Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Contents and Character of the Extant Works.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
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 “εἰς τὰ
᾽άπορα τῆς
θείας Γραφῆς
κατ᾽
᾽εκλογήν,” or “On selected difficulties in Holy
Scripture.” These questions are treated, with occasional
deflexions into allegory, from the historico-exegetical point of view
of the Syrian School,107
| 107 cf.
Gieseler i. 209, who refers to Münter in Staüdlins Archiv.
für Kirchengesch. i. 1. 13. | of which Diodorus of
Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia were distinguished representatives.
On Diodorus Socrates108
remarks, “he
composed many works, relying on the bare letter of Scripture, and
avoiding their speculative aspect.” This might be said of
Diodorus’ great pupil too. Nevertheless, though generally
following a line of interpretation in broad contrast with that of
Origen, Theodoret quotes Origen as well as Diodore and Theodore of
Mopsuestia as authorities. Of the 182 “questions” on
Genesis and Exodus the following may be taken as specimens.
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 ‘image’?”
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.109
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,110
| 110 Dict.
Christ. Biog. iv. 916. |
quoting Ceillier, remarks that the whole form a literary and historical
commentary of great service for the right comprehension 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.111
The Psalmist, Theodoret
observes,112
| 112 In Ps.
Ed. Migne 604, 605. | 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.113
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
re-written, 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 catenæ by Sirmond and edited in his edition, but
the opinion has been entertained114
| 114 Garnerius. Theod. Ed. Migne 1, 274. | 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 catenæ.
The commentary on Jeremiah
includes Baruch and the Lamentations.115
| 115 cf.
note on page 327. |
(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 Schröckh xviii. p. 398.
sqq., Simon, p. 314 sqq. Rosenmüller 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.”116
| 116 Lightfoot. Epist. Gal. ed. 1866, p. 226. |
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 Dæmons 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.’117
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.’118
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.’119
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.’120
But
in these He is not wholly. For no one is pure of uncleanness, and In
thy sight shall no man living be justified121
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.’122
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.’123
| 123 Theodor. Ed. Migne iii. 271. Seqq. |
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.124
| 124 Here
Theodoret agrees in the main with Chrysostom and Theophylact, vide
Reff. in Alford ad loc. |
(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. Photius125
| 125 “Unquestionably the right view of this controverted passage
is that of the Greek Fathers, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, and
others. In reading their comments it is quite clear that they found no
more difficulty in St. Paul’s elliptical use of the Greek
υπέρ than we do in Shakespeare’s use of the English
‘for.’ They did not hesitate in their homilies to expound
that the phrase ‘for the dead’ meant ‘with an
interest in the resurrection of the dead,’ or that
‘for’ by itself meant even so much as ‘in expectation
of the resurrection.’ Speaker’s Commentary, iii.
373. | well describes it as
“clear, lofty, and concise.”
Gibbon,126
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.127
| 127 Ceillier (x. 42) repeats the charge of distinct errors in
chronology in (a) the statement that Arius died in 325 instead of in
336; (b) the extension of the exile of Athanasius by four months; (c)
the election of Ambrose at the beginning of the reign of Valentinian,
instead of ten years later; (d) the troubles at Antioch placed after
instead of before those at Thessalonica; (e) the siege of Nisibis in
350 confounded with that of 359. As to (a) the truth is that Theodoret
is guilty rather of vagueness than of a misstatement. (Vide I. capp.
xiii, xiv.) The objection to (b) the two years and four months exile of
Athanasius is due to Valerius (obs. Ecc. i). Canon Bright (Dict.
Christ. Biog. i. 187) agrees with Theodoret (cf. Newman Hist. Tracts
xii and Hefele, Conciliengesch. i. 467.) In (c) Theodoret is vague, in
(d) wrong. According to Valerius Volagesus, and not Jacobus, was bishop
of Nisibis in 350. | 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 omitted128
| 128 τῆς
ἐκκλησιαστικῆς
ἱστορίας τὰ
παραλειπόμενα | 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.129
| 129 Valesii annotationes—Theod: Migne III. 1522. Valesius is the
Latinized form of Henri de Valois, French historiographer royal, who
edited Ammianus Marcellinus and the Greek Ecclesiastical historians. He
died in 1692. | 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.130
| 130 Theod.
Ed. Migne. V. 282. | He also quotes the letter131
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.132
| 132 “Baronius obviously approves of Gregory’s remark about
Theodoret’s lies, that is his errors in the order of events, and
out of Book iv. produces no less than fifteen blunders, to say nothing
of those in iii and v.” Garner. loc. cit. 280, 281. |
(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”133
| 133 Canon Venables Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 918. | 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.”134
| 134 Historical Sketches iii.
314. |
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.135
| 135 Theod. Ed. Migne. iii. 1244. Schröckh. xviii. 362. | 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.136
(e) The works reckoned as
theological, as distinct from the controversial, are three: (i) The
twelve discourses entitled ῾Ελληνικῶν
θεραπευτικὴ
παθημάτων, or “Græcarum affectionum curatio, seu
evangelicæ veritatis ex gentilium philospohia cognitio.’
They contain an elaborate apology for Christian philosophy, with a
refutation of the attacks of paganism against the doctrines of the
gospel, and may have been designed, as Garnerius conjectures, to serve
as an antidote against whatever might still survive of the influence of
Julian and his writings. Here we see at once our author’s
“genius and erudition” (Mosheim). In these orations he
exhibits a wide acquaintance with Greek literature, and we find cited,
or referred to, among other writers, Homer, Hesiod, Alcman, Theognis,
Xenophanes, Pindar, Heraclitus, Zeno, Parmenides, Empedocles,
Euripides, Herodotus, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, Diodorus
Siculus, Plutarch, and Porphyry. Homer and Plato are largely quoted.
Basnage,137
| 137 Histoire de l’Église. II.
1225. Jacques de Beauval Basnage †1723. | indeed, contested their
genuineness, but without weakening their position among
Theodoret’s accepted works. They have seemed to some to encourage
undue honour to and invocation of saints and martyrs138
| 138 Schröckh Kirchengesch., Vol. xviii. 410. | but their author seems to anticipate
later exaggeration of their reverence by the distinction, “We
ascribe Godhead to nothing visible. Them that have been distinguished
in virtue we honour as excellent men, but we worship none but the God
and Father of all, His Word, and the Holy Spirit.”139
| 139 Græc. Cur. Aff. Ed. Migne 754. | (ii). The Discourses against paganism were
followed by ten on Divine Providence, a work justly eulogized as
exhibiting Theodoret’s literary power in its highest form. Of it
Garnerius, who is by no means disposed to bestow indiscriminate
laudation on the writer, remarks that nothing was ever published on
this subject more eloquent or more admirable, either by Theodoret, or
by any other.140
| 140 “On y voit toute la beauté du gènie de
Théodoret; du choix dans les pensées, de la noblesse dans les
expressions, de l’élégance et de la
netteté dans le style, de la suite et de la force dans les
raisonnements.” Ceillier x. 88 (Remi
Ceillier †1761. His “Histoire Générale des
auteurs sacrés” was published in Paris
1729–1763.) | The discourses may not improbably have
been delivered in public at Antioch, and have been the occasion of the
enthusiastic admiration described as shewn by the patriarch John.141
In them he presses the argument of the
divine guidance of the world from the constitution of the visible
creation, and specially of the body of man. The preacher draws many
illustrations from the animal world and shews himself to be an
intelligent observer. The pursuit of righteousness is proved not to be
vain, even though the achieved result is not seen until the
resurrection, and it is argued that from the beginning God has not
cared for one chosen race alone but for all mankind. The crowning
evidence of divine providence is in the incarnation. “I have
taught you”—so the great orations conclude—“the
universal providence of God. You behold His unfathomable loving
kindness;—His boundless mercy; cease then to strive against Him
that made you; learn to do honour to your benefactor, and requite his
mighty benefits with grateful utterance. Offer to God the sacrifice of
praise; defile not your tongue with blasphemy, but make it the
instrument of worship for which it was designed. Such divine
dispensations as are plain, reverence; about such as are hidden make no
ado, but wait for knowledge in the time to come. When we shall put off
the senses, then we shall win perfect knowledge. Imitate not Adam who
dared to pluck the forbidden fruit; lay not hold of hidden things, but
leave the knowledge of them to their own fit season. Obey the words of
the wise man—say not What is this? For what purpose is this!
‘For all things were made for good.’142
Gathering then from every source occasion
for praise, and mingling one melody, offer it with me to the Creator,
the giver of good, and Christ the Saviour, our very God. To them be
glory and worship and honour for endless age on age.
Amen.”
(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
Eutychian 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 Hæreticarum
Fabularum Compendium, (Αἱρετικῆς
κακομυσιας
ἐπιτομή)
was composed at the request of Sporacius, one of the representatives of
Marcian at Chalcedon, and is, as its title indicates, an account of
past or present heresies. It is divided into five Books, which treat of
the following heretics.
I. Simon Magus, Menander,
Saturnilus,143
| 143 Σατορνεῖλος
or Σατορνῖλος
in Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret; but
Σατορνῖνος
(Saturninus) in Irenæus and Eusebius. | Basilides, Isidorus, Carpocrates,
Epiphanes, Prodicus, Valentinus, Secundus, Marcus the Wizard, the
Ascodruti,144
| 144 A
Galatian sect. Jerome has “Ascodrobi,” Epiphanius
(Hær. 416) identifies “Tascodrugitæ,” with
Cataphrygians or Montanists, and says they were so called from the
habit of putting their finger to their nose when praying. | the Colorbasii, the Barbelioti,145
| 145 In
Epiphanius (i. 85, B) Barbelitæ. Barbelo was a mythologic
personage; — The sect gnostic. | the Ophites, the Cainites, the Antitacti,
the Perati, Monoimus, Hermogenes, Tatianus, Severus, Bardesanes,
Harmonius, Florinus, Cerdo, Marcion, Apelles, Potitus, Prepo, and
Manes.
II. The Ebionites, the
Nazarenes, Cerinthus, Artemon, Theodotus, the Melchisedeciani, the
Elkesites, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus.
III. The Nicolaitans, the
Montanists, Noetus of Smyrna, the Tessarescædecatites (i.e.
Quartodecimani) Novatus, Nepos.
IV. Arius, Eudoxius, Eunomius,
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.146
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.
Schröckh147
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 Æons; of
Angels; of Dæmons; 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 (᾽Επιφάνεια) of the Saviour; of Antichrist; of Virginity; of Marriage;
of Second Marriage; of Fornication; of Repentance; of
Abstinence.
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,148
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 (τὸν αὐτὸν
ὀνομαζει) the Son, the only begotten, God the Word, the Lord the Saviour,
and Jesus Christ. ‘Son,’ ‘only begotten,’
‘God the Word,’ and ‘Lord,’ He was called
before the Incarnation; and is so called also after the Incarnation;
but after the Incarnation the same (Lord) was called Jesus Christ,
deriving the titles from the facts. ‘Jesus’ is interpreted
to mean the Saviour, whereof Gabriel is witness in his words to the
Virgin ‘Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His
people from their sins.’149
But He was styled
‘Christ’ on account of the unction of the Spirit. So the
Psalmist David says ‘Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.’150
And through the Prophet Isaiah the Lord Himself says ‘The spirit
of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me.’151
Thus the Lord Himself taught us to understand
the prophecy, for when He had come into the synagogue, and opened the
book of the Prophets, He read the passage quoted, and said to those
present ‘This day is the Scripture fulfilled in your
ears.’152
The great Peter, too, preached in
terms harmonious with the prophets, for in his explanation of the
mystery to Cornelius he said ‘That word ye know which was
published throughout all Judæa, and began from Galilee after the
Baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus Christ with the
Holy Ghost and with power.’153
Hence it is
clear that He is called Christ on account of the unction of the spirit.
But he was anointed not as God, but as man. And as in His human nature
He was anointed, after the Incarnation He was called also
‘Christ.’ But yet there is no distinction between God the
Word and the Christ, for God the Word incarnate was named Christ Jesus.
And He was incarnate that He might renew the nature corrupted by sin.
The reason of His taking all the nature which had sinned was that He
might heal all. For He did not take the nature of the body using it as
a veil of His Godhead, according to the wild teaching of Arius and
Eunomius; for it had been easy for Him even without a body to be made
visible as He was seen of old by Abraham, Jacob and the rest of the
saints. But he wished the very nature that had been worsted to beat
down the enemy and win the victory. For this reason He took both a body
and a reasonable soul. For Holy Scripture does not divide man in a
threefold division, but states that this living being consists of a
body and a soul.154
| 154 cf.
note on pp. 132 and 194. | For God after
forming the body out of the dust breathed into it the soul and shewed
it to be two natures not three. And the same Lord in the Gospels says,
‘Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the
soul,’155
and many similar passages may be found
in divine Scripture. And that He did not assume man’s nature in
its perfection, contriving it as a veil for His Godhead, according to
the heretics’ fables, but achieving victory by means of the first
fruits for the whole race, is truly witnessed and accurately taught by
the divine apostle, for in His Epistle to the Romans, when unveiling
the mystery of the Incarnation, he writes ‘Wherefore as by one
man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed
upon all men, for that all have sinned: for until the law sin was in
the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless
death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them who had not sinned
after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure
of Him that is to come.’156
(iii.) The refutations of the Twelve Chapters of Cyril are
translated in the Prolegomena.157
In the Epistle of Cyril to
Celestinus and the Commonitorium datum Posidonio158
| 158 Mansi. T. IV. 1012 Seqq. Migne Pat. LXXVII. 85. | 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 (συνάφεια). On this account Nestorius always shrinks from using the
word union (ἔνωσις)
and speaks of ‘conjunction,’ as of some one without, and,
as He says to Joshua ‘as I was with Moses so will I be with
thee.’159
But, to conceal his impiety, Nestorius
says that He was with him from the womb. Wherefore he does not say that
Christ was very God, but that Christ was so called of God’s good
pleasure; and, if he was called Lord, so again Nestorius understands
him to be Lord because the divine Word conceded him the boon of being
so named. Nor does he say as we do that the Son of God died and rose
again on our behalf. The man died and the man rose, and this has
nothing to do with God the Word. And in the mysteries what lies (i.e.
on the Holy Table) (τὸ
προκείμενον) is a man’s body; but we believe that it is flesh of
the Word, having power to quicken because it is made flesh and blood of
the Word that quickeneth all things.”
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.160
| 160 Gieseler Vol. I. p. 231. | 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, and 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.161
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
‘θεοτόκος’ on account of God the Word being made flesh and
becoming man, and of this conception uniting to Himself the temple
taken of her. We acknowledge that theologians use the words of
evangelists and apostles about the Lord some in common, as of one
person, and some distinctively, as of two natures, and deliver the
divine as touching the Godhead of the Christ, and the lowly as touching
His manhood.”162
| 162 Synod. c. 17. Mansi V. p. 773. |
This is substantially what
Theodoret says again and again. This satisfied Cyril. This would
probably have been accepted by Nestorius too.163
| 163 In
Walch’s Hist. Ketz. V. 778, there is a good summary of
Nestorius’ views: he thinks the dispute a mere logomachy. So also
Luther, and after him Basnage, Dupin, Jablonski. Vide reff. in Gieseler
i. 236. |
What then was it, apart from the 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 the 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 (συνάφεια). So, whatever may have been the unhappy faction-fights
with which the main issue was confused there was in truth a great
crisis, a great question for decision; was Jesus of Nazareth an unique
personality, 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,164
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 quæ sunt epistolarum virtutes, brevitas,
perspicuitas, elegantia, urbanitas, modestia, observantia decori, et
ingeniosa prudensque ac erudita simplicitas, in epistolis Theodoreti
admirabiliter ita elucent ut scribentibus exempla esse possint.”
“They not only” says Schröckh,165
“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,166
| 166 Dict.
Christ. Biog. iv. 918. |
“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”167
| 167 Marc. 466. Ceiller x. 25. | and to Photius168
“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. Owning 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.169
| 169 La
vie sainte et édifiante que Théodoret mena dès sa
première jeunesse; les travaux apostoliques dont il honora son
épiscopat; son zèle pour la conversion des ennemis de
l’église; les persecutions qu’il souffrait pour le nom
de Jésus Christ; son amour pour la solitude, pour la pauvreté
et pour les pauvres; l’esprit de charité qu’il a fait
paraitre dans toutes les occasions; la généreuse liberté
dans la confession de la vérité; sa profonde humilité
qui parait dans tous ses écrits; le succès dont Dieu
bénit ses soins et ses mouvements pour le salut des hommes,
l’ont rendu venerable dans l’église. Les anciens
l’ont qualifié saint, et apellé un homme divin; mais la
qualité qu’ils lui donnent ordinairement c’est celle
de bienheureux.” Ceillier. x.
25. | 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.170
| 170 cf.
Schröckh xviii. 356. | 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.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
