905 



THEODORETUS. 



THEODORETUS. 



090 



During fifty years he was known as one of the most distinguished 

 writers of the Greek Church, especially by his works against the 

 Nestorians, Pelagians, and other sectarians. His zeal however for the 

 Catholic faith did not save him from the charge of being an adherent 

 of the doctrines of the Nestorians, and he "was obliged to make a 

 public apology." After his death the Nestorians continued to quote 

 his works, and to call him the support of their faith ; and this was the 

 cause of his works, or perhaps only part of his works, being con- 

 demned by the fifth Council (553). Theodore of Mopsuestia is said to 

 have written largely on divinity and morals. Few of his writings have 

 come down to us : others exist in Syriac and Latin translations, and 

 of the greater part there are only fragments. A treatise on the Magi 

 of the Persians, and his commentaries on the Psalms, the Book of 

 Job, and the Song of Solomon, are lost : his commentary on the twelve 

 greater prophets is preserved in MS., according to Fabricius, under the 

 title of QfoSdpov 'Avrioxfois tp^vtia els rovs Upo^ras. A catalogue of 

 the works which contain fragments of him is given in Fabricius, and 

 the Syriac translations are mentioned in Assemannus's ' Bibliotheca 

 Orientalis.' Theodorus of Mopsuestia is still one of the first theo- 

 logical authorities among the Syrian Christians. 



(Fabricius, Bill. Grceca., x., p. 346-362; 346, note a; 347, note o; 

 352, note gg ; 355, note kk ; p. 748 : Tilleinont, Memor. Eccles., vol. 

 xii. ; Cave, Script Eccles., vol. ii.) 



THEODORE'TUS, or THEODORI'TUS, a theologian and church 

 historian, was born about 393 A.D. He was brought up under the care 

 of a pious mother, to whom he acknowledges his obligations in his 

 writings ; and he had instruction from Theodore of Mopsuestia and 

 John Chrysostom in a monastery, to which he was sent to receive his 

 education when not quite seven years old, and where he had for his 

 fellow-pupils Nestorius and John, who were afterwards patriarchs of 

 Constantinople and Antioch. Theodoret became a deacon in the church 

 at Antioch, and in the year 423 he was chosen bishop of Cyrus, a city in 

 Syria, near the Euphrates. His diocese abounded with Marcionites and 

 pei-sons who held heretical opinions concerning the Trinity. Against 

 the opinions of these heretics he directed his efforts with so much suc- 

 cess, that according to his own statement he baptised ten thousand 

 Marcionites. 



lu the year 431 Nestorius was condemned by the council of Ephesus 

 [NESTORIUS], whose decision gave great offence to many of the Oriental 

 Christians, who, without being avowed followers of Nestorius, were 

 supposed to be not unfavourable to his opinions. Among these was 

 Theodoret, who was a personal friend of Nestorius ; and he was one of 

 those who assembled after the council of Ephesus had broken up, and 

 condemned its proceedings. A reconciliation was however effected 

 between Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, the great enemy of Nestorius, 

 and John, patriarch of Antioch, the leader of the Oriental party, who 

 signed an agreement by which Cyril approved of John's statement of 

 the controverted point of doctrine, while John gave his approval of 

 the sentence passed on Nestorius. With this agreement Theodoret 

 and others of the Oriental party were greatly dissatisfied. Theodoret 

 approved on the whole of the doctrinal statements in the agreement, 

 but he warmly protested against John's consent to the condemnation 

 of Nestorius, as an act of unmitigated injustice. He expressed these 

 feelings in a letter to Nestorius. But when John, armed with an 

 imperial edict, proceeded to take measures against the more decided 

 partisans of Nestorius, Theodoret considered himself bound to submit, 

 both for the sake of the peace of the church, and because of his own 

 approval of the doctrine which it was John's object to enforce. He 

 therefore used every means in his power to induce the friends of 

 Nestorius, namely, Meletius, bishop of Mopsuestia, Alexander of 

 Hierapolis, and Helladius of Tarsus, to submit to John ; and, upon 

 their rejection of his advice, he offered no opposition to their being 

 deposed. But when, in the year 435, new and severe edicts were 

 issued against the Nestorians, Theodoret refused to carry his sub- 

 mission any further ; and, by his firmness he incurred the hatred of 

 Cyril, to whom he had already been opposed in this controversy, and 

 between whom and Theodoret such a bitter feeling existed, that when 

 Cyril died, in 444, Theodoret made no secret of his joy at the event. 



If, as we are bound to conclude from the character of the man and 

 from the Christian spirit with which he elsewhere speaks of Cyril's 

 death, Theodoret's joy on this occasion sprung from a belief that the 

 divisions which had been kept alive by Cyril would die with him, and 

 peace be restored to the church, he was doomed to bitter disappoint- 

 ment. Cyril was succeeded by Dioscurus, a man as haughty and 

 impetuous as himself, and quite as unscrupulous. The new bishop 

 followed up his predecessor's plan of enforcing upon the whole Eastern 

 church the doctrine of the coalescence of the Deity and humanity into 

 one nature in the person of Christ ; and perhaps he also kept in view the 

 object of obtaining a kind of supremacy for the see of Alexandria. 

 Determined to admit of no compromise, he made his first attack upon 

 the moderate party in the Syrian churches, which was headed by 

 Theodoret. Dioscurus was supported by a large party in Syria, chiefly 

 consisting of monks, whose leader was an abbot named Barsumas ; and 

 at Constantinople many monks, the most remarkable of whom was 

 the abbot Eutyches, were strongly in favour of the Cyrillian doctrine, 

 on the ground that it alone WJAS consistent with the simple letter of 

 Scripture, " the Word became flesh," and other similar expressions. 



These Constantinopolitan monks were a most important party in the 



dispute, partly from their close connection with tho anti-Nestorian 

 monks of Syria, and still more from their great influence with the 

 emperor Theodosius II., whom they had induced from the very first 

 to espouse the party of Cyril. Theodoret was, as usual, slow to take 

 up the controversy. He wrote to Dioscurus in the hope of effecting a 

 reconciliation between the two parties. In this attempt he failed; 

 and then, looking upon the doctrine of Dioscurus and his allies as the 

 sure road to the various heresies which denied the true humanity of 

 Christ, he wrote a book against them in the year 447, entitled ' The 

 Beggar, or the Many-shaped ' (ipwurrfo, or tro\vfnop<f>os). By this title 

 he meant to imply that the Eutychian doctrine (as the views held by 

 Cyril, Dioscurus, Barsumas, Eutyches, and the monks, are generally 

 named for the sake of brevity) was borrowed from a variety of ancient 

 heresies. The work consists of three dialogues : in the first, entitled 

 arpeTTTos, he treats of the impossibility of the divine essence under- 

 going a change ; in the second, airvyxvros, of the impossibility of the 

 two natures (the divine and human) being mingled into one ; aud in 

 the third, aira6-fis, of the impossibility of the divine nature suffering or 

 dying. This work displayed great learning and power, together with 

 a moderation which drew upon Theodoret the reproaches of the 

 zealots of his own party. His opponents however saw in his doctrines 

 nothing less than a revival of Nestorianism ; and Dioscurus accused 

 him before Domnus, the patriarch of Antioch, of dividing the one 

 Lord Jesus Christ into two sons of God, and wrote also a severe 

 letter to Theodoret, making the same charge. Theodoret replied 

 with great mildness and moderation, conceding as much of the dis- 

 puted doctrine as he could conscientiously , and praying Dioscurua 

 to consult for the peace of the church rather than for the views of a 

 party. This letter only the more incensed Dioscurus, who permitted 

 monks publicly to anathematise Theodoret in the church, while he 

 himself confirmed their anathemas. He also sent ambassadors to Con- 

 stantinople to accuse the whole Eastern Church of Nestorianism before 

 the emperor. Domnus also sent deputies to clear his church of this 

 charge, and Theodoret wrote with the same object to some of the most 

 powerful ecclesiastics and statesmen. No immediate decision of the 

 dispute took place, but the emperor ordered Theodoret, as a troubler 

 of the church, to confine himself within the limits of his own diocese. 

 Theodoret bitterly complained of being thus condemned unheard. 



In the meantime the two parties grew more violent, and the im- 

 perial court itself became the scene of their disputes. In the year 

 448 Eutyches, in his zeal against Nestorianism, incurred the charge of 

 an opposite heresy, of which he was condemned by the synod held by 

 Flavianus at Constantinople, but again acquitted by the second 

 Council of Ephesus, under the presidency of Dioscurus (A.D. 449). 

 [EUTYCHES.] In convening this council every care was taken to 

 exclude the anti-Eutychian party. With respect to Theodoret, the 

 emperor commanded that he should only be admitted in case his 

 presence should seem good to the whole assembly. The hint was 

 taken, and he was excluded. The emperor carried his dislike to 

 Theodoret still further, and intimated to the council that such men as 

 Theodoret should not only have no voice in it, but that they ought 

 rather to be visited with its censures. Accordingly the council deposed 

 Theodoret from his bishopric, and he was compelled, by an imperial 

 edict, to retire into the monastery where he had been educated. As 

 he had been peaceful and moderate in prosperity, so ho was resigned 

 and cheerful in adversity : indeed his amiable spirit, and his firmness 

 in obeying the dictates of his conscience, form a most agreeable relief 

 to the strife and ambition which mark the character of most of the 

 ecclesiastics of the age. 



The only check to the triumph of Dioscurus and the Eutychiaus 

 was the influence of Leo the Great, the then bishop of Rome, who had 

 been already appealed to by Eutyches, after his condemnation by the 

 synod of Constantinople, and whose aid was now sought by the oppo- 

 site party. Flavianus and Theodoret wrote letters to him, proposing 

 to submit the whole controversy to an oecumenical council to be con- 

 vened in Italy. To this arrangement the emperor (Theodosius II.) 

 refused his consent, but his death in the following year (450) changed 

 the state of affairs. In the next year (451) an oecumenical council was 

 assembled, first at Nicsea, but very soon removed to Chalcedon, to 

 which Theodoret was summoned, and in which he was received by his 

 friends with the greatest enthusiasm. He petitioned the council for 

 restoration to his bishopric ; at the eighth sitting his petition came on 

 for hearing ; he rose to plead his cause, but the party of Dioscurus 

 exclaimed that he must first condemn Nestorius. Theodoret had 

 never been a Nestorian, but had all along held a middle course between 

 the parties of Nestorius and of Cyril ; but he hesitated to pronounce 

 the required condemnation till some clear definition of Nestorianism 

 should be given. The bishops of the opposite party interrupted him 

 with the shout, " He is a heretic : he is a Nestorian : thrust the 

 Nestorian out ! " Upon this Theodoret exclaimed " Anathema on 

 Nestorius and on every one who denies Mary to be the mother of God, 

 and who divides the only begotten Son into two sons. I have sub- 

 scribed the confession of faith, and the letter of the bishop Leo ; 

 and this is my faith Farewell ! " He was pronounced to have estab- 

 lished his orthodoxy, and the unanimous vote of the council restored 

 him to his bishopric. In this transaction we perceive that Theodoret's 

 firmness had at length given way before the furious zeal of the Euty- 

 chians ; and his courage appears never to have revived, for in his latest 



