Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria

THEOPHILUS ALEXANDRINUS BISHOP.

HOMILY OF THE SAME AGAINST THE JEWS.

FIFTEEN SERMONS OF THE SAME.

YEAR OF THE LORD 412

THEOPHILUS ALEXANDRINUS BISHOP.

NOTICE

^A It would be a long task to go through every detail that ancient letters have handed down concerning Theophilus, bishop of the Alexandrian Church. Nor does the arrangement of our undertaking permit it, and it altogether prevents us from taking up such a duty and task, since it is only our concern to touch briefly upon those things that look especially to the marking of time. And so, in the year 385, in the consulship of Arcadius Augustus and Bauto, according to the testimony of Socrates (a), upon the departure from this life of Timothy, of whom we spoke above, at the end of the month of July, Theophilus took up the administration of the priesthood. At his instigation and effort, the most celebrated temple of Serapis was razed to the ground; that this happened in the year 391, Pagi (b) shows by many arguments. Theodoret (c), Socrates (d), and Sozomen (e) describe the matter at length compared to others; nor was Eunapius (f) silent about a deed of this kind. From that time forth, he destroyed the remnants of the profane cult of idols throughout Egypt.

^A In the year circa 392, a synod at Capua, because of the preeminent authority of the Alexandrian see in the East, chose him to settle the dispute between Flavian and Evagrius, who had been substituted in the episcopate of Antioch after the death of Paulinus: yet Flavian refused to accept his judgment. Concerning which matter, Saint Ambrose, writing to the same Theophilus, says (g): "Evagrius has nothing to press; Flavian has what he fears, and therefore he avoids the examination. Let the brethren grant indulgence to a just grief, because on their account the whole world is shaken; and yet they do not sympathize with our grief." Read more likewise in Socrates (h) and Sozomen (i). He was present, moreover, at the Constantinopolitan council convened at the end of the year 394, where the controversy of Agapius and Bagadius regarding the bishopric of Bostra was debated. You may see Zonaras (j) and Balsamon (k). Four years later, he returned to Constantinople to inaugurate Saint John Chrys-

Chrysostom as prelate of that royal city, ^A a man whom, however, he later fiercely persecuted and took care to depose at the Synod of the Oak in the year 403. Finally, seized by lethargy, he closed his final day in the year 412, on the Ides of October, in the consulship of Honorius for the ninth time and Theodosius for the fifth, as Socrates writes (a); and thus he governed the Alexandrian Church for twenty-seven full years and three incomplete months.

II. We understand that Theophilus consigned many things to writing, both from those works which survive intact to this day, and from the fragments of those which have been lost but are preserved among the ancients. We shall briefly enumerate only the chief of these here; we omit the rest, which can be distinguished by their inscriptions, as they reveal the sources whence we have primarily drawn them. Thus, among the writings of Theophilus, the primary place is held by his Paschal Cycle of four hundred and eighteen years, as Cyril, the nephew and successor of the author, says (b). He wove this Paschal period together at the request of Theodosius the Great, when he was not yet a bishop, and dedicated it to the same Augustus. But lest the mass of so many years should bring to some either disgust in learning them or laziness in transcribing them, he composed a table of one hundred years, taking its beginning from the first year of the consulship of the same Theodosius, in the common year of Christ 380, as we learn from the same Cyril (c). Regarding such a cycle and table of Theophilus, besides Bucherius (d) and Tillemont (e), Johannes Van der Haagen observes many things learnedly in a particular dissertation which he wrote on this subject. There still survives the Prologue which the author prefixed to either his cycle or table; we have transcribed its Greek from Petavius (f), and the ancient version from the lauded Bucherius (g).

III. We have placed Theophilus’s surviving letters, the 10 Canonical Edicts and the 3 responses, together with the commentaries of Balsamon, at the beginning, taken from the *Pandects* of the canons of Beveridge (h). Among the letters immediately following, that one stands out which the author inscribed to the Palestinians and the Cyprians; in it he discourses at great length on the errors of Origen. This letter, surely to be held in high esteem, was first brought out of darkness from an ancient manuscript of the Ambrosian Library at Milan by the most learned Vallarsi; and he further annexed to it three other letters from the same codex, pertaining to the same cause; namely the response of the Synod of Jerusalem to the preceding letter of Theophilus, and the [letter] of Dionysius of Lydda or the Diospolitans to the same Theophilus, and not the letters of Pope Anastasius to Simplicianus; all of which, although Saint Jerome rendered them into Latin, as he himself seems to intimate (i), the mentioned Vallarsi introduced into his edition of the works of the greatest Doctor (j). From this point, we have received for printing the three earlier letters, leaving aside the fourth, the Anastasian, which we shall exhibit elsewhere later; and we have subjoined the Vallarsian notes regarding the letter of the text, with a few of our own woven therein. ^B Here, moreover, it must not be overlooked that the illustrious editor (k) thought such a letter of Theophilus to be that very synodical [epistle] which Saint Jerome writes was rendered into Latin by him, where he says (l): “I have interpreted his (Theophilus’s) two epistles, the synodical and the paschal, against Origen and his disciples, for these two years past, and I have given them to the men of our tongue to be read for the edification of the Church.” But we find his opinion was less approved by others. Our own Jerome de Prato, certainly, we know to have refuted it with many and not insignificant arguments (m); and we understand the learned man Joannes Franc. Bernardus de Rubeis to have subsequently adhered to him (n). This discussion, however, we leave to others to judge.

IV. Yet three paschal epistles for the years 401, 402, and 404 follow this Theophilian epistle, which should perhaps be called encyclical rather than synodical. For it is agreed that the bishops of Alexandria, according to the custom of that Church, every year, after the day of the Epiphany had passed, as Cassian says (o), promulgated epistles for the purpose of announcing the solemn time of Easter, and were therefore called paschal, or sometimes also festal. These epistles of Theophilus were donated to Latin ears by Saint Jerome, and they are for the most part circulated among his works; but in all editions—if you except the Vallarsian one—they were arranged in reverse order. The inversion was first detected by the most eminent Norisius (p), who thereupon accurately restored each to its proper year.

The first, therefore, which has the preamble “Christ Jesus the Lord,” at the end announces that Easter is to be celebrated on the xixth day of the month of Pharmuthi according to the Egyptian cycles, namely among the Latins according to the Julian reckoning ^D on the xivth of April: on which same day the paschal festival was celebrated in the Roman Church in the year 401, with the solar cycle 18, the moon 11, and the Dominical letter F. But this

Theophilus’ epistle in common editions, ^A erroneously designated as the second, we have followed after Vallarsi, from whose revised Hieronymian edition we have produced them. We have also added Greek fragments of those same epistles, taken not only from Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret, but also from Cosmas Indicopleustes: a fact which has so far been noticed by no one. Moreover, we have appended two other Greek fragments from the fifth and sixth paschal epistles of the same Theophilus taken from the acts of the Council of Ephesus. As for the epistles that follow hereafter, and other fragments collected at the same time from the lost works of our author, as well as his apophthegms: all these, I say, will show where they were ultimately drawn from, with the sources everywhere pointed out individually.

EDICT OF THEOPHILUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, ON THE OCCASION OF THE HOLY THEOPHANY FALLING ON A SUNDAY

Both custom ^B and propriety require us to honor every Sunday and to celebrate it, since on this day our Lord Jesus Christ bestowed upon us the glorious gift of his resurrection. Therefore, in the Holy Scriptures, it is called both the first, as being the beginning of life for us, and the eighth, as having surpassed the sabbath of the Jews. Since, therefore, it has happened that this day is the fast-day of the holy Theophany, let us make a dispensation, and let us proceed toward both with knowledge, so that by partaking of a few dates, we may at the same time avoid those heresies which do not honor the day of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may render what is due to the fast-day, while awaiting the evening assembly which, God willing, is celebrated here. Let us therefore gather here from the ninth hour.

us Christ, and may render what is due to the fast-day, while awaiting the evening assembly which, God willing, is celebrated here. Let us therefore gather here from the ninth hour.

MEMORANDUM OF THE SAME

Which he received Ammon, concerning Lyco.

^A CANON I. Regarding those who have communicated with the Arians and still hold the churches to this day, let it be done according to custom; yet in such a way that others be appointed who are testified to in orthodoxy, and let them remain. With these also being thus settled, just as the orthodox bishops in the Thebaid have done in other cities, those who were appointed by bishop Apollo, and who have communicated with those holding the churches with the Arians, let them be punished, if indeed they have acted thus by their own will; but if they have obeyed their own bishop, let them remain, even if they were unaware of what is just. And if indeed all the people reject them along with the others, let others be ordained; but if they retain them, along with those they have communicated with, let them also experience the custom which all the orthodox bishops in the Thebaid have observed.

CANON II. Concerning Bistus, who was appointed presbyter in Ereba, inquiry must be made; and if he has forced any woman who was separated, while her husband was still living, let him not be allowed to be a presbyter; for he ought not to communicate even as a layman, since the Church is accustomed to separate those who are such. This, however, brings no prejudice to bishop Apollo, if he appointed him through ignorance; for the holy synod has commanded that those who, after ordination, are convinced of a crime rendering them unworthy, should be expelled. ^C BALS. Bistus had been appointed presbyter in Ereba by bishop Apollo; this region is in Egypt, just as is Lyco. It was said concerning him that, before his ordination, he had forced a woman who was separated while her husband was yet alive. Being asked about this, Theophilus said: Let it be investigated, and if it is true that he forced the woman, let him not be permitted to be a presbyter. For how can he be a presbyter, who is not even permitted to enter the church as a layman, being separated on account of sin? For the Church casts out such persons and separates them from the faithful. This, however, was not spoken by Theophilus in accordance with the canons; for the twenty-fifth canon of the holy apostles, and the third and thirty-second of the great Basil, and the twenty-second of the synod of Carthage, do not bar from communion those clerics who have sinned and been deposed. But the fact that he was ordained brings no harm to the bishop who, ignorant of the sin, ordained him. For the synod decreed that those who have been convicted of sins should be ejected even after ordination. And that is the ninth canon of the first synod of Nicaea. But that concerning the separated woman while her husband is alive; it is a fact, and therefore it is added

just as is "he did violence." For even if he simple ^A consorted with another woman who had not been separated, and thus deposition was brought upon him, even if he did not use violence against her.

CANON III

CANON IV

CANON V

^A Theophilus that, if after a diligent examination he is found to have sinned, let him be cast out of the clergy. For it is not fitting that anyone be condemned based on suspicion arising from whisperings or clandestine conversations, or from slander or public insults. But if, after the case has been examined, he is found innocent, let him remain in the clergy.

CANON VI

BALS. ^C He gives a model for those who are to be ordained into the clergy, and says that the one to be ordained must be chosen by the entire sacerdotal order, instead of being preferred by unanimous consent; and such a selection having been made of him, then he is to be examined by the bishop; and when the man appears suitable to him for ordination, then he is to be ordained with the consent of the sacerdotal order, while the people are also present. But why did he say "ordain him with the consent of the sacerdotal order"? For since he was chosen by the sacerdotal order, ^D consensus at the time of ordination would seem unnecessary. But it is likely that some time may have passed after the election, and in the meantime those who judge him who is about to be ordained may have learned something that would prevent his ordination. And for this reason he says that they [must] consent, and [he is] then ordained, and [it is] the bishop [who] then addresses the people, asking if they bear witness that he is worthy of ordination. He discourages ordinations from being done in secret. For since, he says, there is peace in the Church—that is, since the people are not now divided, the heresies having ceased, but all are of the orthodox party—all will be of one mind, and it is necessary that ordinations be done in church in the presence of the saints, that is, the faithful. He called the faithful "saints," taking this from the divine Paul. For he, too, refers to the faithful in his Epistles in this way. He seems to be saying these things concerning those who live in the cities. Concerning those, however, who are in the region, that is, in the villages, he says that since many even unwillingly communicated with heretics, and many of the faithful shared their sentiments, that is, agreed and assented: If any of them is to be ordained into the clergy, he is not to be ordained otherwise than with the approval of those clergy who are known to be orthodox, with the bishop also present, and addressing the people, as was said above. He says that these things are done, so that no conspiracy may intervene—that is,

deception and forcible seizure—and that someone may be ordained who does not hold the faith correctly.

CANON VII

BALS. If any of those things offered by the faithful for sacrifice superabound, after those things consumed for the divine mysteries, it is necessary, he says, that these be distributed to the clergy, so that they may be eaten and drunk by them, and also by the faithful laity; but to the catechumens nothing of these should be given. For since they were brought to the altar, and portions were taken from them for the divine gifts, and those were sanctified, how shall those things intended for consumption be given to those who are less perfected? Those things which are brought for sacrifice are bread and wine; for it is not permitted that anything else be offered at the altar. Read the 3rd Apostolic Canon, and the 28th canon of the synod in Trullo, which is called the sixth. ^B

CANON VIII

BALS. A certain man was ordained a cleric, and then was accused as having fornicated. A certain Hierax, therefore, said that he ought not to be in the clergy; but he who had ordained him maintained, or insisted, that he had not been accused by anyone. Therefore, Theophilus says: Let the man be examined, and if some accuser is found who is worthy of trust, or who is admissible to accuse (for it is not permitted to everyone to accuse those who are in holy orders, according to the 6th canon of the second ecumenical synod, and the canon of the fourth ecumenical synod), let him be cast out of the Church after proof; but if nothing of the sort is proven, let him remain in the clergy. ^C

CANON IX

BALS. The same [Theophilus] gave judgment that the economus of the bishopric must be made by the decision of the whole priesthood, if the bishop also assents to the judgment of the clergy. He is to be made economus so that the goods of that Church may be spent on what is necessary under his care. The following chapter makes clear what the "necessary expenditure" is, which is the expenditure upon widows, strangers, and the poor. For it is permitted to no one to spend the goods of the Church for his own purposes, because…

the minister of God must be alien to avarice; and it is not permitted for the bishop to use the property of the episcopate for his own personal use, except for things that are entirely necessary, and then only when the bishop lacks resources of his own, according to the 41st canon of the holy apostles. Seek what is written in that, and the 24th canon of the synod of Antioch. ^A

CANON X. Let widows and the poor and visiting strangers enjoy all rest, and let no one usurp the things that belong to the Church as his own.

NARRATIVE OF THE SAME CONCERNING THOSE WHO ARE CALLED CATHARI

^B Your piety has declared to me that certain of those who call themselves Cathari wish to join the Church. Since, therefore, the great synod which was held at Nicaea by our blessed Fathers ordained that those who approach should be ordained, be willing to ordain according to this form those who wish to approach the Church, if their life is upright and nothing stands against them.

BALS. He was asked concerning the Novatians (for these are they who are also called Cathari), and the answer was, that if they approach the Church, since the great and first synod at Nicaea ordained that they be ordained, do you also ^C according to this form, or according to this canon, and ordain those who approach, unless some impediment from their life stands against them. The canon concerning the Novatians is the eighth of the first synod.

THE SAME TO AGATHON THE BISHOP

Maximus asserted that, being ignorant of the laws of the Church, he had joined in an illicit marriage, and because it troubles him that he is not acting rightly and in order, he affirmed that, as one who acted against the laws through ignorance, he would abstain by mutual consent from the illicit union of life, she also willing this. If, therefore, you prove that they are doing this by mutual consent and are not deceiving—since the ^D time is ten years—if you consider that they ought to be with the catechumens, for the present manage them in this way. But if you see that he wishes to deceive, and there is still need for severity in this matter, do that which God shall suggest to you; always following

of the penance that God shall suggest to you, do this, being guided in all things by what is most pressing. For since you are on the spot, you can better know their dispositions. ^A BALS. A certain Maximus, having been joined to a woman in an illicit marriage, was excommunicated and barred from the assembly of the faithful. But he said that he had acted against the laws in ignorance, and that he was ready to depart from the marriage, the woman also being willing; and he sought to be received upon separating. Concerning these things, therefore, Theophilus said: if, having examined the matter, you find that they depart from the marriage by mutual consent—that is, by a common decision—and are not deceiving, then, since they have lived together for ten years, a separation from one another might perhaps be considered difficult for them, and one must be careful that they do not deceive. If you decide—that is, if you judge that they ought to stand with the catechumens for now, that is, for the present—then dispense them thus. But if you discern, he says, that they say these things out of deceit, and that they still require ^B constraint, that is, more severe penances, do what God shall suggest to you—that is, what He shall inspire in your mind, what God shall put into your soul—always following what is in usage and what has force, that is, what is most ratified and valid.

TO THE SAME, TO MENE THE BISHOP

The presbyters in the village of Geminus have done a lawful thing, if the person bringing the letter of Eustathius speaks the truth. For he says that, because Cyradium was committing injustice and was unwilling to desist from the injustice, they separated her from the assembly. Since, therefore, I have found that, in applying a remedy to her own evil, she wishes to communicate, take care to make her first put away the injustice, and persuade her to repent, so that in this way, if you perceive that she approaches out of the law of God, desiring the assembly, you may permit her to assemble with the people. ^C BALS. A certain woman called Cyradium, who was committing injustice, the presbyters in Geminus had separated from the Church, as she would not abstain from the injustice. But she, on account of the excommunication, promised that she would bring a remedy to the injustice, and wished to be received. Theophilus therefore writes to the bishop of the region: Make her first put away the injustice, that is, return what she acquired unjustly, and do penance, that is, be grieved that she has committed an injustice, and pray to God that the sin may be forgiven her. And when she has done these things, if you perceive—that is, if you come to know that she approaches by the law of God, that is, with a good conscience that does not endure to be separated from the communion of the faithful, for the sake of God ^D and not for the shame of men—then permit her the assembly and standing with the faithful people in the hymns.

THEOPHILUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, SYNODICAL EPISTLE To the bishops of Palestine and to those of Cyprus, concerning the condemnation of the Origenist heresy. Translated by St. Jerome. Exists in Patrologia Latina, vol. XXII, Opp. S. Hieronymi, vol. I, col. 758.

RESPONSE OF THE SYNOD OF JERUSALEM TO THE PRECEDING EPISTLE

EPISTLE OF DIONYSIUS, BISHOP OF LYDDA, TO THEOPHILUS

EPISTLES OF THEOPHILUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, ON THE PASSCHAL FEASTS. TO THIS IS PREFACED A PROLOGUE BY THE SAME AUTHOR ON THE HOLY PASCHA.

CONCERNING THE HOLY AND SAVING PASCHA, WHICH ACCORDING TO DIVINE LAW IS CELEBRATED EVERY YEAR, and a brief resolution with demonstration of its questions.

PROLOGUE OF THEOPHILUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, TO THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS ON THE HOLY AND SAVING PASCHA, which we celebrate annually according to the divine law; and a brief dissertation with clear exposition concerning its questions.

1. The holy and blessed Pascha of God is clearly defined by the law; it indicates simultaneously the month in which it must be celebrated and commands that the day be observed with the greatest accuracy. For it is the voice of God, proposed in that same law [Exod. xii, 13; Deut. xvi, 1]: “Observe the month of new ^A fruits, and you shall celebrate the Pascha to the Lord your God.” [A'] The Law clearly delineates the holy and blessed Pascha of God, at once declaring the month in which it must be celebrated, and commanding that the day be kept with great precision. For the voice of God is within the law, saying, “Observe the month of new…

and call it the first, in which the ripened fruits signify the cessation of the old.” And He commanded that the Pascha be observed on the fourteenth day of the first month, for no other reason than to imitate the moon, which at that time has its full sphere—so that we, too, bearing the perfect splendor of faith and understanding, may be separated from the darkness of sin, and being nourished by the variety of diverse virtues and covered by their leaves as if by the shade of a pleasant tree, may sprout forth like joyous and fruitful crops. He calls it the fourteenth day of the month not according to the solar cycle, but according to the moon. For the children of the Hebrews were taught to form the month not from the sun’s course, but from the cycle of the moon; since the month itself is named after the moon—for it is called *Mene* in the Greek tongue. The Egyptians, however, were the first to think it easier to calculate the days of the month by the sun, because the moon’s movement is very rapid—from which, among some, an error of days used to arise—and because the sun moves more slowly than the moon, and can therefore be more easily comprehended. ^B

II. Since matters stand thus, many do not know which is the first month of the year or the fourteenth day of the Pascha within it, because they frequently, following the Hebrews, designate the twelfth month of the year—which is adjacent and contiguous to the shift of the winter season—as the first in every respect. They do this because they are ignorant of the beginning of the vernal shift, which always occurs on the twelfth day before the Kalends of April, according to the solar course, which it behooves us above all to observe, lest, if anyone perchance erroneously calculates the fourteenth moon while it is still set lower and further back within this very shift, he be deceived in the calculation of the Paschal cycle, thinking it to be the first month. For neither is the month of new fruits set in the twelfth month, when the season of winter still exists, as I have said before, nor are the new fruits yet mature, nor can the sickle be applied to the harvest; for this, the divine law has established as the greatest sign of the first month. ^C

III. But because it sometimes happens that, on account of the fourteenth moon of the same first month, some fall into error—if the fourteenth moon itself falls on a Sunday (by which it follows that the fast must be broken on the Sabbath, when the thirteenth moon is found, and we begin to do things contrary to the law)—it is proper to attend to this diligently: that whenever the fourteenth moon falls on a Sunday, we should rather defer the Paschal day to the following week. This for a twofold reason: first, that we may not break the fast on the Sabbath day because the thirteenth moon has been found, which does not follow, for the law itself ^D

^A prescribes, especially since the light of the moon itself appears as yet imperfect in its own globe. Next, that we may not, when the fourteenth moon falls on a Sunday, be compelled to fast, doing an unseemly and illicit thing; for such a practice is peculiar to the Manichaeans. Since, therefore, when the fourteenth moon comes on a Sunday, we must not fast, and it does not follow that we should break off the fasts if the thirteenth moon occurs on a Sabbath, the postponement to the following week is necessary, as was said a little above, without any transgression of the Paschal cycle being committed by this delay. For just as the number ten includes the nine, so as often as the fourteenth moon falls on a Sunday, because it is not permitted to fast on that day, it is necessary to defer the day of Passover to the next week; for no lessening of the Passover seems to be caused by this, since the six following days include the others.

IV. Moreover, because our Savior was delivered on the fourteenth moon, that is, on the fifth day after the Sabbath; was crucified on the fifteenth; and rose on the third day, that is, on the ^B seventeenth moon, which was then found to be on a Sunday, as we learn from the record of the Gospels—we have therefore a consolation by which we can rightly celebrate the Passover, even if a delay has intervened due to an urgent necessity. If, therefore, the fourteenth moon of the holy Passover arrives on a Sabbath, or on the other days of the week preceding the Sabbath, it is fitting to celebrate it then; but if the fourteenth moon of the first month should fall on a Sunday, it must by all means be deferred to the following week. For Sunday is the first day of the week, as was said before.

V. These things being thus demonstrated and made clear, we must also consider this: that the law itself frequently, for the sake of necessity, commands those who through some constraint of time could not celebrate the Passover in the first month to do so in the second. For it is better for those placed in necessity to follow higher things than lower ones, since lower things are contained by the higher, whereas the higher are not included by a lower number. And repeating what we have set forth, declaring that the number ten contains within itself the nine, but the nine cannot contain the ten; if the law commands us to pass to the second month if we cannot celebrate ^C the holy Passover in the first month because of certain necessities, I do not understand why, if the fourteenth moon falls on a Sunday, we should not reasonably make a postponement of the Passover to the following week, while the first month still remains, and the fifteenth moon, on which the Savior was crucified, and likewise the seventeenth, when he rose after three days.

VI. Having therefore arranged this calculation moderately, we have also carefully set down the reckoning of each year that pertains to the computation of the Passover, ^D starting from the first consulship of the most religious emperor Theodosius, adding one hundred years, and simultaneously manifesting the knowledge of the fourteenth moon and of the Lord’s Paschal day.

PASCAL LETTERS

THEOPHILUS' PASCAL LETTER OF THE YEAR 401 TO THE BISHOPS OF ALL EGYPT

THE SAME PASCAL LETTER OF THE YEAR 402, BY THE SAME TRANSLATOR

LETTER OF JEROME TO THEOPHILUS

THEOPHILUS' PASCAL LETTER OF THE YEAR 404, BY THE SAME TRANSLATOR, ST. JEROME

FRAGMENTS OF THE PASCAL LETTERS OF THEOPHILUS OF ALEXANDRIA

^ATheophilus of Alexandria from his first Pascal Letter. That, having risen above earthly deeds, we may eat the Pascha in the high house of virtue, as the disciples did in the upper room, having with us Christ who was sacrificed for us, eating the whole of Him as life.

^BFrom the same, from the same Pascal Letter. That again, drawing back the veil of the word, we may behold with unveiled face the transitoriness of the celebration of the divine Pascha, crying out to Jesus: "Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Pascha?" (Matt. xxvi, 17). When the disciples, having heard from Him that it was to be celebrated in the upper room—the upper room, that is, of things of a higher order—betook themselves, hastening with a rapid course of mind and spirit, into the Holy of Holies, where Christ Himself

^A has entered on our behalf, and has done away with the need for him who discharged the office of high priest according to the type, having found eternal redemption for us, and having appeared on our behalf before the face of God. In that former time, the high priest alone would enter once a year into the Holy of Holies, while the people remained outside, because of the weakness of his power; but the Savior, having entered, has given freedom to those who wish to enter.

II

Fragment from the Paschal Letter of the year 401, § 3, above, page 616.

In Cyril of Alexandria, book 1, On the Right Faith to the most religious queens, Works, vol. V, part II, near the end, page 52.

Of Theophilus, bishop, from the discourse inscribed "To those who held the views of Origen."

He speaks thus concerning Christ.

Cæterum, that he who appeared might be believed to be the true God not in word only, but also in power, He Himself gave the most certain proof of His divinity by the magnificence of His works, declaring the assurance concerning Himself. For, being perfect God, He became man by His own will; and He left out nothing at all that was akin to human nature, except only for impious wickedness. For even as an infant He was acknowledged to be Emmanuel, for the Magi came to Him, and by their worship proclaimed that He who had appeared was God. For when He was being crucified in the flesh, He caused the sun’s rays to wane, and by that strange miracle manifested His own divinity, nowhere having divided Himself ^B or split Himself into two saviors. Nay, rather, it is read that He addressed His own disciples with this saying: "Call not (any) master upon earth; for One is your Master, Christ." For neither when He gave this command to the apostles did He sever His divinity from the body that was seen; nor, again, when He testified that He Himself was Christ, did He separate Himself from soul and body, but was both at once, that is, God and man. For He who was seen was a servant; but He who was understood was the Lord, concealing the loftiness of His divinity with the humble sense of the incarnation; ^C but, on the contrary, He was raising up the humiliation of the body that was seen by the effective operation of His divinity.

III

Fragment from the same Paschal Letter of the year 401, § 4, above, page 617.

In Theodoret, Dialogue II, Works, vol. IV, page 101.

Of blessed Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, from those things which he wrote Against Origen.

Neither has our likeness, which He assumed, been changed into the nature of the divinity, nor has His divinity been changed into our likeness. For He remains what He was from the beginning, God; He remains also, sustaining our existence within Himself. ^D

IV. Fragment from the Paschal Epistle of the year 402, § 7, above, p. 623. In Theodoret, Dial. III, Opp. tom. IV, p. 167. ^A Of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, from the Heortastic tome.

The souls of creatures lacking reason are not taken away and placed back; rather, they perish along with their bodies and dissolve into dust. But the Savior, withdrawing His soul from His own body at the time of the passion, placed it back into it again, having raised it from the dead. Providing us with assurance of this fact, He foretold it through the Psalmist, crying out: "Thou wilt not abandon my soul to hell, nor wilt Thou suffer Thy holy one to see corruption."[*]

V. Fragment from the same Paschal Epistle of the year 402, § 16, above, p. 623. In Theodoret, Dial. II, Opp. tom. IV, p. 101. ^B Of the blessed Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, from those things which he wrote against Origen.

But you do not cease from blaspheming again, slandering the Son of God and using these words: "Just as the Son and the Father are one, so also the soul which the Son assumed and He Himself are one," not knowing that the Son and the Father are one by reason of their one substance and the same divinity; whereas the soul and the Son have a substance and nature different from one another. For if, as the Father and the Son are one, so also the soul of the Son and the Son were one, then the Father and the soul would also be one, and the soul of the Son would one day say, "He who hath seen me hath seen the Father."[*] But that is not true—far from it! For the Son and the Father are one because there are no different qualities [between them]; but the soul and the Son differ in both nature and substance, because the soul itself was also made through Him, having the same substance as we do. For if, in the way the Father and the Son are one, so also the soul and the Son were one, according to Origen, then the soul would also be, like the Son, the brightness of God's glory and the character of His substance. ^C But this cannot be. It is impossible, therefore, that the Son and His soul should be one, just as He and the Father are one. And what will he do, contradicting himself again? For he writes thus: "By no means was the troubled and sad soul the Only-Begotten and the firstborn of every creature." For God the Word, being more excellent than the soul—the Son Himself says: "I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again."[*] If, therefore, the Son is more excellent than His own soul, as it is acknowledged that He is more excellent, how is His soul equal to God and in His form? For we say that it is He who emptied Himself and took the form of a servant. ^D In the excesses of his impieties, he became more notable than other heretics, as we have noted. For if the Word exists in the form of God and is equal to God, and he thinks the soul of the Savior is in the form of God and equal to God—he who has dared so to write,

how can that which is equal be more excellent? For things that are of a lower nature testify to the excellence of those things which are above them.

VI.

Fragment from the Fifth Paschal Letter

VII.

Fragment from the Sixth Paschal Letter

LETTERS OF THEOPHILUS OF ALEXANDRIA TO VARIOUS PERSONS

I. ^A THEOPHILI AD HIERONYMUM. Announces that the Origenists have been expelled from the monasteries of Nitria, and urges that if any others have been deceived, they should amend. Exists in the translation of Jerome, in his Works, vol. 1, col. 755.

HIERONYMI AD THEOPHILUM. He responds to the above, and praises Theophilus, through whom not only Egypt and Syria, but all of Italy has been freed from heresy. Ibid.

II. THEOPHILI AD HIERONYMUM. He warns that the expelled Origenists—if there are any hidden in Palestine—should be pursued. Ibid., col. 756.

III. THEOPHILI AD EPIPHANIUM. He urges Epiphanius to strive by all means that, once a synod is convened, the heresy of the Origenists may be condemned by public authority; and at the same time, he sends him the synodical letter written by himself. Ibid., col. 156, and among the Works of Epiphanius, vol. III.

EPIPHANII AD HIERONYMUM. He announces that the faction of the Origenists has been condemned through the efforts of Theophilus; and sending him a copy of the synodical letter, he urges him to publish for the public the books he had written against that heresy. Ibid.

IV. THEOPHILI AD HIERONYMUM. A certain part or beginning. He testifies that he always wished well to John Chrysostom, and did not rashly believe his accusers, until, the judgment of the council breaking forth, he was cast out of his see in Constantinople and driven into exile. See the cited volume, col. 931.

HIERONYMI AD THEOPHILUM. He pleads many hindrances on account of which he has only belatedly translated the book written by Theophilus against John Chrysostom. Then he praises the doctrine and sentiments of that book, and asks pardon if at any time he has not rendered the Greek meanings sufficiently well into Latin. Ibid., col. 933.

V. THEOPHILI PAPÆ AD AMMONIUM EPISCOPUM. (From Bolland, Act. SS. May, vol. III, pp. 71, 357.) Letter of Pope Theophilus of Alexandria.

To my lord and brother, much beloved, and fellow-priest Ammonius, greetings in the Lord. Since I am not at all unaware of the remarkable zeal and piety of your soul, I cannot but vehemently approve that you have made a record regarding the deeds of holy men; for you have often refreshed us on other occasions with your stories, transmitting in writing what you had learned. May it therefore be granted to you and to all of us to have a share and communion with holy Theodore. For not lingeringly, but with a promptitude that adds something to our own consolation, you have profited us greatly, most beloved and most desired. Greet the brotherhood that is with you. Those who are with me greet you in the Lord. Fare well in the Lord, most beloved brother.

VI. THEOPHILI AD EPISCOPOS PALÆSTINÆ. ^D From Palladius, Dial. on the Life of St. John Chrysostom, ch. 7.

It was not right that you should receive these men (Isidore and other monks) into your cities against my will; but since you did it in ignorance, I grant you pardon. For the future, however, take care not to admit them into any ecclesiastical or private place.

VII. THEOPHILI AD JOANNEM CHRYSOSTOMUM EPISCOPUM CONSTANTINOPOLITANUM. Ibid. ch. 8.

I think indeed that you are not ignorant of the decree of the Nicene canons, where it is ordained that a bishop should not—

judge outside his own borders; but if you are ignorant, learn it, and abstain from libels against me. For if it were necessary for me to be judged, I ought to be judged by the Egyptian bishops, and not by you, who are seventy-five days' journey away from here.

VIII. Letter of John, Bishop of Citrium, and the Sentence of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria.

^A On fast days, about the ninth hour, after the accustomed prayers, we satisfy the needs of the body simply with bread, water, and vegetables, or dried figs, or dates, unless some infirmity of the body should afflict one. Since, therefore, we are commanded to fast even on the day before the holy Theophany, after the evening office and the celebration of the divine mystery joined to it, we are accustomed to approach food suited to the body; at that time it is not proper to take oil or fish. For if that day—the vigil, I say, of the holy Theophany—has fallen on a Sunday, Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, enjoins us to eat only dried figs or dates, so that we may guard against appearing to fast on a Sunday; but we should not rashly partake of richer food if the same vigil falls on another day. But if the day of the holy Theophany should fall on a Wednesday or a Friday, it is enough for us to break the fast customary on such days, according to the LXIX canon of the holy Apostles, and to make use of oil and fish. But to eat meat or cheese is entirely an invention of gluttony, not a command of apostolic legislation. For the kingdom of God is not food and drink, and the things that follow.

^B § 1. Therefore the allocutio and law of Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria is as follows.

Both custom and the reason of our office demand that we honor every Sunday and keep it as a feast, since in it our Lord Jesus Christ has procured for us the resurrection from the dead. And for this reason, this day is called both the "first" in the holy Scriptures, as it is the beginning of life for us, and the "eighth," inasmuch as it transcends the Sabbatism of the Jews. Since, therefore, it has happened that the fast day which pertains to the holy Theophany falls on this Sunday, let us use economy, and let us prudently accommodate ourselves to both, so that while taking a few dates, we may at once avoid the heresies which do not honor the day of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that we may render what is due to the fast day, awaiting the evening assembly, which here, God willing, shall be celebrated. Let us therefore gather here from the ninth hour.

FRAGMENTS OF THEOPHILUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA

FRAGMENTS FROM OTHER LOST WORKS

I.

On the Psalm XCII, “The Lord hath reigned, he hath put on beauty.”

"The Lord hath reigned, he hath put on beauty." ^A For because he took on a corruptible body, he put on beauty, raising it up not corruptible, but incorruptible. "The Lord hath reigned, he hath put on beauty." For he took on, raising up again his own body, according to his own promise: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The body, therefore, which he raised up, he put on. For he said, "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption"; and again, "my flesh also shall rest in hope." Rising again, he did not remain in the tomb; and remaining in the tomb, he did not see corruption, and corruption did not have dominion over him. The incorruptible Word raised the corruptible body to incorruptibility.

II. From the Catena on Genesis, royal codex 810. In Sirmond, *ibid.*, p. 292.

^B That souls are not, as seemed to Origen, cast down and bound to bodies on account of sin, we have learned from the words of Moses, who said to the sons of Israel: "The Lord God of your fathers add to you, as you are today, many thousands, and bless you, as he hath spoken to you." For a blessing, according to Origen, is not the production of bodies, but a curse to wandering souls.

III. From the same royal codex 810. *Ibid.*, p. 295.

Man was therefore made between the two; neither mortal in every respect, nor altogether immortal, but capable of both.

IV. In St. John of Damascus, *Sacred Parallels*, Opp. vol. II, p. 339.

^C Since an earthly king is believed to exist, although he is not seen by all, yet he is known through his laws, and edicts, and authorities, and powers, and images; do you not wish for God to be known through his works and powers? ^D

V. Idem ibid. pag. 781.

Very few are those who, though they may spend their whole lives in the investigation of the divine Scriptures, are able to attain to a more sublime understanding of the doctrine contained within them and of their deeper meanings.

(20) Another passage exists in the same *Parallels* of Damascus, page 601, treating of death; which, however, is found more fully in the *Apophthegmata*, as we shall advise below.

THE APOPHTHEGMATA OF THEOPHILUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA

See in the Appendix to Palladius of Helenopolis, below at the year 420.