyril are to be found in Hardouin i. 1297.)
I. If any one refuses to confess that the Emmanuel is in truth God, and
therefore that the holy Virgin is Mother of God
(
II. If any one refuses to confess that the Word of God the Father is
united in hypos-tasis to flesh, and is one Christ with His own flesh,
the same being at once both God and man, let him be anathema.
III. If any one in the case of the one Christ divides the hypostases
after the union, conjoining them by the conjunction alone which is
according to dignity, independence, or prerogative, and not rather by
the concurrence which is according to natural union, let him be
anathema.
IV. If any one divides between two persons or hypostases the
expressions used in the writings of evangelists and apostles, whether
spoken by the saints of Christ or by Him about Himself, and applies the
one as to a man considered properly apart from the Word of God, and the
others as appropriate to the divine and the Word of God the Father
alone, let him be anathema.
V. If any one dares to maintain that the Christ is man bearing God, and
not rather that He is God in truth, and one Son, and by nature,
according as the Word was made flesh, and shared blood and flesh in like
manner with ourselves, let him be anathema.
VI. If any one dares to maintain that the Word of God the Father was
God or Lord Of the Christ, and does not rather confess that the same was
at once both God and man, the Word being made flesh according to the
Scriptures, let him be anathema.
VII. If any one says that Jesus was energized as man by God the Word,
and that He was invested with the glory of the only begotten as being
another beside Him, let him be anathema. VIII. If any one dares to
maintain that the ascended man ought to be worshipped together with the
divine Word, and be glorified with Him, and with Him be called God as
one with another (in that the continual rise of the preposition "with"
in composition makes this sense compulsory), and does not rather in one
act of worship honour the Emmanuel and praise Him in one doxology, in
that He is the Word made flesh, let him be anathema.
IX. If any one says that the one Lord Jesus Christ is glorified by the
Spirit, using the power that works through Him as a foreign power, and
receiving from Him the ability to operate against unclean spirits, and
to complete His miracles among men; and does not rather say that the
Spirit is His own, whereby also He wrought His miracles, let him be
anathema.
X. Holy Scripture states that Christ is High Priest and Apostle of our
confession, (1) and offered Himself on our behalf for a sweet-smelling
savour to God and our Father. (2) If, then, any one says that He, the
Word of God, was not made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made
flesh and man after our manner; but as being another, other than
Himself, properly man made of a woman; or if any one says that He
offered the offering on His own behalf, and not rather on our behaIf
alone; for He that knew no sin would not have needed an offering, let
him be anathema.
XI. If any one confesses not that the Lord's flesh is giver of life,
(3) and proper to the Word of God Himself, but (states) that it is of
another than Him, united indeed to Him in dignity, yet as only
possessing a divine indwelling; and not rather, as we said, giver of
life, because it is proper to the Word of Him who hath might to engender
all things alive, let him be anathema.
XII. If any one confesses not that the Word of God suffered in flesh,
and was crucified in flesh, and tasted death in flesh, and was made
firstborn of the dead, in so far as He is life and giver of life, as
God; let him be anathema.
COUNTER-STATEMENTS OF THEODORET.
(Opp. Ed. Schulze. V. I. seq. Migne, Lat. 76. col. 391.)
Against I. -- But all we who follow the words of the evangelists state
that God the Word was not made flesh by nature, nor yet was changed into
flesh; for the Divine is immutable and invariable. Wherefore also the
prophet David says, "Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."
(1) And this the great Paul, the herald of the truth, in his Epistle to
the Hebrews, states to have been spoken of the Son. (2) And in another
place God says through the Prophet, "I am the Lord: I change not." (3)
If then the Divine is immutable and invariable, it is incapable of
change or alteration. And if the immutable cannot be changed, then God
the Word was not made flesh by mutation, but took flesh and tabernacled
in us, according to the word of the evangelist. This the divine Paul
expresses clearly in his Epistle to the Philippians in the words, "Let
this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the
form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made
Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant." (4)
Now it is plain from these words that the form of God was not changed
into the form of a servant, but, remaining what it was, took the form of
the servant. So God the Word was not made flesh, but assumed living and
reasonable flesh. He Himself is not naturally conceived of the Virgin,
fashioned, formed, and deriving beginning of existence from her; He who
is before the ages, God, and with God, being with the Father and with
the Father both known and worshipped; but He fashioned for Himself a
temple in the Virgin's womb, and was with that which was formed and
begotten. Wherefore also we style that holy Virgin
Against H. -- We, in obedience to the divine teaching of the apostles,
confess one Christ; and, on account of the union, we name the same both
God and man. But we are wholly ignorant of the union according to
hypostasis (7) as being strange and foreign to the divine Scriptures and
the Fathers who have interpreted them. And if the author of these
statements means by the union according to hypostasis that there was a
mixture of flesh and Godhead, we shall oppose his statement with all our
might, and shall confute his blasphemy, for the mixture is of necessity
followed by confusion; and the admission of confusion destroys the
individuality of each nature. Things that are undergoing mixture do not
remain what they were, and to assert this in the case of God the Word
and of the seed of
David would be most absurd. We must obey the Lord when He exhibits the
two natures and says to the Jews, "Destroy this temple and in three days
I will raise it up." (1) But if there had been mixture then God had not
remained God, neither was the temple recog-nised as a temple; then the
temple was God and God was temple. This is involved in the theory of
the mixture. And it was quite superfluous for the Lord to say to the
Jews, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." He
ought to have said, Destroy me and in three days I shall be raised, if
there had really been any mixture and confusion. As it is, He exhibits
the temple undergoing destruction and God raising it up. Therefore the
union according to hypostasis, which in my opinion they put before us
instead of mixture, is superfluous. It is quite sufficient to mention
the union, which both exhibits the properties of the natures and teaches
us to worship the one Christ.
Against III. -- The sense of the terms used is misty and obscure. Who
needs to be told that there is no difference between conjunction and
concurrence? The concurrence is a concurrence of the separated parts;
and the conjunction is a conjunction of the distinguished parts. The
very clever author of the phrases has laid down things that agree as
though they disagreed. It is wrong, he says, to conjoin the hypostases
by conjunction; they ought to be conjoined by concurrence, and that a
natural concurrence. Possibly he states this not knowing what he says;
if he knows, he blasphemes. Nature has a compulsory force and is
involuntary; as for instance, if I say we are naturally hungry, we do
not feel hunger of free-will but of necessity; and assuredly paupers
would have left off begging if the power of ceasing to be hungry had
lain in their own will; we are naturally thirsty; we naturally sleep; we
naturally breathe; and all these actions, I repeat, belong to the
category of the involuntary, and he who is no longer capable of them
necessarily ceases to exist. If then the concurrence in union of the
form of God and the form of a servant was natural, then God the Word was
trotted to the form of the servant under the compulsion of necessity,
and not because He put in force His loving kindness, and the Lawgiver of
the Universe will be found to be a follower of the laws of necessity.
Not thus have we been taught by the blessed Paul; on the contrary, we
have been taught that He took the form of a servant and "emptied
Himself;" (2) and the expression "emptied Himself" indicates the
voluntary act. If then He was united by purpose and will to the nature
assumed from us, the addition of the term natural is superfluous. It
suffices to confess the union, and union is understood of things
distinguished, for if there were no division an union could never be
apprehended. The apprehension then of the union implies previous
apprehension of the division. How then can he say that the hypostases
or natures ought not to be divided? He knows all the while that the
hypostasis of God the Word was perfect before the ages; and that the
form of the servant which was assumed by It was perfect; and this is the
reason why he said hypostases and not hypostasis. If therefore either
nature is perfect, and both came together, it is obvious that after the
form of God had taken the form of a servant, piety compels us to confess
one son and Christ; while to speak of the trotted hypos-tases or natures
as two, so far from being absurd, follows the necessity of the case.
For if in the case of the one man we divide the natures, and call the
mortal nature body, but the immortal nature soul, and both man, much
more consonant is it with right reason to re-cognise the properties
alike of the God who took and of the man who was taken. We find the
blessed Paul dividing the one man into two where he says in one passage,
"Though our outward man perish yet the inward man is renewed," (3) and
in another "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man." (4)
And again "that Christ may dwell in the inner man." (5) Now if the
apostle divides the natural conjunction of the synchronous natures, with
what reason can the man who describes the mixture to us by means of
other terms indite us as impious when we divide the properties of the
natures of the everlasting God and of the man assumed at the end of
days?
Against IV. -- These statements, too, are akin to the preceding. On
the assumption that there has been a mixture, he means that there is a
distinction of terms as used both in the holy Gospels and in the
apostolic writings. And he uses this language while glorifying himself
that he is at war at once with Arius and Eunomius and the rest of the
heresiarchs. Let then this exact professor of theology tells us how he
would confute the blasphemy of the heretics, while applying to God the
Word what is uttered humbly and appropriately by the form of the
servant. They indeed while thus doing lay down that the Son of God is
inferior, a creature, made, and a servant. To whom then are we, hold-
ing as we do the opposite opinion to theirs, and confessing the Son to
be of one substance and co-eternal with God the Father, Creator of the
Universe, Maker, Beautifier, Ruler, and Governor, All-wise, Almighty, or
rather Himself, Power, Life and Wisdom, to refer the words "My God, my
God why hast thou forsaken me;" (1) or "Father if it be possible let
this cup pass from me;" (2) or "Father save me from this hour;" (3) or
"That hour no man knoweth, not even the Son of Man;" (4) and all the
other passages spoken and written in lowliness by Him and by the holy
apostles about Him? To whom shall we apply the weariness and the sleep?
To whom the ignorance and the fear? Who was it who stood in need of
angelic succour? If these belong to God the Word, how was wisdom
ignorant? How could it be called wisdom when affected by the sense of
ignorance? How could He speak the truth in saying that He had all that
the Father hath, (5) when not having the knowledge of the Father? For
He says, "The Father alone knoweth that day." (6) How could He be the
unchanged image of Him that begat Him if He has not all that the
Begetter hath? If then He speaks the truth when saying that He is
ignorant, any one might suppose this of Him. But if He knoweth the day,
but says that He is ignorant with the wish to hide it, you see in what a
blasphemy the conclusion issues. For the truth lies and could not
properly be called truth if it has any quality opposed to truth. But if
the truth does not lie, neither is God the Word ignorant of the day
which He Himself made, and which He Himself fixed, wherein He purposes
to judge the world, but has the knowledge of the Father as being
unchanged image. Not then to God the Word does the ignorance belong,
but to the form of the servant who at that time knew as much as the
indwelling Godhead revealed. The same position may be maintained about
other similar cases. How for instance could it be reasonable for God
the Word to say to the Father, "Father if it be possible let this cup
pass from me, nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt"? (7) The
absurdities which necessarily thence follow are not a few. First it
follows that the Father and the Son are not of the same mind, and that
the Father wishes one thing and the Son another, for He said,
"Nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt." Secondly we shall have
to contemplate great ignorance in the Son, for He will be found ignorant
whether the cup can or cannot pass from Him; but to say this of God the
Word is utter impiety and blasphemy. For exactly did He know the end of
the mystery of the oeconomy Who for this very reason came among us, Who
of His own accord took our nature, Who emptied Himself. For this cause
too He foretold to the Holy Apostles, "Behold we go up to Jerusalem; and
the Son of Man shall be betrayed . . . into the hands of the Gentiles to
mock and to scourge and to crucify Him, and the third day He shall rise
again." (8) How then can He Who foretold these things, and, when Peter
deprecated their coming to pass, rebuked him, Himself deprecate their
coming to pass, when He clearly knows all that is to be? Is it not
absurd that Abraham many generations ago should have seen His day and
have been glad, (9) and that Isaiah in like manner, and Jeremiah, and
Daniel, and Zechariah, and all the fellowship of the prophets, should
have foretold His saving passion, and He Himself be ignorant, and beg
release from and deprecate it, though it was destined to come to pass
for the salvation of the world? Therefore these words are not the words
of God the Word, but of the form of the servant, afraid of death because
death was not yet destroyed. (10) Surely God the Word permitted the
utterance of these expressions allowing room for fear, that the nature
of Him that had to be born may be plain, and to prevent our supposing
the Son of Abraham and David to be an unreality or appearance. The crew
of the impious heretics has given birth to this blasphemy through
entertaining these sentiments. We shall therefore apply what is
divinely spoken and acted to God the Word; on the other hand what is
said and done in humility we shall connect with the form of a servant,
lest we be tainted with the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius.
Against V. -- We assert that God the Word shared like ourselves in
flesh and blood, and in immortal soul, on account of the union relating
to them; but that God the WOrd was made flesh by any change we not only
refuse to say, but accuse of impiety those who do, and it may be seen
that this is contrary to the very terms laid down. For if the Word was
changed into flesh He did not share with us in flesh and blood: but if
He shared in flesh and blood He shared as being another besides them:
and if the flesh is anything other besides Him, then He was not changed
into flesh. While therefore we use the term sharing (1) we worship both
Him that took and that which was taken as one Son. But we reckon the
distinction of the natures. We do not object to the term man bearing
God, as employed by many of the holy Fathers, one of whom is the great
Basil, who uses this term in his argument to Amphilochius about the Holy
Ghost, and in his interpretation of the fifty-ninth psalm. But we call
Him man bearing God, not because He received some particular divine
grace, but as possessing all the Godhead of the Son united. For thus
says the blessed Paul in his interpretation, "Beware lest any man spoil
you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (2) Against VI. -- The
blessed Paul calls that which was assumed by God the Word "form of a
servant," (3) but since the assumption was prior to the union, and the
blessed Paul was discoursing about the assumption when be called the
nature which was assumed "form of a servant," after the making of the
union the name of "servitude" has no longer place. For seeing that the
Apostle when writing to them that believed in Him said, "So thou art not
a servant but a son" (4) and the Lord said to His disciples, "Henceforth
I will not call you servants but friends;" (5) much more the first
fruits of our nature, through whom even we were guerdoned with the boon
of adoption, would be released from the title of servant. We therefore
confess even "the form of the servant" to be God on account of the form
of God united to it; and we bow to the authority of the prophet when he
calls the babe also Emmanuel, and the child which was born, "Angel of
great counsel, wonderful Counsellor, mighty God, powerful, Prince of
peace, and Father of the age to come." (6) Yet the same prophet, even
after the union, when proclaiming the nature of that which was assumed,
calls him who is of the seed of Abraham "servant" in the words "Thou art
my servant O Israel and in thee will I be glorified;" (7) and again,
"Thus says the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant;" (8)
and a little further on, "Lo I have given thee for a covenant of the
people, for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation
unto the end of the earth." (9) But what was formed from the womb was
not God the Word but the form of the servant. For God the Word was not
made flesh by being changed, but He assumed flesh with a rational soul.
Against VII. -- If the nature of man is mortal, and God the Word is life
and giver of life, and raised up the temple which had been destroyed by
the Jews, and carried it into heaven, how is not the form of the servant
glorified through the form of God? For if being originally and by
nature mortal it was made immortal through its union with God the Word,
it therefore received what it had not; and after receiving what it had
not, and being glorified, it is glorified by Him who gave. Wherefore
also the Apostle exclaims, "According to the working of His mighty power
which he wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead." (10)
Against VIII. -- As I have often said, the doxology which we offer to
the Lord Christ is one, and we confess the same to be at once God and
man, as the method of the union has taught us; but we shall not shrink
from speaking of the properties of the natures. For God the Word did
not undergo change into flesh, nor yet again did the man lose what he
was and undergo transmutation into the nature of God. Therefore we
worship the Lord Christ, while we maintain the properties of either
nature. Against IX. -- Here he has plainly had the hardihood to
anathematize not only those who at the present time hold pious opinions,
but also those who were in former days heralds of truth; aye even the
writers of the divine gospels, the band of the holy Apostles, and, in
addition to these, Gabriel the archangel. For he indeed it was who
first, even before the conception, announced the birth of the Christ
according to the flesh; saying in reply to Mary when she asked, "How
shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" "The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore
also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son
of God." (11) And to Joseph he said, "Fear not to take unto thee Mary
thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.''
(12) And the Evangelist says, "When as his mother Mary was espoused to
Joseph she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." (1)
And the Lord Himself when He had come into the synagogue of the Jews and
had taken the prophet Isaiah, after reading the passage in which he
says, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me because He hath anointed me"
and so on, added, "This day is this scripture ful-filled in your ears.''
(1) And the blessed Peter in his sermon to the Jews said, "God anointed
Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost." (3) And Isaiah many ages before
had predicted, "There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,
and a branch shall grow out of his roots; and the spirit of the Lord
shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit
of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the
Lord;" (3) and again, "Behold my servant whom I uphold, my beloved in
whom my soul delighteth. I will put my spirit upon him: he shall bring
forth judgment to the Gentiles." (4) This testimony the Evangelist too
has inserted in his own writings. And the Lord Himself in the Gospels
says to the Jews, "If I with the spirit of God cast out devils, no doubt
the kingdom of God is come ripen you." (5) And John says, "He that sent
me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt
see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is He which
baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." (6) So this exact examiner of the
divine decrees has not only anathematized prophets, apostles, and even
the archangel Gabriel, but has suffered his blasphemy to reach even the
Saviour of the world Himself. For we have shewn that the Lord Himself
after reading the passage "The spirit of the Lord is upon me because He
hath anointed me," said to the Jews, "This day is this scripture
fulfilled in your ears." And to those who said that He was casting out
devils by Beelzebub He replied that He was casting them out by the
Spirit of God. But we maintain that it was not God the Word, of one
substance and co-eternal with the Father, that was formed by the Holy
Ghost and anointed, but the human nature which was assumed by Him at the
end of days. We shall confess that the Spirit of the Son was His own if
he spoke of it as of the same nature and proceeding from the Father, and
shall accept the expression as consistent with true piety. But if he
speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin
through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and
impious. For we believe the Lord when He says, "The spirit which
proceedeth from the Father;" (2) and likewise the very divine Paul
saying, "We have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit
which is of God." (8)
Against X. -- The unchangeable nature was not changed into nature of
flesh, but assumed human nature and set it over the common high priests,
as the blessed Paul teaches in the words, "For every high priest taken
from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he
may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: who can have compassion on
the ignorant and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself
also is encompassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as
for the people so also for himself." (9) And a little further on
interpreting this he says, "As was Aaron so also was the Christ." (10),
Then pointing out the infirmity of the assumed nature he says, "Who in
the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplication
with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from
death, and was heard for His godly fear, though He was a son yet learned
obedience by the things that He suffered: and having been made perfect
He became unto all that obey Him the author of eternal salvation; named
of God a high priest of the order of Melchisedec." (11) Who then is He
who was perfected by toils of virtue and who was not perfect by nature?
Who is He who learnt obedience by experience, and before his experience
was ignorant of it? Who is it that lived with godly fear and offered
supplication with strong crying and tears,not able to save Himself but
appealing to Him that is able to save Him and asking for release from
death? Not God the Word, the impassible, the immortal, the incorporeal,
whose memory is joy and release from tears, "For he has wiped away tears
from off all faces,'' (12) and again the prophet says, "I remembered God
and was glad," (12) Who crowneth them that live in godly fear, "Who
knoweth all things before they be," (14) "Who hath all things that the
Father hath;" (15) Who is the unchangeable image of the Father," (16)
"Who sheweth the Father in himself." (17) It is on the contrary that
which was assumed by Him of the seed of David, mortal, passible, and
afraid of death; although this itself afterwards destroyed the power of
death through union with the God who had assumed it; (18) which walked
through all righteousness and said to John, "Suffer it to be so now for
thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." (19)
This document (last modified September 27, 1996) from the
Christian
Classics Electronic Library server, at
@Wheaton College