Historical and Theological Commentary on the Life and Writings of Theodore

to seem, I have endeavored to bring about; to assist me in which matter, had I a right foundation on which to lean, the works of Theodore had to be examined most accurately and repeatedly. But that you may not ask of me more than I intended or was able to perform, I shall speak briefly on the subject of this commentary.

Having prefixed a short discussion on the number of Theodore’s writings, the fortune they have experienced in the course of time, and their translations, I have reviewed them each in order and discoursed upon them. In this, the first question was which books Theodore wrote and at what time: this was andante to me, especially on account of the carelessness and negligence of the ancients in citing works, and could sometimes only be determined with difficulty. Regarding the commentary on the XII minor prophets, which alone seems to have survived, I have discussed it again more accurately, along the lines of the Prolegomena already debated by the venerable doctors Angelo Mai and Victor de Wegnern. Some things I have corrected, others added, others amplified, and others, finally, I have condensed.

Of most of Theodore’s books, certain fragments survive, which, if I had merely noted without examining them accurately, my work would have been of little fruit. But I have marked as spurious only those which I noted with a word; where I have given no warning, I consider those fragments genuine. I thought I could dispense with a more extensive discussion of each item. For besides the fact that many of these fragments are shorter and lighter than those about which one might discourse at length, the matter is highly ambiguous and can only be judged by someone to whom Theodore’s style of thought and writing is familiar. Some are quite certainly Theodore’s; others certainly do not differ from him. By all means, the ancients were to be heard, from whose authority I have departed only for the most serious reasons. Nor have I remained content in this inquiry regarding the fragments, but I have also diligently investigated what might be said of the subject matter and character of each individual book. In this discussion you will find much from which the nature of Theodore can be recognized, although in these parts I have studied brevity for the sake of the plan of this book.

I have found many errors both of the ancients and of the moderns, but I have silently corrected the faults of the latter as much as could be done. Superfluous matters I have passed over in silence. But in studies of this kind, it is easy to err, and although I have applied the utmost honesty and indefatigable study, I have undoubtedly fallen into errors from time to time. But I shall be glad for correction. Ultimately, however, let the judgment on what I have performed remain with those expert in these branches of learning.

I wrote in Halle, the 20th day of September, A.D. 1836.

O. F. FRITZSCHE.

OF THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA ON HIS LIFE AND WRITINGS A HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL COMMENTARY PARS PRIOR. — OF THEODORE’S LIFE

Theodore of Antioch, which was the capital of Syria ^A and the whole of the East, was born of noble and wealthy parents around the year 350.

But it is fitting now to treat here the whole question of the chronological details which constitute the life of Theodore, in which we must first inquire in what year Theodore died. Antonius Pagi in his *Critica historico-chronologica on the Annals of Baronius* (Antwerp, 1705, fol., for the year 427) has discussed this matter most excellently. However, I disagree with that learned man, and I believe that Theodore died not in the year 429, but at the end of the year 428. Many others whom I have approached have already attributed his death to the year 428, but by conjecture rather than by reasoning; others, however, like Henricus Norisius (*Opera omnia* I [Verona, 1729 fol.], p. 291), whom I shall cite below. I do not know what the quality of the dissertation by J. Christoph. Meisner, *De Theodoro Mopsuesteno* (Wittenberg, 1714), is.

^A resting on weak arguments, to the year 427. — Theodoret, *H. eccl.* v, 39: "This history contains a period of one hundred and five years, beginning from the madness of Arius and receiving its conclusion with the death of those praiseworthy men, Theodore and Theodotus." Prefatory: "Eusebius... wrote up to the reign of Constantine, beloved of God, the things that occurred in the churches; I, however, shall make the end of that history the beginning of my own." Eusebius’ *History* concludes with the narrative of Licinius being defeated (in the year 324 [323]) and removed from the scene (in the year 325); Theodoret, however, where in book I, chapter 1, he states that with the tyrants Maxentius, Maximinus, and Licinius removed, the storm of the Church had been calmed, proceeds to narrate the Arian affairs. It should not be inferred from those passages, as Pagi did, that the reckoning of those 105 years is to be calculated from the year 325. Certainly, Licinius was removed by hanging in the year 325, but even before that, after Licinius was defeated and had abdicated his imperial power, Constantine was sole emperor; and it would have been inappropriate for Theodoret to have begun his history, not with that notable death of Licinius, but with one that Eusebius could have recorded (a). But the victory won over Licinius, by which the empire began to rest with Constantine alone, was indeed notable. Much less did Theodoret indicate in the former passage that he had narrated the history from the year in which Arius was condemned at the Council of Nicaea. For, besides the fact that he would have stated this clearly, that passage cannot be pressed for such a meaning, because otherwise Theodoret would have to be considered as having begun his history from about the year 319 and thus contradicting himself. He could rightly speak in that way, however, because having premised a few things, he first related the Arian affairs. Therefore, one may probably say that Theodoret intended the reckoning of those years to begin from the year 324, since he relies in that latter passage—which is clear—on the previous chapters of his *History*, for those things which preceded the Council of Nicaea (May or June 325) and which were undoubtedly for the most part carried out in the year 324 are narrated there more accurately. Now, if you add 105 to the year 324, the year is 428; for since two years of the 105 and 324 are incomplete and are to be counted as a completed one, the result is indeed the time of his end, in which Theodore died (b). Greater credibility is added to this reasoning by the fact that Theodotus, bishop of Antioch, who died shortly after Theodore (cf. Theodoret, *H. eccl.* v, 39), died if not at the end of the year 428, certainly at the beginning of 429. Marius Mercator in the year 429 called him a bishop of holy memory; cf. ^B p. 650, col. p. 648, whence it is more probable that he died in the year 428. The letter of Theodoret to Dioscurus, dated to 448 (see Pagi, I, 1, at the year 423) (ed. Hal. IV, p. 1145 sq.), leads us finally to the same conclusion; in it, he says that he taught at Antioch under Bishop Theodotus for six years, and under Bishop John for thirteen years, and that he is now in the seventh year of teaching under Bishop Domnus. Theodore attained the episcopate, in which he spent thirty-six years (cf. Theodoret, *H. eccl.* v, 39), either at the end of the year 392 or the beginning of 395. That he became a presbyter of Antioch in 382 or 383 is Tillemont's conjecture (1. 1., p. 436), and it is not absurd, indeed, given the words of John, Bishop of Antioch, in Facundus (II, 2): "He shone clearly in doctrine for forty-five years—strenuously resisting all heresies for nearly fifty years"—though it is very doubtful. He was born in the year 350, if indeed the first two letters of Chrysostom to Theodore are correctly referred to the year 369. Cf. Chrysost. *Opp.* I, p. 39: "now, when you are not yet twenty years of age." That he was brought into the world at about that time is proven by the reasons why he was bound to Chrysostom (see below). And he certainly seems to have been two or three years younger than Chrysostom. And so, enfeebled by white-haired old age (cf. Hesych. in *Act. c. Const.* III, A. V; Hard. *Conc.* III, p. 104 and p. 432, in *Pelag. pap. ep.* III, *ad Eliam et Istriae ep.*), the old man fell asleep at about seventy-eight years of age.

He had a brother, Polychronius, a disciple and emulator of the ascetic St. Zebinas, later Bishop of Apamea (c); and Paeanius, a noble man who was in the magistracy, a kinsman (ἀνεψιόν) (d). When he wished to embrace the mercenary life of a scholasticus or advocate, which those who desired to attain to large public honors usually tended to enter, he made use of Libanius, the most famous sophist of that time, as his teacher of rhetoric, together with Chrysostom and Maximus, later Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria (e). A wealthy youth, as he was, he by no means despised the luxuries and elegance of life, although he was desirous of praise and studied profane literature assiduously (f). Chrysostom, however, the friend of Theodore, was different, who, although he himself had been born in a noble station and had determined to enter the same way of life that Theodore did, nonetheless, having soon grown weary of the clamor of the forum, gave himself for three years to the discipline of Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, so that he might learn Christian matters more accurately. Having been baptized, he was then a reader. But not long after, he satisfied the desire by which he had been held for some time and ^C directed himself to...

of his own volition. Betaking himself to the monks who were staying in the vicinity of Antioch, ^A he brought upon himself a grave burden of youthful desire, greater than what he seemed able to bear. For, captured by the beauty of Hermione, ^D having abandoned the monastery in which he had not yet long resided, he returned to the city and to his former studies, and thought of arranging a marriage. In this, take care not to accuse him of levity. He was pious and learned, but blinded by the mockery of love, and especially with some of his friends inciting him, he easily persuaded himself that he could also enter into a marriage, which God had not forbidden to men. There is nothing you cannot accomplish by reasoning out what you desire. But Chrysostom clearly perceived how Theodore felt, and that his course of action—for a monk who had shackled himself to Christ to enter into a marriage—was no longer safe, and that it would have been proven to Theodore and approved before, had he not been bound by the chains of love. Many grieved for Theodore’s plight, but no one more than Chrysostom. Yet he did not despair of him, but warned him severely by speaking and writing about how he might eventually be able to abstain from these ill-fated plans. At that time, indeed, he approached him twice by letter. Both epistles, worthy of a supreme orator, abound in excellent maxims and precepts, and both are full of love and concern, and however dissimilar, are most accommodating for persuasion. And indeed, concerning that to which he had directed his aim in the former ^B one, he expresses it at the end in these words: "I know that you confess your sins ^C" 42, but Hesychius mentions only one, ^D and Sozomen undoubtedly saw that he mentioned only the former epistle; and all these, as it seems to me, understood the former. The opinion of Savile, Montfaucon, and others, who referred the words of Sozomen to the latter epistle, must certainly be rejected. Now from these things you may gather how much the opinion of Tillemont is to be valued, who, since he had seen that mention was made by those writers of only one epistle—and indeed the latter, as he had persuaded himself—conjectured that only the latter epistle was given to Mopsuestia, and the former to another Theodore. The internal arguments by which the esteemed man seemed to himself to have confirmed his opinion, Montfaucon has most truly shown in his warning to be vain. Moreover, those two epistles are mentioned by Leontius, and by Isidore of Seville in his Chronicle, and by Nicephorus Callistus, and it is said in all manuscripts that the latter was written to the same Theodore. The response of the fallen Theodore to Chrysostom is the invention of a foolish Greekling.

^A And he requested more, that he might persuade himself that he could be justified by true repentance. Therefore, as Theodore felt the gravity of his sins, he proved that there was no reason for him to despair, and with weighty arguments he commended to him the amending of his life. Shorter is the other epistle, in which he acted primarily to clear away everything by which Theodore might excuse or defend the manner of life he had begun. Hope did not fail Chrysostom; for Theodore, vanquished again, yielded to his friend and returned to the monastery.

We now arrive at those times in which, together with Chrysostom, he gave himself wholly under Diodorus as his leader to the sacred Scriptures, ^B especially to exegetical studies. But he conformed himself to the example of Diodorus so strictly that Leontius not inaptly called him the author, leader, and father of Theodore’s evils and impiety. Although, as was fitting, he did not so press in the footsteps of his teacher as to claim nothing as his own, nay, he pursued what he had received further with his own genius and would have advanced even further, had his audacity not been checked. For when, even as a young man, he had indeed set out from the things which Diodorus had taught, yet being much bolder than Diodorus, he had interpreted the Psalms and had referred very few of them properly to Christ, he offended many even then, so that he was compelled by the stronger and more Diodorean method of interpretation. He washed away the stain conceived in that storm in a short time, and some years later was appointed a presbyter of Antioch ^C.

But truly, the face of the Church was most miserable. The factions of the heretics, of the Arians in particular, had indeed been repulsed but not yet extinguished, and even then the dissensions and conflicts of the orthodox and heretics were thriving, by which not only were many Churches troubled, but the Antiochene as well. For who does not know how many disturbances the Meletian schism stirred up at Antioch? The Antiochenes, however, were fickle and seditious. But Theodore, moved by his duty, served the Church's salvation excellently by teaching and preaching. Moreover, he stood out as a most weighty defender of orthodoxy in his books. And at that time he wrote his books *On the Incarnation* and *Against Eunomius*, although it is highly probable that he had already completed other books, especially commentaries on the Sacred Scriptures.

He migrated from Antioch to Tarsus, but, as I believe, ^D a little later he was created bishop, chiefly by the authority of Diodorus, who was then bishop of Tarsus. He succeeded Olympius, bishop of Mopsuestia. But when he was discharging his episcopal office excellently and was pursuing the sacred Scriptures with his writings, he became more and more famous. At the Council of Constantinople, which in the year 394, because of the dispute…

of Agapius and Bagadius—both of whom claimed the bishopric of Bostra for themselves—took place ^A, ^A I believe that the Emperor Theodosius himself was present [b], who, having heard him preaching in the church, admired him and took pleasure in his conversation. Sometime later, he strove, albeit in vain, to assist Chrysostom, who was struggling with adversities, together with Paeanius [c]. On the whole, given the authority he possessed, the ecclesiastical affairs which were then being transacted in the East concerned him, and he was linked by necessity to many teachers of the Eastern Church [d].

He did not, while he lived, escape every suspicion of heretical error [e]. For when the Bishop, at I know not what time, had uttered in the church at Antioch certain things [f] concerning the natures of Christ which seemed not to be entirely correct, he stirred up such crowds of the common people that he deemed it better, after a few days, to retract his statements publicly. Thus he extinguished the desire of the mob [g].

^A Behold, the first traces of the controversy, if I may so call it, of Nestorius. Assuredly, there existed already at that time in the Eastern Church a diversity of doctrine which created that disastrous strife. The Alexandrians, by their whole disposition, differed from the Antiochenes, and having proceeded from different theological principles, they could be held bound to them by the tie of orthodoxy only for a time. Once the heretics were vanquished, it was understood more and more how far they stood apart from one another.

But Theodore did not yet sufficiently perceive that diversity, and thus, being easily led by those who reproached him, he retracted the things that had seemed to be spoken ambiguously. Nevertheless, in Theodore himself—who sought the way of the Antiochenes with more constancy and even greater boldness than anyone else—the primary reason for the Nestorian dispute must be sought; and it was an easy conjecture that, in the war which was now threatening to split the Eastern Church into two main parts, the name of Theodore could not remain unscathed . Now, since he had also incurred the envy of the Western Church because he had taken up the defense of the Pelagians [a],

had taken up his protection(a), in the year 428 in truth, in peace of the Church(b), he finished his last day. Scarcely was he dead ^A when with great desire men raged against him(c). Yet only one hundred and twenty-five years later, the Church being shaken by many quarrels and disturbances, his memory could be branded with an anathema.

I shall briefly sum up Theodore’s genius. It was not driven by fervor, but in such a way that the calmness of a mind weighing all things rightly always prevailed and restrained that fervor. Many were his outstanding gifts of mind, yet he lacked a singular genius such as belongs to the very few men whom one might say are spurred on by divine inspiration. Great was his industry, [and] not to be despised [was his knowledge] of letters, and especially of the riches of the sacred [writings](d). But he seems not to have penetrated the inner recesses of philosophy. Not to dwell on many things: what was discovered by others he made his own with little effort, he perceived [it] perfectly, expanded it, and even added new things to it.

Such being the case, he did not indeed open a new path, yet he more clearly and accurately pursued the freer discipline of the Antiochene school—which was most agreeable to his genius—both as an interpreter of sacred Scripture(e) and as a dogmatic theologian(f).

Now, the theologians of that time were spending much of their time in polemical disputes, and in the regions of the East, the Arians especially and the Apollinarists had to be refuted. But the very ecclesiastical doctrine concerning Christ ^B as God-man, which had to be defended, had two caveats: one, lest one confuse the natures of Christ, the other, that you might not divide them in such a way as to introduce a double person. But I do not know whether it is because of the vice into which he later fell that Theodore refuted those heretics even better. With the arms that sober philosophy and the art of interpreting sacred Scripture had supplied him, he attacked his adversaries in such a way that he did not easily leave them a place where they could escape. It happened, however, to him that at times he was too excessive in asserting, and argued more ingeniously than truthfully. Thus, in the fervor of disputing, things could slip out that he himself would have disapproved; to which matter Facundus, in his defense of Theodore, attributes not a little. He disputed, moreover, after the custom of those times, most bitterly(g).

He is said to have not been lacking as an orator, and indeed it is credible that Theodore did not speak poorly before the sacred rostra on theological matters, yet it is not probable that he was as well instructed in those ^C ornaments by which a great orator is judged(h).

He excelled greatly as a writer, and would have been even more laudable if he had been less verbose and his speech had flowed more gently.

Overall, Theodore must be numbered among the highest of the Doctors of the Greek Church. He was very influential while he lived, and when he had finished his day, he exerted even greater force upon the Church. Why dwell on many things? The Greek Church lacks its own Augustine, but few Greek doctors have had greater impact upon it than Theodore.

LATTER PART. — ON THE WRITINGS OF THEODORE (a).

Theodore did not indeed write more than ten thousand [books], yet he did write many books(b). But with the exception of the Commentary on the XII Minor Prophets, for us certainly ^D only a few fragments of them remain, which, in such great disturbances after Theodore was scarcely dead, the uproar makes it not surprising to see. He certainly needs nothing—Ebediesu, bishop of Soba, a Nestorian († A.D. 1318), in the catalogue of all ecclesiastical books, ed. b—and after [mentioning] ten thousand books written against heresies, he hazards to maintain what [the views] of the heretics are.

^A Furthermore, use the Catenae with caution, lest you consider as Theodorean what is wrongly attributed to Theodore. The remaining fragments are more serious, which, because they were brought forward for the purpose of either accusing or defending Theodore, illustrate his doctrine extremely well. But Fr. Muenter (Fragm. Patr. Græc., 1, Hafn. 1788, p. 118) denied credit to his adversaries, since Theodore himself had already complained (ap. Fac. X, 4) about his books being interpolated by the Apollinarians. He is wrong. For, that I may omit here what should be concluded about that fraud of the Apollinarians (see below), those fragments agree well both with Theodore’s character and with each other, and some of the same are cited in different authors. Nor, indeed, do I deny that the interpreters have translated some things rather obscurely, or even less accurately in Latin, although you may grasp Theodore’s meaning with almost minimal effort.

It is certain that the Nestorians translated most of Theodore’s books—whom they followed as the most grave author of their doctrine (b)—into the Syriac language (c). ^B

COMMENTARY OF OTTO FRID. FRITZSCHE

^A those who at first strove with the utmost zeal they could to have him publicly condemned (a); yet it came about that his books fell into the suspicion of many and were held in more and more contempt. But when they had been read by many for the purpose of accusing Theodore (V. v. c. lb. ap. Fac. V, 3), they were hidden by his friends and later appeared more rarely in the hands of the unjust (cf. Leont. l. c. p. 690). By the middle of the sixth century, a very large part still survived in Greek, but later they perished little by little. Previously copied rarely, they were afterwards almost entirely neglected. Indeed, some fragments of Theodore were inserted into almost only the Catenae, not entirely to be rejected, indeed, but which for the most part contribute little to his dogmatic matters. For, besides the fact that Theodore rarely looked to dogmatic reasons in his commentaries, the authors of the Catenae generally dared to transcribe only those things of the heretics that seemed able to be reconciled with ecclesiastical doctrine (v. v. c. proœm. cat. in Joan., ed. a Corderio).

^B ed. by Abraham Ecchellensis, Rome 1653, but much more accurately by Jos. Sim. Assemani in Bibl. Or., III, 1, p. 3 sq. (A. F. Pfeiffer, Asseman's Or. Bibl. — in einen Auszug gebracht. Erlang. 1777, II, 337 sq.), reviewed the books of Theodore, but only those which the Nestorians had turned from Greek into Syriac, although it is very likely that Theodore had written very few things besides them. But in later times, du Pin (Nouvelle Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclés., t. III, Par. 1693, p. 91, 92); Cave (Scriptor. eccl. historia litteraria, Colon. Allobr. 1720, p. 247 sq.); Tillemont (l. l. XII, p. 444 sq.); Fabricius (l. l. X, p. 352 sq.); Ceillier (Hist. générale des auteurs sacrés et eccl., t. X, Par. 1742, p. 492 sq.); Schroeckh (l. l. xv, p. 189 sq.) and Ang. Mai (l. l. I, p. XIX sq. VI) disputed more accurately about the writings of Theodore; in some part Mai also excels. Furthermore, Assemani l. l., p. 30 sq. brought forward more about them in relation to the catalogue of Ebediesu. Sieffert l. l., p. 24 sq. discussed those books which Theodore wrote concerning the O.T. But the disquisition concerning the fragments of Th. M., which le Bret prefixed to a Tubingen program on 21 Dec. 1790, contains almost nothing except a very brief narrative about the life of Th. and about the events occurring after his death.

^C sustain.” — He stated gravely how shameful it was that a man who had attacked heretics in very many books should be condemned as a heretic, and, moved by his spirit as he was, he used a quantity which they call round, and therefore great. (Cf. Joan. ap. Fac. VIII, 1. — Ten thousand evils threaten us — we have found ten thousand such things and similar to these. 8, 4, 11, 1. In struggles — ten thousand. Fac. X, 4, from his (Th.) innumerable books. That ^D μυρίοι, as the Romans say "six hundred," is often used in common parlance is known. Cf. I Cor. IV, 15, 14, 19. Hence it is understood what is meant by the passion of ten thousand martyrs crucified at Alexandria on Mount Ararat, in the reign of Hadrian and Antoninus. Cf. Act. sanct. Jun. IV, p. 182). But Pelagius, Ep. 3 to Elias and the Bishop of Istria, Hard. l. l. III, p. 430: "Behold what sort of things he is reported to have written, more than ten thousand of Th.'s books," and the force of this locus escapes; I marvel that some v. d., as Norisius l. l. I, p. 295, followed it. See Ebediesu l. l., p. 31 sq.

(a) Two laws, of which one, emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, forbade that the books of Nestorius, which were to be consigned to the fire, should be read (v. Act. conc. Ephes., p.; Hard. l. l. I, p. 1716); another, Theodosius, ordained the same thing not only concerning the books of Nestorius, but of Theodore as well. V. Act. conc. Chalced., p. II, l. l. II, p. 673, 674, in part in Act. c. Const. II, v, l. l. III, 104 sq., and in the epistle of Pelagius 3 to Elias, l. l. II, p. 453, they are read, yet in such a way that the names of Diodorus and Theodore were added by fraud. (Theodos. and Valentinian. ap. Fac. VIII, 3. — "Lest anyone henceforth presume anything of such a kind against those who have died in the peace of her (the Church).") It is evident from these that Ang. Mai l. l. I, p. XXII, wrongly derived the principal cause of the lost books of Theodore from those laws. But it is certain that Pelagius did not adulterate those laws (Sieffert, l. l., p. 25). (b) They made him, in particular, the greatest interpreter, see v. v. c. Assem. Bibl. Or. III, 1, p. 342, 448, 452; III, II, p. 227, and therefore those who did not receive his commentaries were condemned. V. Assem. l. l., III, 1, p. 30, 84, 85, 342. (c) Shortly after Theodore’s death, there arose, especially at Edessa (concerning the Edessene school, v. Ven. Cæs. a Lengerke, De Ephræmi Syri arte hermeneutica, Regimont. 1831, p. 82 sq.), those who transferred his books from Greek into Syriac, which it is credible were guided by this intention in particular: that, with Nestorius condemned, they might fight for their doctrine by the authority of Theodore. Cf. Liberat. Brev. c. 10, Procl. in Act. conc. Const. II, vi, l. l., p. 142 (120), cf. p. 144. Liberat. c. 10: "That they might maliciously translate the volumes of the Fathers (especially Diodorus and Theodore) into the language of the Syrians and Armenians and Persians." And Leont. l. c., p. 687: "Your books, those who are of your sect translated into the Chaldaic and Armenian tongue," they meant nothing but the Syriac version of those books. Moreover, it is probable that already at that time almost all of Theodore’s books which Ebediesu reviewed had been translated. But those versions were corrupted little by little, sometimes even intentionally. Thus Abulbircat testifies that the version of the commentaries on the Gospels was reformed by the Jacobites, with those things rejected which might relate to the Nestorian heresy. Cf. Euseb. Renaudot, Liturg. Or. Coll., I, p. 622. But I do not believe that the Nestorians forged certain books for Theodore. Those Syriac versions were later rendered into Arabic.

nor is it to be doubted that among them you might find not only countless fragments of Theodore, but complete books as well, to which we may hope that access will finally be granted to us at some point. For up to this present time, only one Syrian fragment that I know of, which has been presented in Latin, has been made accessible to the public (Assemani, *Bibl. Or.* III, 1, p. 323).

Having premised this, I must speak of the individual works, which I have divided into five categories based on their subject matter. ^A

CHAPTER I. ON THE TWO BOOKS OF THEODORE OF HERMENEUTICAL ARGUMENT.

The question concerning the allegorical interpretation of Holy Scripture, which had also been raised before, was also debated in the time of Theodore, and indeed more fruitfully. For since the allegorical interpretation had commended itself most highly to many Christian teachers—because in this way it was permitted to add honor to ambiguous passages of Holy Scripture—the use of allegories, which at first was called upon for aid more cautiously, gradually and little by little wandered further, until Origen tried to illustrate allegorical methods more accurately. Although it was even then sometimes understood how dubious and weak the Origenian method was, Origen was nevertheless not refuted with enough accuracy, for Nepos achieved nothing with his *Refutation of the Allegorists* (cf. Eusebius, *H. E.* VII, 24), nor was the method of allegories clearly elucidated any better. Indeed, the later Greek Fathers, even though they did not behave with such license in Holy Scripture as Origen, nevertheless in general followed Origen more or less. But on the other hand, the Antiochene Fathers truly adopted a totally different method, in that they cultivated the exegetical formula received from the (Antiochene) Fathers with such reason and method that they already differed completely from those interpreters. It is not possible to explain more accurately what the interpretation of Holy Scripture was at Antioch as time went on, yet one may probably conjecture that since the earlier ones mostly followed the historical explanation by adhering to the New Testament itself, and yet had not entirely repudiated allegories, Eusebius of Emesa, Diodorus of Tarsus, and even more so Theodore, explained Holy Scripture historically while clearly rejecting allegories. Thus, in order that they might not detract from the authority of Holy Scripture and cause harm to Christian doctrine, they resorted to the typical method of interpretation—not indeed invented by themselves, but nevertheless explained more accurately. Now it was no longer difficult to explain how narrow was the necessity of the Old Testament in relation to Christian matters. Moreover, you may now understand from these things how Theodore could, and indeed should, have felt more liberally both about the Old Testament in general and about the authority of some of its books.

Theodore, in a special and sufficiently large book, ^B refutes the allegorists, especially Origen. For this is without doubt the same book that Ebedjesu, *l.c.*, p. 34, called the five books against the allegorists (see also p. 19, and Facundus, *Def. tria cap.*, III, 6, who calls it a book about allegory and history written against Origen; see also *Adv. I, 2, IV, 4*; Liberatus, *Brev.*, c. 24). It is clear from Facundus, III, 6, where a brief fragment of the book is read, that it was written both against a certain Cerdo and somewhat after the interpretation of the Psalms (see below), but what path Theodore pursued in it is not clear. Although it is not obscure that, while he was attacking the allegorists, he also set forth his own formula of interpretation. Different was the work of Diodorus, *On the Difference between theoria and Allegory* (cf. Suidas, s.v. Diodorus), whose argument was that allegory and *theoria* are different from one another, in that allegory is where historical truth is either taken away or is almost nothing but a cloak for something else entirely, whereas ^C in *theoria*, with the historical truth saved, a typical meaning also emerges in the words. In general, I agree with Caesar a Lengerke (*l.l.*, p. 145, 146), but that the same author taught that *theoria* signified a truly mystical interpretation, that opinion is by no means confirmed. Indeed, the word *theoria*, regarding whose origin see Lobeck, *Aglaoph.* I, p. 14, extends very widely and could be used by the Fathers for allegorical, moral, typical, and finally mystical interpretation (see Suicer, *Thes. eccl.*, s.v. *theoria*, and Caesar a Lengerke, *l.l.*, p. 147 sq.), but for Diodorus its notion had to be sufficiently defined and distinct. Therefore, I do not doubt that he called *theoria* nothing other than typical interpretation, inasmuch as it flowed from the meditation on heavenly things and the economy of Holy Scripture (a). But the books differed in this, that while Diodorus had explained only the difference between typical and allegorical interpretation, Theodore taught what the difference was between historical and allegorical interpretation.

The book *On Obscure Expression* (cf. Ebedjesu, *l.l.*, p. 34) also seems to have been of an hermeneutical nature, but I do not dare to conjecture what its nature was.

(a) Socrates, *H. E.* VI, 3: "Attending to the divine Scriptures, he turned away from their *theoriai*." Likewise concerning Diodorus, Sozomen, *H. E.* VIII, 2. They lacked the allegorical meaning for this word *theoria*.

o the divine Scriptures, he turned away from their *theoriai*." Likewise concerning Diodorus, Sozomen, *H. E.* VIII, 2. They lacked the allegorical meaning for this word *theoria*.

Chapter II. On Theodoret’s Commentaries on the Books of the Old Testament

Theodore devoted much time and effort to reading and interpreting the Old Testament, and, as he was a man of neither slow nor timid intellect, he discovered and brought forth many new insights concerning it. What he judged regarding certain individual books I shall say below; but, in general, he classified the books of the Old Testament into historical, prophetic, and those which had been written for the instruction of men. To these latter, whose writers had received the gift of prudence rather than of prophecy, he assigned Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the books by Solomon, and Job (cf. *Act. c. Const.* II, iv, 68, *l. c.*, p. 86, 68, p. 88). But he openly despised the Song of Songs, and rejected the two books of Chronicles and Ezra. Cf. Leontius, *l. c.*, p. 687. These books, to which he attributed less or even no authority, he interpreted differently than the rest. For while he clung again and again to the words of the former, he most boldly criticized those things in the latter which seemed to him less consistent. Yet his interpretation itself, while sometimes well-constructed and even novel, was also, like that of other Greek interpreters of the ancient Church, not very helpful for understanding the Old Testament; for, being ignorant of the Hebrew language, he relied solely on the Septuagint translation, which he held in the highest regard, comparing it with other Greek versions and illustrating it through a few interpreters. Indeed, his ignorance of the language and its nature caused him such distress that, for the many faults he committed, he is to be excused rather than blamed. Nevertheless, he has his own merits. Furthermore, he sent his individual commentaries, which he distinguished by books (a), to certain men, although we know who only one or two of these were.

A. Commentary on the Psalms

Among all of Theodore's works, the commentary on the Psalms, which, as Ebediesu testifies (*l. c.*, p. 31), he wrote in five volumes for Cerdo and his brother, claims the first place in point of time. Naturally, when Theodore himself says (ap. Fac. III, vi, 10, 1, 5) that he "wrote those things which had been written in the Psalms even before all the others," a fact which the same Hesychius of Edessa (who, as found in XLVI Assem. I, 1, 1, p. 409, relates that Theodore began to interpret the Holy Scriptures in the year 714 [403, 401?]) also confirms, it is already understood from this that it is certain that several of Theodore's books were composed long before that year. But regarding the rumor—Leontius, *l. c.*, p. 686, mentions it, saying: "They say that he raved against the Scriptures having been born no more than eighteen years; for I cannot call the interpretations which he composed concerning them anything but 'ravings against the Scriptures,'" I assign it no credence. Tillemont most truly says, *l. c.*, p. 444: "But he was nearly twenty years old before his second retreat (see above); and there is no appearance that he had written anything yet." However, in the fragments of the commentary, the erudition and boldness of a young man are detected, not the ignorance and wantonness of a boy. Perhaps Chrysostom’s second letter to Theodore gave rise to that rumor.

^A Most of the fragments of the commentary have remained hidden until now. In *Act. c. Const.* II, IV, with the exception of those three (20-22, p. 78) which must be mentioned regarding the commentary on the twelve prophets, only two fragments are read: 23 (on Ps. XXI, 17, 18 (b)) and 24, p. 79, on Ps. LXVIII, 21; for what is found at 19, p. 77, and verse p. 91 are taken from the books *On the Incarnation*; one on Ps. XLIV is in Facundus IX, 1; the *Exposition of the Greek Fathers on the Psalms* contains many more, compiled by Balthazar Corderius, S.J., from the most ancient manuscripts of the Sacred Caesarean Majesty and the Serene Duke of Bavaria, digested into paraphrase, commentary, and catena, translated into Latin and illustrated with notes, 3 volumes, Antwerp 1643, 46 folio (c). But we must discuss the individual volumes separately.

^B Indeed, the first volume displays some things from Theodore of Antioch: p. 8 (on Ps. I, 1); 272 (on Ps. XV); 276 (XV, 8); 296 (XVI, 11, 12); 328 (XVII, 8); 374 (XXXII); 575 (XXXI, 1). Furthermore, some things are marked only with the name "Theodore," which Sieffert falsely claims cannot be determined as to whether they are by Theodore of Heraclea or Theodore of Mopsuestia. On the contrary, they are by Theodoret, as are those read on p. 15 (perhaps those attributed there to Theodoret are Theodore's), 44, 137, 165, 189, 199, 200, 215, 260, 275 (d), but there is no reason why you should deny that the remainder on p. 32 (on Ps. II, 7), 195 (IX, 16), 330 (XVI, 11), 963 (XLIX) are by the Mopsuestian. Moreover, what Schulze brought forward in the edition of Theodoret, I, pp. 792, 793, from the Florence codex on Ps. XXX, 3, it is highly probable to be by Theodore.

^D In the second volume of the Catena, very many things by Theodore are cited.

quæ Schulze in edit. Theodoreti, I, p. 792, 793, ex cod. Flor. de ps. XXX, 3, attulit, ea Theodori esse admodum probabile. In altero Catenæ tomo permulta Theodori afferuntur which most of them should be vindicated for Mopsuestia. ^A Indeed, the reliability of the Catenae is generally not very great; in many places, Theodore of Heraclea, Diodorus, and Theodoret agree with the Mopsuestian, yet his language and method of interpretation can be recognized by almost manifest signs. But what then? As it is otherwise more difficult to detect the Theodore (of Mopsuestia), it is no labor to investigate those things which have been taken from the commentaries on the Psalms. For since the Psalms are shorter and can be referred to different matters, those interpreters agree less, and especially Theodore generally differs from them, who in this regard innovated many things. But those fragments of Theodore, since they are not read in the commentaries of Theodoret and Theodore of Heraclea (a part of this Heracleote's commentary is prefixed to individual psalms in the Catena of Corderius), but instead almost conflict with them (e.g., what is said about Ps. LXXVI), especially where the subject is the discussion of to whom individual psalms belong, while they agree beautifully both among themselves and with what we have received concerning Theodore as an interpreter of the Psalms, it is certain that they are Mopsuestia's. Furthermore, this Catena is also infected with the common corruption of the catenae, and not a few fragments are wrongly attributed to certain interpreters; thus, some things of Theodoret are read in the commentaries of Theodore of Heraclea, and therefore I would not wish to contend rigidly that all things which I shall indicate as spurious or at least doubtful are undoubtedly Theodore's. Some things may have been wrongly marked with Theodore’s name, while others are wrongly marked with another’s name contrary to Theodore; thus, what is attributed to Theodoret on p. 574 appears to be Theodore’s; but they are of lesser moment, and it does not much matter whose they are. In these, it is safer to follow the authority of the Catena than to trifle by conjecturing. For one needs an Oedipus.

As I shall now speak of the individual fragments, what is spurious is what is read on p. 261 (v. p. 234), 291, 296 (Ὁλοκαυτώματα —), 402 (Οὐδὲ γάρ —), 632 (Συμπαραλαμβάνει —); the rest should be referred here: p. 185 sq. (Οἰκείαν λέγει —), 215 (v. p. 210), 255, 252 (v. p. 248), 268, 269, 273, 289 (v. p. 283), 365, 475, 597, 675, all of which appear to be Theodoret’s; I would consider as doubtful p. 57, 182 (Ταῦτά δέ —), 189, 270 (v. Theodoret. Opp. I, p. 1035), 298 (Εἰς ζωὴν —), 295, 297, 319 (Οὐτός φησιν —), 551, 568 (Ταῦτά σου —), 451; those which are otherwise attributed to Theodore, those, with few exceptions, I do not doubt are to be assigned to Mopsuestia. Since there is a great abundance of these, it pleases me for now to draw the reader's attention only to those which I consider worthy of note above others: p. 25, 27 (on Ps. LII, 5, 7), 35 (I, 1), 54, 61 (LIV, 3, 14). The former ^B is also richer in cod. 1 of Theodoret (cf. Theodoret. Opp. I, p. 963), 91, 94 sq. (LV, 3, 7. In the latter, it is discussed concerning the distinction that exists between the LXX and Symmachus's interpretation of the O. T. See previously p. 200, 503), 132, 134 (LVII, 4, 5; cf. what Th. Heracl. p. 126 and Theodoret note on these places), 140 (LVII, 11, 12), 158, 159, 162, 165 (LVIII, 8, 12, 13), 180, 181, 182 (LIX, 4–6), 357 (LXIV, 19), 411 (LXVII, 28), 469, 471, 478 (LXXI, 5, 7, 17), 502 (LXXIII, 10), 532 (LXX, 4), 551, 552, 555, 556 (LXXIV, 3, 7, 9. In the last place, for Βαβυλώνια: read 'Ασσύριοι. Furthermore, cf. what Theodoret and Th. Heracl. note on this place), 630 (LXXVII), 635, 642 (LXXVII, 8, 49), 664 (LXVIII, 15). But in those few that are randomly marked in the name of Theodore on Ps. LXXXI, I did not recognize Theodore. Not a few of them are undoubtedly Theodore's.

It is more difficult to speak of the fragments brought forward in the third volume in the name of Theodore, p. 230–542. Six are Theodoret’s, p. 250, 307, 361, 450, 515, 516; nineteen, in my judgment, are completely abhorrent to the Mopsuestian: p. 319, 321, 348, 359, 362, 363, 377, 405, 407, 408, 445, 447 (v. p. 443), 448, 462, 489, 491, 510 (v. p. 508), 512, 513, and the remaining 43 have nothing peculiar by which one might discern their author and are of almost no moment. I suspect most of them are Th. Heracl.'s or, what is more pleasing, Diodorus'. Cf. the fragments of Diodorus in vol. II, p. 705–962. ^C

Fragments of Mopsuestia are in the inedited catena of the Coislin codex. Cf. Montf. Bibl. Coisl., p. 58, and in the inedited catena of cod. XVII of the Marciana Library at Venice. Cf. Jac. Morellius, *Bibliotheca Manuscripta Graeca et Latina, Marciana*, I (Bassani 1802), p. 33. Cave, loc. cit., p. 249, says: "There exists in the renowned Gale's collection an argumentum longum on Psalm XLV (a), in which he briefly runs through the history of the Jews from the time of the captivity up to Antiochus and the flight of Onias into Egypt."

To now describe the clearly singular character of this commentary in a few words, it must first be said, to the extent that it can be done, what Theodore determined both about the Psalms in general and about individual psalms. He referred all the Psalms back to David, whom he very frequently designated by the name of prophet (b), and he rejected the inscriptions of the psalms (c), and therefore it is not to be wondered at that he constituted the *hypotheses* of individual psalms as new and in many ways receding from the earlier interpreters. And indeed, according to Theodore, he rightly distributed the psalms into four categories because of their subject matter. ^D

^A Some he chose to call historical, the cause and reason for which lay in the very circumstances of David and the Hebrew people. To be referred hither are Ps. XXI, CIX, in which David poured forth prayers to God when he was pressed by Absalom (v. Act. conc. Const. II, IV, 22, 23. Cord. Cat. II, p. 422, 424), Ps. LXXI, in which he sought wisdom from God for himself and his successor (v. l. l., p. 466), Ps. LXVII, which he sang when he brought the ark of the covenant to himself (v. l. l., p. 555), and Ps. IX, in which the person of the people is accommodated to himself and he gives thanks for enemies in the neighborhood being punished by God (v. l. l., p. 272. Act. conc. Const. II, IV, 21). The number of prophetic psalms is greater, by which I would have you understand those that foretold certain favorable and unfavorable things that would befall the Hebrew people up to the time of the Maccabees. However, there is a different rationale for the prophets and for David. For the former announce future things quite clearly, whereas the latter speaks typically of matters as if they were done. But in this regard Theodore did not exert much effort. He established, certainly, that David, who did not so much foretell future things as apply them as if they were facts, had in almost all those psalms taken on the person of the people, and he already discerned the rationales in which not indeed David, but the people, had been placed, when those psalms had their own force for them. Thus the people, placed in different times and different places, rejoiced when happy, gave thanks to God, celebrated God, mourned when unhappy, invoked and implored God, or even remained doubtful about God, while David the prophet acted the part of an interpreter. Theodore, however, by this method not only added great variety to those psalms, but also, in a way, ^B even added a dramatic force, especially since he seemed to himself to have discovered and elucidated their rationales most accurately. He referred the prophetic psalms to three things. For some pertain to the slaughter inflicted by God upon the Assyrians in the time of Hezekiah, Ps. XXXI (v. Cord. Cat. I, p. 574), LI, LII, LIII (v. l. l. II, p. 25, 35); LXXIV (v. l. l., II, p. 550); others to the Babylonian affairs of the Jews, Ps. LXX (v. l. l., p. 438); LXXII (v. l. l., p. 497); LXXVI (v. l. l., p. 588); LX (v. l. l., p. 198); LXIV (v. l. l., p. 265); LXVI (v. l. l., p. 287); LXVIII (v. l. l., p. 694); and many others, in fact, to the Maccabean affairs, Ps. LIV (v. l. l., p. 61); LIX (v. l. l. p. 185); LXI (v. l. l. p. 249); XLIII (v. l. l. p. 530); XLIV (v. l. l. p. 140); LVII (vafritiam, which King Demetrius and Tryphon used against the Jews, he foretold; v. l. l., p. 129); LXVIII, LXXVIII (v. l. l., p. 395, 660); LXXIII, LXXIX (v. l. l., p. 529, 675). Moreover, Theodore varied significantly in regard to those whose subject matter was the same, ^C because he submitted various rationales for them. Furthermore, he himself called other psalms ethical, in which David commended the study of virtue, at one time to all men (Ps. XLVIII), at another to the Jews alone (Ps. XLIX; v. l. l. I, p. 963; Ps. XXXVII; v. l. l. II, p. 631). But the rationales of these also differed greatly from one another. Finally, he had four messianic psalms (Ps. VIII. Leont. in Mai. l. VI, p. 311; Act. conc. Const. II, IV, 94; Ps. XLIV; v. Fac. IX, 4). Leontius (Galland. Bibl. XII, p. 687) is not sufficiently correct: "He referred all the psalms in a Jewish manner to Zerubbabel and Hezekiah, with only three rejected to the Lord." For Cosmas Indicopleustes, without a doubt, followed Theodore (l. I., p. 483): "David was deemed worthy by the Spirit to foretell the psalms concerning the Lord Christ, specifically the second, the eighth, the forty-fourth, and the one hundred and ninth, having spoken them all completely for Him." When he was moved by the Spirit, he foretold either concerning the captivity of the people, or concerning their return, or concerning ethical teachings, or concerning providence, or concerning the Lord Christ. I have now reviewed those psalms about which it is known from fragments what Theodore determined. That he referred the remaining ones also to those four ^D categories is sufficiently credible. Cf. Cosm. Ind. l. I., p. 483. Assuredly, he deemed that all the psalms, although each had its own primary rationale and force, were composed for the benefit of all. Cf. Cord. Cat. II, p. 496; I, p. 571. Otherwise, in interpreting he proceeded according to his own custom. He repeated the writer’s sentiment in other words, but explained the reasons for the imagery and the language more accurately, and therefore in these matters he more often refers his readers to these commentaries. Truly, Theodore pursued a new path in such a way that he could not but compel our admiration.

^A Indeed, he was bold. But who would rightly blame such boldness in a young man? Yet, what he had begun, the circumstances of the time did not allow him to pursue further. That commentary even then, and still more so afterwards, disturbed the orthodox. Cf. Hesych. in the acts of the s. synod (Chalced.) who for this reason leveled these charges against him: because he is said to have explained certain things in his interpretation of the Psalms in a moral sense, which should rather be understood as spoken concerning Christ. ^B Theodore, they claimed, by adapting the Psalms too much to Jewish history, had invalidated the prophecies about Christ. But even he himself later openly confessed that he had erred greatly in explaining the Psalms. Cf. ap. Fac. II, 6: «We did not have as much diligence regarding this matter (the interpretation of the Psalms) as we ought to have had. For we suffered, as happens to those just beginning, fixed in the inexperience of writing, since many changes which are ours occurred at that time, which it is not the moment to recount; for which cause many things were composed by us rather negligently, and especially those which are first.» In these words he expressed two things: one, that when he had written books against the allegorists, he felt differently in many things than he had before; the other, that many things were composed by him more negligently in the Psalms, especially those which were first, i.e., the preface, v. infra; but that he had later decided differently regarding certain Psalms, and had explained some passages otherwise. The primary difference, indeed, between the earlier and later Theodore lay in the interpretation of the passages of the New Testament that were cited, about which he had undoubtedly discoursed at greater length in that preface. But when he criticized his own commentaries on the Psalms, he could look neither to his own typical interpretation—which he afterwards consistently followed and which by no means received the condemnation of Jewish impiety—nor to those four Psalms which he had properly referred to Christ (b). What then? The earlier Theodore, if you except those four Psalms, had maintained that the passages of the Psalms in the N. T. were adapted to Christian affairs according to the opportunity of the circumstances (cf. Act. C. Const. II, IV, 22, 23 [Cosm. Ind. l. c., p. 486: «But the other things which the apostles took from the Psalms, not as if they were spoken strictly of Himself, but as suiting the subject,» etc.]; add that in the fragments I have found no traces of typical interpretation); for this reason, having understood that this diminished the force of the New Testament and was for many a cause of offense, the later Theodore, following Diodorus more, connected the New Testament with the Old by the help of types with a tighter bond.

B. Commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament.

In Genesis, Theodore wrote a copious commentary. Cf. Ebediesu l. I, p. 31; Act. conc. Const. II, IV, 57-62. — ex l. quinto — quarto — De creatura, Joan. Philoponi On the creation of the world (Gallandii Bibl. Patr. t. XII) 1, 8: «In the first of those on Genesis» — 6, 9. — «in the fourth of those» — Leont. Byz. l. c., p. 690: — which in vain the scripture, the interpretation of the creation; the first book ended in seven volumes. By these places the same book of Theodore is designated. Phot. l. I: — «(Whom) and John Philoponus (who remembers Theodore on Genesis, v. s.) makes many charges, as he himself says, that such interpretation was eagerly exacted from him in his own work on the creation.» Cf. c. 44, 240: — «worthy in many things of the great teacher (sc. Joan. Phil.) Basil and Theodore (perhaps read: Theodore of Mopsuestia), even if not in all things which he blames, yet he does not lay hold of him in few things justly.» For among the Greeks the first book of the Pentateuch was called *he ktisis* (the creation) or *he genesis*. The former was preferred by Theodore. Cf. ad Am. 6, 9, 10, p. 227 ed. de Wegn.: — «It is like that in the creation, where he speaks about the covenants which Laban and Jacob made — (Genes. xxx). Mich. v, 6, p. 366. ^C (c) By an unfortunate attempt, Sieffert, l. l. p. 82, reconciled what Ebediesu and the rest relate among themselves concerning the volumes of his commentary. Clearly, what Ebediesu reports regarding the volumes relies on this one thing, that he said the book was contained in as many volumes as the Syriac copy consisted of. Thus, according to Ebediesu, the commentary on the XII prophets consists of two volumes, one the book *On the Incarnation*, but of these, the former is divided into no volumes, the latter into fifteen books. But Theodore, as he did some others, so he also distinguished this commentary on Genesis into volumes, of which the first, Photius... ^D [original-script column: see facsimile] (b) I do not doubt that Theodore also, when he wrote in ps. 1, p. 603: «With different...» marking out our own. (b) Not to be despised would be the conjecture of Vict. de Wegnern, l. c., p. XXVII: «Perhaps it would be more correct to say that Theodore’s own criticism refers to those Psalms which he had determined touched Christ not in a typical but in a proper sense, unless it were certain that Theodore later interpreted even those Psalms in that way, and that the very book *On the Psalms* was taken from the books *On the Incarnation*.» But it is not obscure why he interpreted those four Psalms in a proper sense of Christ and not, indeed, as he did the remaining Psalms whose passages in the New Testament are referred to Christian affairs. For besides the fact that the authority of the New Testament (cf. Cosm. Ind. l. c., p. 485, «the testimony of Himself» and what follows) and the consensus of earlier interpreters had some weight with him, those Psalms seemed to describe excellently the nature of the God-man, to whom they would correspond entirely. Cf. fragm. Theodore on those ps. and Cosm. Ind. l. c., p. 483-487. But this was otherwise in the rest, which, since they clearly could not all refer to Christ, reason demanded that their individual parts should not be dragged to him. Cf. Cosm. Ind. l. c., p. 486: «These later...» shortly after: «Paul... (of Moses) (Theod. ad Zach. ix, 9.)» But since he explained those four Psalms in that way, he was less consistent with himself. (c) Sieffert l. l. p. sq., who had noticed in the Catena of Nicephorus that some fragments also survive on the other books of the Pentateuch, Theodore had distinguished two different commentaries on Genesis between themselves.

^A distinguished by topic, of which the first, according to Photius, consisted of seven tomes. Tillemont (l. 1. p. 445) says: "a [tome] doubtless for each day." When Theodore distinguished ^B that book, he undoubtedly kept in mind the calculation of the first week. Cf. also Cyril of Alexandria, lib. VII Glaphyrorum in Genesin.

Photius correctly [notes at] c. 38, where he mentions the interpretation of the creation: "the phrasing," he says, "is neither brilliant nor very clear, and he escapes, in the manner possible for him, the allegories, and constructs the interpretation according to the history. He repeats himself in most things and seems somewhat ungraceful and unpleasant, and he also defends the Nestorian dogma, even if it existed before Nestorius." Nevertheless, Ebediesu no less correctly calls that commentary a work elaborated with method and speculation. For although you might justly criticize the style and certain opinions in it, it was, if I am not mistaken, so composed that from it one might best see what Theodore could achieve by interpreting and philosophizing; and you will not wonder at this if you duly weigh how much they then valued Genesis and how much they derived from it. But regarding the diverse argument of Genesis, to which he attributed supreme authority, he interpreted it in diverse ways. Indeed, in those things which he discussed concerning the origin of the world and men not yet dispersed, he seemed to himself to rely on the authority of Genesis, yet he brought forward very many things alien to it, which he drew not so much from it as he accepted from elsewhere (a). Although, since he stuck to the words more than was right, he himself also extracted many strange things from it. But with great license he pursued the history of the fall of the first men; and here especially is discerned that vain pursuit, by which he rendered dubious and plainly uncertain things as most certain by strange conjectures. The interpretation of the other part of Genesis was much shorter, memorable especially for its types. But the types, which you might say rely on certain prophets even if on more remote reasonings, here depended, indeed, almost solely on the judgment of the interpreter. What more? That commentary, in which Theodore not rarely deviated from the ecclesiastical path, illustrated well the character and doctrine of our [author], and it is no wonder that it incurred the injury of time and perished. Therefore, it came to us by opinion that John Philoponus (De opificio mundi, Galland. Bibl. XII, p. 471 sq., which book was written not before the year 610) railed vehemently, indeed, against Theodore, the preacher of unheard-of things. For besides the fact that he excerpted some things from his commentary on Genesis—though not, it seems, word for word everywhere—he also mentioned more things which pertain to his doctrine. Cf. 1, 12 (b); 11, 21, xxii, 3; ix, 10, 11. Nor must Cosmas Indicopleustes be passed over here (Topographia Christ., Galland. Bibl., XI, p. 401 sq., written almost after the year 535), of whom Photius (c. 36) judged not quite correctly. That Cosmas was a Nestorian and in many things followed Theodore was first correctly observed by La Croze (Hist. du Christianisme des Indes, 1, p. 40 sq.); and this is confirmed even more by those things which Semler (Hist. eccles. selecta capita I, p. 421 sq.) excerpted from that Topography, although it can be taught even more accurately. But since Theodore and Cosmas, although similar in doctrine, were yet dissimilar in time, character, and erudition, it is surely just as pleasant as it is useful to compare both among themselves—something that I would certainly do here in a different place. I warn you, however, to use that Topography, which reveals the Theodorean [doctrine], with caution. Moreover, you could say with not improbable conjecture that John Philoponus, who often carps at the followers of Theodore, had Cosmas also in view.

Before I now review the fragments of that commentary which survive, a few things must be prefaced concerning the Catenas, in which they are mostly contained. Miraculous is the Catena; [it is] an explanation of the passages that occur in the Pentateuch [as] somewhat obscure, drawn from the ancient theologians of the Greeks. Of whom, nothing of some has yet been brought to light: translated by Franc. Zephyrus the Florentine. Likewise the Catena of the explanations of the ancients, the Holy Fathers, on all the canticles of both the Old and New Testaments: converted from Greek into Latin sermon by Antonio Carafa (c). Cologne, Agrippa, 1572, 8vo. Zephyrus himself professes that in the translation ^C he thought [Theodore] had written commentaries on different books, a philosophical one mentioned by Ebediesu, Photius, John Philoponus, and in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople, and an exegetical one, which would have pertained also to the remaining books of the Pentateuch. For if the former had pertained to a more extensive work, the first part on Genesis would not have been the only one mentioned by Ebediesu. As if Theodore could not have pursued the individual books of the Pentateuch with individual commentaries! But you would not be wrong to conjecture that that *hermeneia* of the Creation was a more abundant and philosophical disputation on the earlier chapters of Genesis, if the words of Ebediesu were not especially an impediment. ^D that the devil [remained] in his rank, for if indeed both these [things happened], and into such great evil and envy of man [he slipped] immediately together with his creation. John Philoponus refutes Theodore: "If (your opinion holds that) the angels were created together with the heaven and the earth, [it is] a wonder that the devil remained in his rank for only five days (for Theodore established that the protoplasts were created on the sixth day, and six hours later, at midday, when they first hungered, they were seduced, ate the figs, and three hours later were driven from paradise; cf. John Phil. 1, 12; Mar. Merc. c. 1, p. 704), if indeed he remained in his rank for these [days] also. These things are well added, for according to Theodore's opinion the devil had already sinned before the sixth day and therefore was cast down to the earth and immediately after the dawn slipped into such great wickedness and envy of man (which he harbored against man)."

(a) Thus Theodore also assigned the creation of the world to the month of Nisan, which is understood from those things which Caes. a Lengerke gathered regarding this opinion of Ephrem (l. 1. p. 20, 21). (b) The passage of this chapter which greatly vexed Cotelier (Eccles. Graec. monum., III, p. 571) stands thus: "And if the angels stood together with the heaven and the earth, [it is] a wonder if [they remained in their own rank for] five days alone (cod. *eipen te*. Cotel. conj. *eipen. hemeras te idio memene*)." (c) These [Catenas] on the Canticles read more accurately and fully in Greek and Latin in Corderius, *Cat. in Ps.*, III, p. 853 sq. There are only other things which are read concerning the prayers of Jonah. I have found nothing in it which I would attribute to Theodore of Mopsuestia with probability.

^A ...sulto, having omitted several things either because they seemed superfluous or distorted into other meanings. Furthermore, there is great carelessness in the translating: some items are badly rendered, others so obscurely that one can with difficulty elicit the meaning of the Greek theologians. Theodore is also named in the index of Greek theologians. Regarding the items which alone are read with this notation on p. 35, some of them belong to Diodore, others to Theodoret. Cf. Theodoret, Quæst. 22, 23, in Gen. I, p. 38, 39. Since the names *Theo.* and *Theod.* are used subsequently in the Catena, and some of these items are by Theodore, it is uncertain whether the interpreter by this notation intended Theodore or Theodoret. Most, however, belong to Theodoret; I shall postpone the Theodorean items. Furthermore, among these are some whose author—amidst such confusion and negligence in the Catena—is uncertain, especially since very many of them are extremely brief and of almost no moment. But I would vindicate to Theodore p. 51 B (on Gen. IV, 14, 15) and 107 B (on 49, 27) (*Theo.*); regarding the rest, I do not wish to enter into a dispute that would be of little fruit (a). The *Catena in Genesim* by Aloysius Lippus, Bishop of Methone, composed from more or less sixty ecclesiastical authors, joined together partly in Greek and partly in Latin, Lyons 1657, folio, is constructed chiefly from the scraps of Latin translators and those of the Middle Ages. What it contains by Theodore is not everywhere translated as one would wish. However, those which are attributed to Theodore on p. 835 actually belong to Theodoret. Cf. Theodoret, Quæst. 61, I, p. 73, 74. The best and most copious of all is the

Fifty-six Commentators on the Octateuch and the Books of Kings

Six fragments in the *Acta Concilii Constantinopolitani* II are exhibited, of which three are also read in the *Constitutio of Vigilius* 58-60; all pertain to the earlier chapters of Genesis, but those which John Philoponus, *loc. cit.* I, 8, 16-XVIII, 22; II, 15, 18-20, excerpted, pertain to the first verses of Genesis. The remaining fragments, some of which are perhaps falsely attributed to Theodore, are these: on Gen. 1, 17, in Niceph. Cat. p. 34 (in Lippom. Cat. p. 62 falsely attributed to Theodoret); 1, 26, where it is explained more copiously who is the man created *according to the image of God*, in Theodoret, *Quæst. in Gen.* I, p. 29 sq. (in Zephyr. Cat. p. 50, in part, wrongly ascribed in Lippom. p. 87, and Niceph. Cat. p. 47, to Theodoret. Cf. Joan. Philop. *l. c.*, 6, 9, 14-17, where it is not cited word-for-word in part, but something else is also added); II, 2, 3, in Theodoret *l. c.*, p. 37 sq. (Niceph. Cat. p. 57 sq., which also contains another very brief fragment; Zeph. Cat. p. 34, in part); II, 7, in Niceph. Cat. p. 65; another very brief one in Lippom. Cat. p. 118; II, 8, in Niceph. Cat. p. 66 (in Lippom. Cat. p. 124); II, 19, in Niceph. Cat. p. 75 (with a few things taken away and added in Lippom. Cat. p. 150-152); II, 21, in Lippom. Cat. p. 453; III, 6, in Niceph. Cat. p. 85; III, 7, in Niceph. Cat. p. 86 (Zeph. Cat. p. 45; Lippom. Cat., p. 176, in part); III, 8, in Theodoret *l. c.*, p. 43 (Niceph. Cat. p. 88; Zeph. Cat., p. 50, in part [cf. Joan. Phil. *l. c.*, 1, 12, p. 485]); III, 10, in Lippom. Cat., p. 485; III, 17, in Niceph. Cat., p. 98; III, 21, in Theodoret *l. c.*, p. 53 (Niceph. Cat., p. 101; Zeph. Cat., p. 50; Lippom. Cat., p. 210 [cf. Joan. Phil. *l. c.*]); III, 22, in Lippom. Cat. p. 212; III, 24, in Theodoret, *l. l.*, p. 55 (Niceph. Cat. p. 105; Zeph. Cat., p. 51; in part in *Act. conc. Const.* II, IV, 62; Lippom. Cat., p. 214); VII, 19, in Joan. Phil. *l. c.*, I, 13, 18, 8; in Niceph. Cat., p. 234; XIX, 31, 32, *ib.* p. 255; XX, 5, *ib.* p. 260; XXVI, 5, *ib.* p. 329; Zeph. Cat., p. 85; XXVI, 18, 19, in Niceph. Cat., p. 331 [Sieffert, *l. l.*, p. 43], but in Zephyr. p. 86, and Lippom. Cat., p. 654, it is attributed to Diodore; XXX, 39 [sic], in Niceph. Cat., p. 376, but it is Diodore’s in Zeph., p. 88, and Lippom. Cat. p. 663; XXXI, 1, in Niceph. Cat. p. 391 (Zephyr. Cat., p. 90, Diodor.); XXXII, 24, in Niceph. Cat., p. 396; XXXII, 25, 26, *ib.* p. 397; XXXII, 28, *ib.* p. 399; XXXIX, 4, in Lippom. Cat. p. 773 (perhaps it is Theodoret’s; cf. his *Quæst.* 98); XLV, 5, in Niceph. Cat., p. 478 (see concerning this Ernesti, *Theolog. Biblioth.*, II, p. 395); XLIV, 15, in Lippom. Cat., p. 834; XLIX, 4, in Niceph. Cat., p. 510; XLIX, 11, 12, *ib.* p. 524, 526 [Sieffert *l. l.*, p. 83, 84]; Zeph. Cat., p. 106.

Whether Theodore also illustrated the remaining books of the Pentateuch and the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Kings with commentaries is difficult to say. Ebediesu, *l. c.*, p. 31, mentions only one volume on Samuel explained to Mamarian; but fragments of Theodore are said to be in unedited *Catenæ*, in cod. V and VI of the Coislin collection, *Cat.* in Levit., Num., Deut., Jos., Jud. and Ruth, Montf. *Bibl. Coisl.*, p. 41, 42; in cod. VII, *Cat.* in Jos., Jud., Ruth, and IV Regg., Montf. *l. l.*, p. 43; in cod. XV Bibl. manuscript.

^A Octateuch with catena. It is contained in V. A (cf. Assem. *Bibl. Or.*, II, p. 478), which I suspect were excerpted primarily from the commentaries of Theodore. Marc. Venet., Morell. *l. l.*, p. 29; in cod. XVI, Catena on the books of Kings. V. Morell. *l. l.*, p. 31; in cod. XIX of the Medicean Laurentian Library, *Exposition of certain holy men on the Holy Scriptures*. Theodore has four fragments, p. 56, 57 B, 58, 61 B, in the books of Kings. Cf. Bandini *l. l.*, I, p. 138, and A. Mai *l. l.*, I, p. xxi. *In Leviticus*, he says, in Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the *Mopsuestian* is cited for the biblical canticles, both in other libraries and in the Vatican codices. Few things are attributed under Theodore's name in the catenae of Nicephorus and Zephyrinus: on Exod. i, 21, in Nicephorus's Catena, p. 603; xx, 25, *ibid.*, p. 786; xx, 26, *ibid.*, p. 821. (Zephyrinus's Catena, p. 147, 148, Diod.) (teaches that the end of life for men is by no means fixed by God); xxv, 9, *ibid.*, p. 834 (Zephyrinus's Catena, p. 145, Diod.); xxv, 50, xxvi, 35, *ibid.*, p. 843, 857. (Zephyrinus's Catena, p. 146), on Leviticus there are two fragments found which you could hardly say whether they are rightly attributed to Theodore or Diodorus; on c. xii, *ibid.*, p. 1029 (Theodore's, but the Alexandrian codex, Diodorus's; Zephyrinus's Catena, p. 171, Theodore's); on c. xiii, *ibid.*, p. 1031 (Theodore's, but the Alexandrian codex, Diodorus's); one on Deut. xxxiii, 8, p. 1659 (a), one on Josh. vii, 5, *ibid.*, II, p. 44; two on Judges, p. 240; on x, 25, p. 226; on xvi, 17; one on II Reg. xxi, 11, *ibid.*, p. 614; but in my judgment, this is taken from the interpretation of Ps. xvii, 11. Cf. Corderius, *Catena on the Psalms*, I, p. 330. You might rightly doubt whether Theodore expounded the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. Those few fragments might have been attributed to Theodore by error (Sieffert *l. l.*, p. 35), or they might have been taken from another book of Theodore, and this becomes probable because the remaining fragments in the Catena of Nicephorus are called "Theodore's," but these are called "Mopsuestian's." By the same token, I would maintain that the fragments on those other Old Testament books were sought from other books of Theodore, especially since it is probable that the unpublished catenae do not contain many more, unless it be more credible that Theodore had explained those books, which of their nature were of the greatest moment to him and which he had handled. Although, because of the different nature of these books from others, he expounded only single passages more fully. Questions on the Scriptures by Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, commonly the commentator, and Questions and Answers by Theodore the commentator, which are in two Syriac codices of the Vatican Library.

C. Commentaries on the Prophets

^A furthermore, in the former codex, he used the Vat. one, without consideration of any more recent manuscript. The text which he presented must be called pure, although sometimes you desire the editor's greater precision. The Imperial Library of Vienna contains two codices. Both are paper and not ancient (the other is codex XVIII, Kollarius [see his comments in Pet. Lambecius, *Comment. de bibl. Caes. Vind.*, vol. VIII, Supplement, vol. I, Vienna, 1790, p. 164]), and they are said to have been written in the fifteenth century; the other, c. LV (CLXIII), according to Dan. de Nessel [*Catal. codd. mss. Gr. b. Vind.*, Vienna, 1690, p. 135], and Lambecius [*Catal. codd. Vindob.*, IV, p. 460, ed. Kollar. IV, p. 360], by whom in the cited places it is described, is considered moderately ancient, but de Wegnern (l. c., p. xiii) observes that its age does not exceed the sixteenth century or, at most, the time when the typographic art was invented; and according to Forlosia (in Kollarius’s *Supplement*, vol. I, p. 174), "the one is so similar to the other as one egg to another, and they seem to have been written by the same hand." But however this may be, in their great similarity it cannot be doubted that they flowed from one and the same source. Now, that this source is the former Vatican codex is probable from the fact that the former Vienna codex, according to Gentilottius, a former prefect of the Imperial Library, was offered by Apostolo Zeno, a Venetian, to Emperor Charles VI in the year 1723 (cf. Kollar. *Suppl.* p. 164), and even more so because of the text they exhibit. ^B And first, in all three codices, regarding Theodore's less orthodox interpretation of Zech. 1, 7 - 11, the same three scholia are added, by which some Catholic reader applied a correction to Theodorean opinions. See Mai on Zech. ch. 1; Kollar. l. c., p. 171, 172; de Wegnern l. c., p. 537, 538, 542. But then the agreement of the text is sum total. It is better in the Vat. codex, as it is more ancient. Indeed, a few things are exhibited poorly in it compared to the Vienna codex, but this must be attributed either to Mai's negligence (since not a few things fell out in Mai; cf. p. 295, de Wegn. p. 547, οὐ γὰρ ἄν — ἵππους λέγει; p. 327, de Wegn. p. 603; p. 364, de Wegn. p. 670, etc.), or it must be explained by the fact that an attentive scribe did not insert into his papers the manifest errors which he perceived. (Cf. Mai p. 148, οἰκονομήσαντες! de Wegn. p. 273, κοινωνήσαντες; p. 527, λοιποῖς! de Wegn. p. 603, λόγοις, etc.) The cause and reason for the rest of the text's differences lie in the transcribing. Rarely will you doubt which codex you should follow. But what matters most is that the mutilated and corrupted places of the Vat. codex are read with the greatest consistency in the Vienna codex; ^C because this is quite manifest, it pleases to refer only to those readings which are undoubtedly depraved: Hos. IV, 15, ἐπαγομένην; VI, 4, κἂν οὐδέ; VIII, 15, διῃρημένους; Joel II, 20, βρόμος; II, 28-32, λαξεύεις; III, 18, αἱ εἰωθυῖαι — δωρεαί!; Amos V, 13, ειωθυῖαι — τιεὶς, ἑξῆς; VI, 5, παρέσχητε (read παρέσχηκε); VI, 8, ποιῇ, ᾖ; VI, 14, φάγετε, ἐγκλίνειν; Habac. II, 14, εἰωθότας; II, 14, ἐπάγοντι; Soph. I, 14, οἰκοδομήσαντες; Zach. I, 21; ταῦτα; XIV, 1, παραγένηται. From that former Vienna codex, Forlosia transcribed a few things in Kollarius’s *Supplement*, p. 170-173, who as a young man translated the whole commentary into Latin, but did not publish this version, fearing that he might undeservedly undergo the less than fair calumnies of evil men. See Kollar. l. c., p. 169; but more were published from the latter by Sieffert, and yet more from the same codex by Vict. de Wegnern l. c., though not as one would wish. See *Allg. Lit. Zeit.*, 1836, n. 64, 65. — Montfaucon saw two codices of that commentary at Venice, one in the Grimani library, the other in the library of Meletius Tipaldus, Greek priest, archbishop of Philadelphia. Cf. Montf. *Diarium Ital.* (Par. 1702, 4), p. 39, 46; *Bibl. bibl. manuscr. nova*, I, (Par. 1739, fol.), p. 478. But I suspect that one of these was transmitted to Vienna by Apostolo Zeno (see above). — A seventh codex was in Gaul with Gerasimus Blachus, according to Combefis ( *Bibl. concion.*, I, p. 44 (b)). ^D And this cod. was also examined, as I think, by Steph. ab Altimara (Lequinius), who in *Panoplia*, p. 433, says that he read "Mopsuesteni comm. in XII proph." A. Mai l. c., VI, p. vii. — Finally, a codex is said to be in Rome in the Vallicelliana library. Cf. Possevin. *App. III*, p. 27. But according to Mai, it is established that it consists of twelve pages and that the fragment of the interpretation on Hosea (II, 13) is thin, to which Sam. Tenulius referred when he wrote to Nicol. Heinsius: "Have you ever seen a fragment of Theodore of Antioch in the prophet Hosea? I transcribed it for myself in Latium." Cf. Burmani *Syllog. epp.*, II, p. 801, not in doubt. — That this is the commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia there is nothing more certain (b), and it was rashly attributed by Ludov. du Four de Longuerue, abbot of Jardo, to a certain younger Theodore (a Galatian, bishop of Mopsuestia, it seems, who died in the middle of the sixth century; cf. Jacob Le Long, *Bibl.* s. I., p. 985), and by Oudinus (*Comment. de scriptor. eccles. antiquis*, II, p. 451) to Theodore Daphnopates, who lived in the middle of the eleventh century. For first, the commentary of Theodore on the XII prophets is cited by Ebediesu and in *Act. conc. Const.* II, IV, then it is called in all codices "of Theodore of Antioch," then in it there is frequent mention of the commentary on the Psalms, v. c. on Zach. IX, 9, which it is established our author wrote, and finally the manner of speaking and interpreting is Theodorean. We have observed in it both that which we undoubtedly find in the genuine fragments of Theodore and which Photius c. IV, 177, 38, correctly described in general (see also Leont. l. c., p. 686).

^A Theodore says that the prophecies of David and the prophets are contained by a certain internal bond, but Theodore does not even obscurely intimate that this holds for his own commentaries upon them. Concerning the words mentioned above, I would not wish to affirm anything for certain in so slippery a matter, but I should judge that the presbyter Theodore explained the XII Prophets a considerable time after the Psalms (see what I noted above regarding the commentary on the Psalms).

It is due to the quality of the codices, not the printed editions, that that commentary is edited less corruptly. By comparing both editions, one can with little effort clear away most of the errors that have crept into it. I choose here to interpose my own judgment, such as it is, only on certain corrupted passages. ^B On Hosea 1:2, Theodore states that the prophets performed many new and unheard-of things so as to excite the curiosity of men and prepare for themselves an opportunity for teaching. Thus, he claims, Hosea took a harlot in marriage. Regarding the phrase "Η δὲ," the edition of de Wegn. (p. 10, Vienna codex, and Vatican codex) says... De Wegn. conjectures. Read "πρὸς τὸ" (see v. c. p. 250) "μείζον ἀναφ.," i.e., that by comparison many things might appear even greater. Just as well as in v. c. p. 250, "πολλῇ" p. 244, p. 652, there is "πολλή," the comparison having been instituted by many reasons, and the following things are evidence of why it was said. ^C Hosea 6:3, for "μεταβαλόντα" read "μεταβαλόντος." Hosea 6:6, p. 58, for "τελές" I fear that "ἔλεον" should be restored. Hosea 13:10, for "καὶ τοίγε" write "καὶ τοι γὰρ," and a little later for "κρίει" write "κρινεῖ," and for "ἐπὶ τούτοις" write "ἐπὶ τούτους." Ibid. ^D These things are well said by irony. De Wegn. ought to have written "διαπραττόμενος." Hosea 12:15, conjecture. Joel 2:2, "πάντα καθιστῶτα," I would prefer "πάντας καθεστῶτας." Amos. Prooem., for "λοιποὺς" I suggest "περιοίκους." Amos 7:3-6, "μεῖζον" (cod. "μείζονα") "ἱλασμοῦ" — "τὸ πλῆθος." "καθ' ἣν" (δίκην) "ἅπασι δικάζειν εἴωθε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις" ("ἀνθρωπίνοις"). Abd. verse 1, and the teaching of the things to come, "ὥσπερ εἰ" (codd. "ὡς περί," Mai and de Wegn. conj. "ὡς").

"ὡς"). On Abd. 12-14, the reason why he referred the utterances sometimes to the Assyrian affairs of the Jews, sometimes to the Babylonian, and sometimes to the Maccabean, is this: the words of the prophet seemed to him to fit these or those better. But whatever seemed so to him, it was not difficult to draw out from the words in such license of interpretation. Although this was done by the other Greek interpreters of the Old Testament not so much to be held as a fault of Theodore as of the age in which he lived. He wished to check this license, but could not, and while he demanded of others the right of license, he himself fell into a vice of license by another path. But the commentary served to some extent to know the doctrine of Theodore more rightly. For if he established that the prophets predicted what would happen to the Jews even up to the Maccabean times, nevertheless he associated the utterances of the prophets with Christian affairs by a certain bond, moved by other reasons, as well as by the fact that passages of the Old Testament are referred in the New to Christian affairs. And where he interprets passages of this kind, he almost always explains more fully what he thinks of the Old Testament and what the ratio is—by the aid of types—concerning these passages, which at first indeed indicated other future things, in relation to Christian affairs. Since he wished to write clearly and perspicuously, he repeated the same opinions again and again, and used periods which you would scarcely perceive at first glance. Thus his style became wordy, rugged, and obscure. However, in constructing periods and choosing words he remained with such constancy as you would scarcely find in any other writer. For the rest, the Greek oratory is laudable.

C. Commentaries on Job, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs.

The commentaries of Theodore on Job (cf. Act. conc. Const. II, iv, 63-67); Leont. l. c., p. 690, "which he labored upon in vain—against the book of Job," Ebedi. Alexandr., I doubt whether, except for those things which are read in Act. conc. Const. II, l. l., many have survived to our age. Nevertheless, Theodore is mentioned in unpublished catenae among the explainers; cf. the older Vatican catena and another more recent one, cod. I of Vincentius Pinellus. Cf. Possevini Apparat. s. II, p. 269, 270; Cat. cod. XXI bibl. Marc. Venet.; cf. Morell. l. l., I, p. 38; Cat. cod. CXCIV bibl. Coisl.; cf. Montf. B. Coisl., p. 247; Cat. cod. XXVII bibl. Med. Laur.; cf. Bandin. l. l., I, p. 52. But the catena placed in the first rank appears to be the same one which A. Mai, l. l., I, p. xxii, claims contains one passage of Theodore, the same one taken from his commentary on Zechariah.

The opinion of Theodore concerning the book of Job (v. fragm. in Act. conc. Const. II, l. l. and Leont. l. c., p. 690), which indeed must have stirred the stomach of the orthodox, comes back to this: Job is to be rightly distinguished from the writer of the book. The former was a barbarian, an Edomite by race, and...

(a) He held this version in highest esteem, and set little store by the Syriac. He believed that the former had been produced by men most experienced in the Hebrew language and the Scriptures, and approved by the pontiff and the people, and having been received by the apostles, was now used in the Church (how could he think it senseless, that the Seventy... [original-script column: see facsimile] ... concerning a word, who even before any interpretation...). Furthermore, he often (p. 263) inveighs against the "marvelous myth-makers," by which kind of words he undoubtedly also noted Ephrem. Cf. in any case Habac. II, 11; Soph. I, 4-6; III, 1, 2.

probus, whose history, great and famous, was likewise on the lips of all, not only of Israelitic stock, but of others as well; whom the testimony of God made more famous still, as it came to the prophet, ^A this man was steeped in the fables of the Gentiles and in human prudence. And he, indeed, if he had narrated the life of Job as it was, would have composed a book most suited for the amendment of human morals, nor would he have given those who judge the Holy Scriptures without due reverence an occasion to rail against Job himself. For what is this? Does that wondrous curse, recorded in chapter III, fall to an honest man? But he invented other things as well; for instance, that Job named his daughter *Amaltheias keras* (XLII, 14). Manifestly, puffed up with pride, so that readers might recognize his Grecian erudition, he added those details. He wrote the book entirely like a tragedy, to satisfy his desire for garnering glory for himself, ^B not considering that there is a great difference between the history of a righteous man according to Divine Scripture and a proposed simplicity and subtlety, and words that are superfluous and fabricated for effect. Just as tragedians indeed rely on what is in the mouths of the common people, so that the fable may carry a greater semblance of truth, but only to prove their own art and wisdom in the composing of tragedies, they invent characters and make them speak things by which they themselves may appear more famous, so that the praise or blame of the words is conferred not upon those characters, but upon the author of the fable; so too, when he had happened upon the history of the blessed Job, he wrote the book for the sake of glory and did not escape from inventions. And thus he introduced the devil contending with God (I, 7-12; II, 2-6), he attributed discourses, in which he sinned much, as he pleased—now to the righteous man, now to the friends (ch. II-XXXI); then he summoned Elihu, who afflicted Job with many reproaches (ch. XXXII-XXXVII), nor did he blush to attribute a fabrication of chattering ^C to the Divine Person (ch. XLI) and to apply “the naming of the daughter, snatched from pagan fables, to blessed Job.” (XLII, 14.) From these things you may easily gather how this commentary of Theodore was different from the rest. He found nothing Christian in Job, and he audaciously abused the writer, intent on this one thing: to unearth the true history of Job, which would be of use to men.

He interpreted Ecclesiastes in one volume, at the request of Porphyry, as Ebedjesu testifies (l. c., p. 32). But the opinion that he illustrated the Song of Songs with a commentary, though widespread, is nevertheless less probable, and it is so far from being confirmed by that which is read in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople II, § IV, 68-71, to which it owes its origin, that it is refuted. However, he writes ^D that he would not have wanted to read the Song of Songs because of its nature, had he not been provoked by a friend’s letter to put more diligence into it, even though at the beginning he had read through it often while nodding and drowsy. Now he explains what he thinks about it, but in such a way that it appears that those things [of which only a few middle, and perhaps even extreme, portions have perished], were neither set before the commentary nor discussed within it itself. Moreover, the one who excerpted those things does not indicate by so much as a word that they were taken from a commentary, but only these things to Leontius (l. c. p. 687): — *Cant. C.* — interpreting lasciviously according to his own mind and licentious tongue, he cut from the Holy Books with his own incredible audacity; see also Pelagius the Pope, Ep. 3, to Elius and Istr. (Hardi l. c., p. 438): “When Theodore wished to explain the *Cant. C.* and labored not toward commentaries, but rather toward ravings, he professed that through this book the Ethiopian queen had been flattered, which Theodoret (cf. proem. in C. C., II, p. 2, 3), while rebuking it, indeed suppresses the name of Theodore himself, but nevertheless reveals his madness”; and Pachymera, in the paraphrase of Ep. 9 of Dionysius the Areopagite (Opp. D. A. ed. Balth. Corder., II, Antwerp, 1654, fol., p. 169): — “by which (kisses) indeed also the Mopsuestian foolishly disparaged the book” — that these things were observed was in the open. But Theodore would scarcely have explained more fully the Song of Songs, which he plainly despised. What therefore? In my opinion, he discoursed upon it in a certain letter (see below). Furthermore, he determined thus concerning the Song of Songs: “When Solomon, whom Gentiles and Jews heralded for his wisdom and indeed even feared, took into marriage an Egyptian woman, to be shunned for her dark native complexion, but even more to be shunned as one born of the race of Ham, he drew upon himself the hatred of the Jews, a despiser of the laws of his fathers. Therefore he composed a song, by which he might be more pleasing to his wife and might reduce his detractors to silence, and signified that he did not repent of the marriage, but rejoiced in it. But two things must be held: one, that the song does not exhort to unchastity—for why would Solomon, who even if he had not written it had the power of unchastity, have composed the song for that reason? The other, that it is not to be praised as being prophetic, for if it were, mention of God would have been made somewhere. Just as Plato later wrote a symposium on love, so Solomon composed this convivial song on account of those nuptials. Whence neither for the Jews nor for us has a public reading of the Song of Songs ever been made, as if it were a domestic and nuptial canticle of Solomon’s feast sounding the reproaches of the bride.”

CHAPTER III. ON THEODORE’S COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The New Testament, whose speech and content presented less difficulty, Theodore interpreted much more happily than the Old. The sobriety, with which he rejected many commentaries of the Old Testament interpreters such that praise is not to be denied him, was not lacking here either, and very often indeed he did not find in individual passages those things which the subtlety or even the wiles of other interpreters, such as Cyril of Alexandria, did. Furthermore, in interpreting, he had such diligent regard for words, places, and facts, that he is to be considered to have initiated an historical-grammatical interpretation, which indeed fell within those times. Well indeed, in his own way, to individual words

and even more so to the whole text, he clung, since it was to be feared that he who was a sober-minded man might poorly reveal the dogmatic senses of the New Testament which were difficult to explain. Although I believe that he often erred, especially when explaining the Pauline Epistles, and that he was inferior to Chrysostom, for he did not possess the genius required to grasp the recondite movements and senses of St. Paul. To put it in a word: Chrysostom was a theological interpreter; Theodore, a grammatical one.

Furthermore, since Theodore did not explain the entire New Testament, it is not accurate to say that the Nestorians are frequently commanded to read his exposition of the New Testament in its entirety; cf. Assemani, vol. I, part III, 1, p. 542.

A. Commentaries on the Gospels

The following fragments of his commentary on Matthew survive: two in Facundus III, 4 (on Matth. viii, 5-13; another part of these is read in the Latin version in *Acta Concilii Constantinopolitani* II, iv, 51, 52 [from the fourth book of his Commentary on Matthew], and *Vigilantia Concilii*, 52, 53); [fragments on] ix, 2 (on Matth. xvi, 3, where John viii, 19; xiv, 9, 8; xvi, 24, 25; xii, 13 are also explained—though this seems to have been taken from some dogmatic book of Theodore); and two others, besides that one, in *Acta Concilii Constantinopolitani* II, ^B 35, 36 (c). (Vigilantius Concilii 56, 57). Yet more are found in the Greek Patristic Catena on Matthew, edited by Peter Possinus, S.J., professor of literature at Toulouse, vol. I (Toulouse 1646, fol.), p. 13 (on Matth. i, 18); 31 (ii, 16); 45 (iii, 16); 46 (iv, 2); 77 (v, 40); 136 (x, 5); 141 (x, 16); 194 (xii, 33); 202 (xiv, 1); 322 (xxiv, 29); 330 (xxiv, ...). At the testimony of Combefis (Biblioth. concionat. I, p. 44, 45), many fragments of Theodore of Antioch and Mopsuestia are read in the Royal Catena on Matthew. Furthermore, fragments are read in unpublished catenae, in codices XXIII, XXIV, CXCV of the Coislinian library (cf. Montfaucon, Bibl. Coislin., p. 67, 75, 218); in codex CXX of the Venetian Library of St. Michael (cf. Mittarelli, Cat. mss. Venet. S. Michael, p. 1115); and finally, very brief ones in codex XXXIII of the Gospels with a very rich Catena of many Fathers, Plut. VI, Medicean-Laurentian Library. Cf. Bandini, vol. I, I, p. 159.

Regarding his commentary on Luke, one fragment is read in *Acta Concilii Constantinopolitani* II, 1, 18 (on Luke iii, 22; Vigilantia Concilii 19), another in Balthasar Corderius' *Catena on Luke* (Antwerp, 1628, fol.), p. 326 (on Luke xi, 33); but without a doubt Mark iv, 21 is being explained there. Similarly, he disputes in Possinus' Catena on Matthew, p. 63, concerning Matthew v, 15, as "Theodore the monk," who is also called a presbyter. Who this man was, whether a black or white monk, I do not know. I consulted Cave, Fabricius, and others in vain. I have my conjectures that our Theodore lies hidden under this name—to which opinion the things attributed to him in Possinus' Catena, pp. 35, 214, would not be repugnant, had I not seen that that monk-interpreter was noted in unpublished catenae more often both alone and together with ours (cf. Montfaucon, l. c., p. 67, 247, 248; 77, 275; Fabricius, l. c., p. 359). But the fragments in the unpublished catenae of codices CCI of the Coislinian library, codex XLII of the Vienna Library, and others (cf. Montfaucon, l. c., p. 251; cf. Lambecius, *Commentaries*, ed. Kollar, III, p. 166) contain more.

The fragments of Theodore which the eminent Frideric Muenter first edited and illustrated in his book *Fragmenta Patrum Graecorum*, Fasc. I (Hafniae, 1788, 8, p. 72 seq.), prefaced by a brief dissertation on Theodore, are all, with one or two exceptions, in my judgment, taken from his commentaries on Luke.

When Muenter observed that Theodore had attacked Julian in those five fragments, he thought that Theodore had written a book against Julian perhaps under this title: *Theodore of Mopsuestia, Accusation against the things written against Christians by Julian the Apostate* (cf. l. c., p. 91). This conjecture was approved by Harles (cf. Fabricius...); however, since no one among the ancients has reported anything about such a book, and since one can easily show in what book Theodore could have debated those things, [it is clear this is an error]. Moreover, the words prefaced to the first of those fragments certainly show that Theodore wrote more against Julian than what was excerpted, but they do not show that he composed an entire book against him. Furthermore, it is manifest that they contain not the title of Theodore's book, but the words of him who excerpted them. Indeed, Muenter's conjecture is also somewhat infringed upon by the fact that those fragments are presented in the Catena as they are in the very texts themselves, and he [Muenter] rightly perceived that the fragment was taken from a commentary on Matthew. The words "what—introduced" do not contain the title of a book (contra von Wegner, l. c., Sieffert, l. c., p. 27), but contain the sentiment which is within the fragment itself. Cf. N. 14, 15, 46, others. That fragment could have been taken from a commentary on Genesis, which Sieffert (l. c.), relying on his own opinion, stated too confidently; but it is much more likely that the words "v. ej. from the book" existed as "of the same, from the same [works]," than that you should suppose that some words were lost.

^A there is no indication of the books. Why say more? It is evident that Theodore discoursed on Luke in his commentary. For all things are disputed on account of certain passages of Luke (for just as one would more easily believe that even the things contained in the first fragment were argued by Theodore in a commentary on Luke 11:52, than that the person who excerpted them was moved to insert that fragment of Theodore into an extraneous book of Catenae, so the matter itself suggests that Theodore refuted the comments of Julian, who had attacked the Gospels before others, in this commentary). However, in my opinion, he did not discourse at length against Julian in a single continuous stream or in many places, but only in two or three. Cf. the titles of those fragments and the commentary on the XII Prophets. I note in passing that certain of Julian's epistles, in which he rages against Diodorus, are read in Facundus, IV, 2.

Fragments from the commentary on Luke are found at: 75(11, 14-19); 88, 102 (111, 5, 21); 121, 122 (iv, 9, 10 sq.); 142, 148, 164, 168 (v, 2, 17, 35, 45); 171, 172, 174, 176, 181, 183, 186 (vi, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 29, 33, 39); 209 (vii, 19); 228, 229, 237 (viii, 21, 23, 42); 238, 254, 258, 260 (ix, 3, 17, 27, 41); 263, 269, 271 (x, 1 sq.; xvii, 22); 277, 278, 279, 281, 284, 286 (xi, 2, 3, 6, 15, 21 sq., 28); 288, 289 (xi, 34, 35. Neander, loc. cit. II, p. 955, is less correct in doubting whether the former fragment was genuine. For in this place Theodore could not have attributed ignorance to Christ, because Christ, who had said that Lazarus was dead in v. 11, had already proven His own foreknowledge thereby); 300 (xi, 56); 304, 309, 319, 320 (xii, 9-11, 23, 24, 35, 36); 334, 336, 342, 343, 348, 349 (xiii, 10, 13, 23-27, 33, 34); ^B 353, 358, 359, 360, 366, 369 (xiv, 1, 9, 10, 15, 16, 20); 379, 381, 388 (xv, 4, 8, 26); 392, 401, 403 (xvi, 8, 26, 30); 428 (xviii, 30); 437 (xix, 17); 454, 455 (xx, 14). Moreover, there are fragments in unpublished Catenae in codices XX, XXIII, CXCV of the Coislin library. Cf. Montfaucon, Bibl. Coislin., p. 65, 68, 248; cod. XXVII of the Marcian library in Venice. Cf. Morell, loc. cit., I, p. 49; cod. XXXIII, plut. VI, Medicean-Laurentian library. Cf. Bandini, loc. cit., I, p. 161.

Furthermore, Muenter published two fragments of Theodore from the Vindob. LXXI codex, which exhibits a Catena on Luke, taken from the aforementioned place, p. 138 sq., the latter of which is without doubt taken from Theodore's commentaries on John, and perhaps the former as well (see below). Several fragments of Theodore's commentary on John have survived, five of which are read in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople II, IV: 13-15 (from the interpretation of the Gospel according to John, book six [or "seventh"]). Vigil. Const. 14-16, on John xx, 17, 22, 28); 33, 34 (— from book one; Vigil. C. 33, 34; Corderius, Cat. on John, p. 61, on John i, 50); but these in the Catena of the Greek Fathers on John edited by Balthasar Corderius: in the proem there is a long fragment of Mopsuestia (in Cat. cod. XXVII, Marcian library, Venice; it is distinct from the Corderian one and is set down without an author; cf. Morell, loc. cit., p. 49), in which that well-known opinion of the Fathers as to why John wrote his Gospel is set forth, p. 17 (the same on p. 16, on John i, 3. Regarding the same passage, Angelo Mai transcribed another fragment from the Vatican Gospel Catena, *ad Phot. Amphiloch.* loc. cit. 33, I. I., I, p. 225), 18, 19, 21 (i, 4, 6); 23 (in Latin somewhat more fully in Facundus, IX, 3, on John i, 10); 27, 31 (i, 13, 44); 49 (i, 32-34). It is undoubtedly the same as that which Muenter, loc. cit., p. 142 sq., from codex Vindob. LXXI, and Angelo Mai, loc. cit., V, p. xxi, from the Vatican unpublished Catena on Luke, exhibit as Nicephorus', although one is more complete than the other in certain respects. However, in different Catenae, certain things are read in reverse order. For the authors of the Catenae sometimes not only condensed what they excerpted, but also exhibited it in reversed order, and therefore adopted a different word structure. Cf. Theodoret in Corderius, Cat. on Ps., p. 438, on Ps. lxx, 1; p. 449 (lxx, 18); p. 537 (lxxiii, 15); p. 550 (lxxiv, 1); 568 (lxxv, 5); 571 (lxxv, 6, 7); 595 (lxxvi, 11-13), et al. That fragment, however, is understood to be taken from the commentary on John by the fact that it is read much more accurately in Corderius' Catena on John and the complexity of its words is genuine. Furthermore, it fits perfectly in 1 John i, 32-34; 56, 60 (i, 41, 46).

That Theodore pursued the Gospel of Mark in a special commentary is as little probable in itself as it is refuted by the silence of the ancients. Nor should Victor of Antioch be neglected, who asserts that he searched for commentaries on Mark in vain. Cf. *Catena Graec. Patr. in ev. sec. Marc.*, collected and interpreted by Peter Possinus (Rome 1673 fol.), p. 4. The same author reports, loc. cit., p. 279, that Theodore understood Mark xiii, 5-8, Luke xxi, 10, 11, Matthew xxiv, 7 to refer to the "consummation of the age" (correctly; cf. the fragment of Theodore on Luke which begins *Toiauta pollakis*, below), ^C from which it is understood—which is quite probable in itself—that Theodore not infrequently considered the others while interpreting this or that Gospel. Thus it is not surprising that the Possinian Catena contains two fragments, p. 62, 91, by which Theodore illustrated Mark iii, 4; iv, 25-29, nor that you encounter Theodore’s words in Corderius’ Catena on John, p. 437: "as has been said in the commentaries on the others, the Evangelists." Indeed, what was for discussion regarding Mark's Gospel belonged appropriately in the commentaries on the other Gospels.

Assemani, loc. cit., III, 1, p. 323, transcribed a Syriac fragment of Theodore from the book of Solomon of Basra, which is *On the End of the Punishments of Demons and Sinners*, which, since it is cited as nothing but the words of Theodore's commentary on the Gospel, one could hardly say to which Gospel interpretation it pertains.

B. Commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of the N.T.

Commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles, which Theo- Credner, loc. cit., I, p. 255. I remember nowhere reading that opinion in Theodore.

^A Ebediesu, in the loc. cit., p. 32, conjectures that by Basil (a) we should understand him who was a most learned man and wrote one fragment found in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople II, IV, 16 (on book one. Vigil. Const. 17; Pope Pelagius, ep. 3 to Elias, loc. cit., p. 429, 430), regarding Acts 11, 38. Abulbarcat also mentions this commentary and exposition of some of Paul’s Epistles (De div. off., c. 7. Cf. Assem. loc. cit., p. 30).

Ebediesu, loc. cit., p. 32, 33, declares that all the Epistles of Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews were explained by Theodore (the Epistle to the Romans by request of Eusebius; two to the Corinthians by request of Theodore; the Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians by request of Eustratius; the Epistles to the Thessalonians by request of Jacob; the Epistles to Timothy, to Peter, to Titus, and to Philemon by request of Cyrinus; the Epistle to the Hebrews by request of Cyrinus). Leontius, loc. cit. (Mai, loc. cit., VI, p. 299), records his ^B *parēxēgēsin* (exposition), which he composed on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and indeed also on those to the Corinthians and Galatians. When Theodoret wrote in his Preface to the Pauline Epistles: “They will write that I, after such and such a person, the luminaries of the world, am daring to interpret the apostolic [word] out of a certain presumption and boldness,” he surely looked to Theodore also; but Cave (loc. cit., p. 248) and Assemanni (loc. cit., p. 32) err when they claim, on the authority of Theodoret, that all the Pauline Epistles were explained at length by Theodore. Fragments are in the unpublished Catena, cod. CCIV, and, as it seems, in XXVIII and XXX, in the Coislinian Library. Cf. Montfaucon, Bibl. Coislin., pp. 264, 83, 84.

Whether Euthalius, who lived in the middle of the 5th century—who, by the words: *«In the following I shall set forth briefly for each Epistle (of Paul) the disposition of the chapters, composed by one of our wisest and Christ-loving Fathers»* (Galland, Bibl., X, p. 217)—pointed to him, is unknown. If it is correctly attributed to that Father, as I believe (loc. cit., p. 250), it follows only that in the year 396 he distinguished the text of the Pauline Epistles with chapters. For it is not certain, as Mill concluded (Proleg. in N.T., n. 906), that he lived in Syria near Egypt, from the words: *«...was martyred... Paul... on the fifth day in the month of Panemus according to the Syro-Macedonians, which would be called the 5th of Epeiph among the Egyptians, and among the Romans three days before the Kalends of July.»* But Mill, loc. cit., n. 906, 907, relying primarily on that statement, conjectured that Euthalius took him ^C to be the Syrian who was bishop and interpreter of the Pauline Epistles before 396, whose name, finally, one could provide a probable reason for why it was omitted. This conjecture, which if it were true one might find some of Theodore in Euthalius, does not seem probable enough to me; however, I do not have evidence by which I could utterly demolish it.

A fragment of the commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, regarding 1, 2, 3, is provided by Facundus, III, 6; more were transcribed in an Italian journey from Vatican codices and Catenae by N.C. Kallius (see Muent., loc. cit., p. 78), not yet, so far as I know, published. The unpublished Vienna Catena cod. XLVI contains fragments. Cf. Lambec., loc. cit., III, p. 175. Angelo Mai published others in *Spicilegii Romani*, tom. IV, p. 499. Fabricius, who in loc. cit., I, p. 559, errs, reports that some portions from the commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, to the 1st Corinthians, and the 1st to Timothy are cited by Vigilius. Cf. Vigil. Const. 35, 42, 43, and the Act. conc. Const. II, IV, 35, 42.

One fragment of a commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews is read in the Act. conc. Const. II, IV, 32 (Vigil. Const. 32; Pelag. p. ep. 3 to Elias, loc. cit., p. 430). That which is cited in the same place 46 (Vig. CP. 47) from the interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews is taken from book XII of *De Incarnatione*.

That Theodore interpreted the seven Catholic Epistles is the opinion of Bandini, loc. cit., III, p. 585, and of Angelo Mai, loc. cit., I, p. xxi, which, however, rests on this one argument, surely of no weight, that in the Catena cod. V, pl. VI, of the Laurentian Medicean Library, among the expositors of those Epistles are mentioned "Th. Heracl." and "Th. alter"; cf. Band., loc. cit., I, p. 102. What of the fact that Cosmas Indicopleustes (*on those who have commented upon the divine Scriptures*) made no mention of the Catholics? However, there is no doubt that Theodore, if he did not reject all the Catholic Epistles—for from the words of Leontius (Gall. Bibl., loc. cit., p. 687), ^D *«for which reason (namely, because at James 5, 11 the patience of Job is celebrated), as I suspect, he abrogates and discounts the Epistle of James itself and others in succession of the others,»* one certainly cannot rely [on that]—he certainly rejected four, as the Church of Antioch did (cf. Montf. Opp. Chrys., VI, p. 308, 309).

(a) I believe this Basil was the bishop of Raphanea, who subscribed to the Council of Constantinople in 381, and it is most likely that he is the one commemorated in the priesthood in the books of Chrysostom *De Sacerdotio*. Cf. Montf. Opp. Chrysost., I, p. 361.

CHAPTER IV. ON THE DOGMATIC WRITINGS OF THEODORE

IT was almost exclusively ^A by the desire to combat adversaries who seemed to bring ruin upon the Church that Theodore was induced to write his dogmatic books; certainly, he did not produce a single one in which, setting aside the opinions of others, he explained and confirmed only his own view. But we must speak individually of these various books.

A. Fifteen books on the Incarnation. These fifteen books on the incarnation (cf. Fac. IX, 3; Gennadius, *De viris illustribus*, c. 12), which Theodore, a presbyter of Antioch, wrote against the Apollinarists and Eunomians (Arians) (cf. Gennadius *l.c.*; Fac. X, 1, 9, 3) (b), are said—as they are quite ample, containing fifteen thousand lines (cf. Fac. X, 1; Gennadius *l.c.*)—to have been of the greatest weight. But few fragments of them have escaped destruction, and these are as follows (c): one from book one, *Act. conc. Const. II*, IV, 25 (Vig. CP. 26), unless the following also, which I believe (26, *De interpretatione Evangelii*, book one), belongs here; two from book two, *ib.* 49, 50 (Vig. CP. 50, 51 (d)); one from book five, Fac. IX, 3; one from book six, Fac. IX, 3; four from book seven, Leont. *l.c.*, p. 300-305 (e) (*Act. c. C. II*, IV, 30); three from book eight, Leont. *l.c.*, p. 305 (f) (*Act. c. C. II*, IV, 29 [Vig. CP. 30]; VI, p. 169; Justinian. *ep. adv. eos qui tria cap. propugnant*, Bandin. *l.c.*, I, p. 183); three from book nine, Fac. IX, 5; Leont. *l.c.*, p. 305, 306; four from book ten, Fac. IX, 3, Leont. *l.c.*, p. 306 (g) (*Act. c. C. II*, VI, p. 94, 95); one from book eleven, *Act. c. C. II*, VI, p. 168; ten from book twelve, Leont. *l.c.*, p. 306-308 (h) (*Act. c. C. II*, IV, 46 [Vig. CP. 47]; V, p. 95; IV, 47 [Vig. CP. 48]; V, p. 98; IV, 48 [Vig. CP. 49]) (*Act. c. C. II*, VI, p. 169, Fac. IX, 3); six from book thirteen; Leont. *l.c.*, p. 308, 309 (h) (*Act. c. C. II*, IV, 53, Vig. CP. 54); Fac. II, 2; three from book fourteen; Leont. *l.c.*, p. 309 (*Act. c. C. II*, IV, 54; Vig. CP. 55); *Act. c. C. II*, IV, 17 (Vig. CP. 18); four from book fifteen, *Act. c. C. II*, V, p. 96, 97 (IV, 43, from book twelve. Incorrect; see Leont. *l.c.*, p. 309); V, 27 (Vig. CP. 28, Leont. *l.c.*); Fac. IX, 3, (i). There remains one fragment, so far as I know, in *Act. conc. Lateran. an. 649*, Hard. *l.c.*, p. 896, from the *On the Incarnation*, but one can barely say from which book it was taken. Although, if my conjecture does not fail me, some fragments of the third and fourth books have also survived; namely, those items cited from books III and IV of Theodore's *Against Apollinarius* (see below), which I believe belonged to books III and IV of his *On the Incarnation*. Indeed, no passage is exhibited from books III and IV of the *On the Incarnation* alone, and this mainly causes just wonder, because from the books *Against Apollinarius* and his heresy (Fac. X, 1), which is surely different from those books *Against*..., some items are cited. Then truly from the book *Against Apollinarius and his heresy*, I lead the reader to Leontius in these matters. Some also of those fragments which the *Act. C. C. II* contain are read in the epistle of Pope Pelagius II to Elias, *l.c.*, p. 428, 429.

(a) I believe the title used to be *On the Incarnation of the Son of God*, not as Fabricius *l.c.*, p. 353, thinks, *On the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten*. Neither Leontius, who cites Theodore out of contempt as "against the incarnate Word," nor Gennadius, *l.c.*, *On the Incarnation of the Lord*, hinders our opinion. Ebedjesus *l.c.*, p. 35, mentions only one *On the Incarnation*. Moreover, the opinion, which is futile and already sufficiently refuted by Tillemont, *l.c.*, IV, 446, and Fabricius, *l.c.*, p. 353, that the work of Theodore praised by Facundus, ^B I, 2, under the title *Mystic Codex* is not different from the books *On the Incarnation*, is now discarded. For Facundus clearly distinguishes these two works and testifies that the *Mystic* was written by the aged Theodore (cf. *Act. C. Const. II*, V, *l.c.*, p. 104), so that I might remain silent about the reason why that work could be called *Mystic*.

(b) Gennadius, who mentions only these books by Theodore, says: "Theodore, presbyter of the Church of Antioch, a man cautious in knowledge and eloquent in speech, wrote." The opinion of Miraeus and I. Bened. Carpzov (*Th. Raithu libell. De incarn. Gr. et Lat.* Helmst. 1779, IV, p. 8) that Gennadius means Theodore of Raithu is vain. But that Theodore's own words at the beginning of his work *On Apollinarius and his Heresy* are correctly inferred from those of Gennadius—"For thirty years ago we have already written this volume *On the Incarnation of the Lord*"—can serve as proof.

(c) That which Leontius in *C. Nest. et Eutych.*, book II, excerpted from these books of Theodore, Angelo Mai *l.c.*, VI, p. 300 sq., first edited separately in Greek. To this book therefore I refer the reader in these passages of Leontius.

(d) These two fragments are read together in an ampler form, which is said to have been taken from an oration of Theodore delivered at Antioch. Cf. *Act. C. C. II*, V, p. 99 (v. s. p. 14, n. 2).

(e) P. 302, num. 1 middle, read: ὃ γὰρ τὴν ἐνοίκησιν ἐργάζεται τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ὃ τῷ (read: τὸν) λόγῳ τῆς οὐσίας (taking into account the essence) ἁπανταχοῦ παρόντα τισὶ καὶ σφόδρα εὐαριθμήτοις ἐκ τῶν ἁπάντων ἐνοικοῦντα γνωρίζει, εὐδοκίᾳ λέγω, τοῦτο πάντως καὶ τὸν τῆς ἐνοικήσεως τρόπον χαρακτηρίζει.

(f) Num. 6 read: Πανταχόθεν ἄρα δῆλον, ὡς — ἀφαρμόζον, ἑκάστης τῶν φύσεων ἀδιαλύτως ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς μεινάσης.

(g) Num. 12 read: — ἀλλ' ὅτι μὲν οὐ περὶ παντὸς ἀνθρώπου εἴρηται —

(h) Through an error in Mai's edition, *ex τοῦ ιβ' λ.* instead of *ἐκ τ. ιγ'* Theodore in the most exalted passage 1 Tim. III, 16 is known not to have read *ὃ* or *Θεός*.

(i) From those things which Cyril of Alexandria in his lost book, in which he refuted the doctrine of Diodorus and Theodore on the incarnation, exhibited, some things of Theodore are cited in *Act. C. C. II*, IV and V. Yet not all things that are cited are Theodorean, but some are of Diodorus, which error ought not to be an offense (v. s.). Do not, however, hold those things to be of doubtful faith for this reason. Indeed, the Theodorean fragments, which for the most part are taken from his books *On the Incarnation*, are sufficiently clearly demonstrated by the testimony of others.

^A *Apollinarium* (Fac. III, 2), it appears that Theodore, after his books *On the Incarnation*, within the thirty years until he wrote about Apollinarius and his heresy, published no books against Apollinarius. But what then? Can it be established that he later attacked Apollinarius in those books? Nor can you more rightly contend that he wrote first against Apollinarius and then *On the Incarnation*. Facundus indeed (III, 2) in the work which he published against Apollinarius, and IX, 4, in the fourth book against Apollinarius; and Leontius (Mai I. I, VI, pp. 310, 311) — *from the book of his writings against Apollinarius*, *from the etc. of those against Ap.* — manifestly appear to distinguish these books from the books *On the Incarnation*. But since Leontius himself (l. c., p. 299) relates that he used only the books *On the Incarnation* (translated from Greek: *“For we have with much difficulty and after ten thousand schemes been able to find the book ‘On the Incarnation,’ for he was very cautious about giving his own works to the uninitiated; for this reason we have been able here to collect only those things said by him against the incarnation of the Savior”*), I am not moved by their authority to decide otherwise. You may, however, invent many things which could have given rise to their mistake. It could thus have happened that followers of Theodore, induced by caution or other reasons, published those two books written against Apollinarius (chiefly? only?) separately. These fragments themselves are: thirteen from the third book (Act. c. C. II, IV, 8 [from the third book against Apollinarius; Vig. CP. 1; Justiniani ep., Bandin. I. I., I, pp. 174, 175; Leont. l. c., p. 310]); 2-7, 9 (Vig. CP. 2-7, 9); 10 (Vig. CP. 10; Leont. l. c.; Justiniani ep., Band. I. I., I, p. 171); 11, 12 (Vig. CP. 11, 12); Fac. III, 2; Justiniani ep., Band., I, p. 175; six from the fourth book, Fac. IX, 4; Leont. l. c., p. 509 (Justiniani ep., Band., I, p. 170); Act. c. C. II, IV, 8 (Vig. CP. 8; Leont. l. c., p. 310; Justiniani ep., Band., I, p. 172); Leont. l. c., p. 311 (Justiniani ep., Band., I, p. 177; another is said to be taken from the *Interpretation of the Eighth Psalm*; Act. c. C. II, IV, 19 [Vig. CP. 20], *On the interpretation of the eighth Psalm*; but beware of understanding it as Theodore's commentaries on the Psalms), Justiniani ep., Band., I, p. 182.

What path Theodore followed in individual books cannot be stated. For the fragments, since they are presented for the sake of either attacking or defending him, reside in almost one and the same matter and are nothing but the briefest tatters of Theodorean disputation. Although Theodore, verbose here, seems to have had experience in what could be accomplished by repeating the same thing over and over again for the sake of his argument. He himself narrates (Fac. X, 4) that the errors of Arius and Eunomius concerning the incarnation were not ^B even proven valid (see above and below), which is the same as that which is said of those fragments which are taken from his book *Against the Synousiasts* or Apollinarists, see p. 93 (cf. Leont. Galland. Bibl. l. c., p. 1296); IV, 45; V, p. 92 (cf. Leont. l. c., p. 697); 93 (cf. Leont. l. c.). Now two remain, of which the one is proven to be Diodorus', which is said to be taken from the *Against the Synousiasts* or Apollinarians (cf. Act. C. C. II, IV, 28; V, p. 93), the other of which is placed in the midst of the Diodorean ones. Moreover, Facundus rashly denied that that book was by Cyril (III, 6, 3; v. v. c. Liberati Brev., c. 40).

Nor did he [Theodore] also omit Apollinarius' vain presumption in his entire work *On the Incarnation*, so that nothing, as his opinion would bear, was overlooked from those things which pertained both to the firmness of ecclesiastical orthodoxy and to the conviction of their impiety. Gennadius, however, as a witness (l. 1., in the books *On the Incarnation*), shows that *“he demonstrated in a most pure way and with testimonies of the Scriptures that Jesus Christ had the fullness of both deity and humanity,”* and taught that *“man consists of two substances only, i. e., soul and body, and that senses and spirit are the innate functions of the soul.”* He adds the same, that he *“in the fourteenth book properly discussed the nature of the Holy Trinity, which is uncreated and alone incorporeal and mistress of all, regarding the nature of creatures according to his sense in accord with the authority of the Holy Scriptures,”* and in the fifteenth volume confirmed and fortified the entire body of his work with the traditions of the Fathers also. From these, one perceives what method of disputation he followed in general. Yet in my judgment he instituted the matter such that he explained, defended, and fortified his own opinion more accurately, but attacked the decrees of his adversaries not in any specific order, but here and there intentionally. In the last book, he fortified his doctrine with the testimonies of the Fathers, moved by the matter itself and for the reason that his adversaries had joined the commendation of the Fathers to their own opinion (a). I think, however, that he had more regard for the doctrine of Apollinarius, which seemed more dangerous especially because of the great renown of its author, than for that of Eunomius. He nevertheless refutes Eunomius as well, and although one can conjecture how that came about, it is more probable that he disputes the one who attacked Apollinarius. Apollinarius, however, a man most deeply imbued with Greek literature, indeed affirmed that the unity of person should be attributed to Christ, God and man, but disapproved of the method which they had then begun in the Church to perceive the mystery in the mind. Since he had persuaded himself that one could not be made from two perfect things (τελείων) — that is to say, that two persons could not be made one — the ecclesiastical formula displeased him for the reason that, under its leadership, unity could not pertain to such a Christ except through the Word, and that consequently a double Christ and two sons would have to be posited. Therefore he deemed that the name ^D of *anthropolatrae* (men-worshippers) (Athanas. *De incarn.* sub fin., Gregor. Naz. or. 51, 1, p. 72 ed. Clemencet, *hominicolarum*, Fac. IX, 3) should not be denied to the orthodox. He himself, however, in order to vindicate for Christ the unity of person by the conjunction of both natures, and to adapt this to the human intellect, perhaps observing the example of the ancient Fathers as well, with the Platonist philosophy as his guide, which he had imbibed...

(a) Cf. Eunom. Apol. Opp. Basil. M. ed. Garn., I, p. 622; Basil, adv. Eun, I, I. I., I, pp. 211, 212. Apollinarius could with greater right call upon the authority of the Fathers for aid. For Origen was the first to vindicate again and again a human [*voῦv*] mind for Christ, and this doctrine, which could not please him, was received in the Church under that preeminent guide.

^A He, as a good Platonist, was led easily into that frame of mind, such that, while maintaining that man consists of three parts, he believed that the human nature of Christ was comprised of only two (τῷ σώματι καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ ἀλόγῳ), and that the divine nature had taken the place of the *nous*, the rational soul, so that the *kyriakos anthropos* might form one person. This doctrine, though not indeed drawn from Holy Scripture, yet appeared clearly present in some places of Holy Scripture (John 1: 14; 1 Cor. 15: 47, etc.), and he reconciled it with Holy Scripture with ease, especially since those things which pertained either to the divine or human nature of Christ were usually preached concerning the whole Christ. But from this it happened that the adversaries of Apollinaris, whom they had not understood, attributed to him many opinions that were foreign to him (a). Although I do not see why you might deny that he, just as Theodoret reports (Fab. haer. iv, 8; H. e. v, 3; cf. Greg. Naz. epp. ad Cledon. i, ii), using adulterated language concerning the divine nature (περὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως κιβδήλοις χρησάμενον λόγοις), produced certain degrees of ranks and thus revived the common opinion of the ancients, by which Christ and the Holy Spirit were held to be inferior to God the Father. But the adversaries (Theodoret, Fab. haer. iv, 8) produced that opinion in a harsher sense than Apollinaris intended.

Among those who then refuted Apollinaris, Theodore stood out in a certain way, whose character and doctrine, as well as his method of attacking, were different from those of the others (b). But I fear that this conflict may have been fatal for him. For while Apollinaris had connected, or rather confused, the natures of Christ with the highest necessity, Theodore, guided by his own inclination, separated them with a greater clarity of reason, so that he did not escape a heretical error. In every respect there was the greatest diversity between the two men. Theodore was inferior in erudition and keenness of mind, yet he was learned and ingenious. Apollinaris, according to his own disposition, was formed by the acute and poetic rule of Plato; Theodore was naturally inclined toward the sobriety of Aristotle. The former brought fewer prejudices, the latter yielded easily to authority. Theodore, however, strove rightly to prove that man consists of only two parts (substances). For if this were proved, the doctrine of Apollinaris would be nothing. But it may be doubted whether he was sufficiently successful in this slippery inquiry. ^B Furthermore, he proved with many arguments, against both that very close connection or rather conversion of the natures of Christ, which Apollinaris dreamed of, and the divine nature itself. But I do not believe that he repeated these arguments from the work of Christ against Apollinaris. He relied mostly on the authority of Holy Scripture. That his own doctrine harmonized beautifully with Holy Scripture, in which things said about the Savior pertain now to His divine, now to His human nature, and that the whole of Holy Scripture fights against Apollinaris on this point. But he could only wrest 1 John 1: 14 from the hands of Apollinaris by an accurate disputation on the manner of the Word of God inhabiting man.

B. Books against Eunomius

Ebediesu (i. 33, 34) mentions two of Theodore’s tomes against Eunomius and one tome in favor of Basil, which that ample book against Eunomius, which Photius testifies he read (c), a fragment of which is read in Fac. ix, 3 (— from the work *De incarnatione* — to another, which he published against Eunomius, where it is read in the tenth book —), ^C had been, and for that reason I believe that he hardly refuted Eunomius with so many [books], and that the bulk and argument of the books seem to have been the cause, so that it might be divided by the Nestorians into two works. Although the very words of Photius also support this opinion (d). Receive these things concerning the origin and nature of the book.

Eunomius, that great standard-bearer of the Arians (e), having written the Apology (f), which, having been provoked by I know not what cause (h), he had written a little before he became bishop of Cyzicus (360) (g), and which had been badly refuted by Basil, of the great Basil—for so I call the apology full of every accusation on his behalf.

^A Since he had seen this, he met his adversary with all the greater eagerness, the more the orthodox had suffered from his zeal. But I believe that the very damage inflicted upon his own side was the cause that a new Apology of Eunomius (b) finally came to light after the death of Basil (c). Photius, in chapters 4-7, mentions three men who attacked Eunomius at that time, the first of whom, Gregory of Nyssa, also moved by piety, defended his brother in two books (d). It is probable that, not long after, Theodore also attacked Eunomius while he was still alive. Photius, however, rightly judges Theodore to be one who, "being extremely keen in his thoughts and arguments, and flourishing best in Scriptural testimonies," is said to have "made his refutation according to almost the very letter of the words of Eunomius, showing him to be very ignorant both of secular learning and, much more so, of our theology" (by many examples). ^B He fought for the ecclesiastical doctrine and kept to the path of the Church in such a way that he seems to have given occasion for reproach to Leontius alone (v. s.). Eunomius himself, for many reasons which easily escaped Basil, could be provoked to an apology, especially since in it he also clearly looked toward the Semi-Arians.

Chapter. On the books of the Holy Spirit.

D. Book on Apollinaris and his heresy.

^A there is a reason why you might suppose that he published more than two books against Apollinarius. For it was not rare for different titles to be attributed to the same books. Perhaps, in the Nestorian book, by which they were accurately instructed regarding the assuming and the assumed, they preferred to give that inscription which recalled the memory of Apollinarius. The one fragment that remains, taken from the beginning of the book, is presented by Facundus, l. I, from which it is known that it was written thirty years after the books *On the Incarnation*. Indeed, Theodorus relates that the Apollinarists, none of whom would have dared to undertake a contest in writing, imitated weak and cunning athletes—who, when they could not struggle against stronger opponents, would try to overthrow them with plots and schemes. He says they undoubtedly wrote among themselves certain absurdities which he had never said, for example, that one must think and speak of two sons, even though in the books *On the Incarnation* he had taught the exact opposite everywhere, and that they had inserted these things into their own writings, which they had sometimes even shown to their associates, so that they might convict him of impiety. But one of their own, who was held to be trustworthy by them, having read those things, reported to him what had been written. From these facts, it can be gathered that in this book Theodorus set forth his opinion on the Incarnation most accurately, so that he might remove the occasion for slander. Whether he rightfully accused his adversaries of that worst kind of fraud, I doubt. For he himself did not read the slanders which he thinks were written, and it could be that the adversaries ordered attention to be called only to those places—of which the number was certainly not small—due to which they thought they could rightly accuse Theodorus of impiety, while they themselves expressed in a few words what followed from them, e.g., that one must speak of two sons. ^B How, moreover, even if that which remains of Theodorus' fragments exists, I deny that the same reproach which Theodorus cast upon the Apollinarists, Facundus cast upon the Acephali, that he fell into the fraud of his adversaries. See above (col. 24).

E. On the books of miracles

The single place where the Savior showed his own nature, "I will; be cleansed" (Matt. viii, 3), is set forth, from those things in the second book on miracles, and is brought forward in the *Acts of the Lateran Council* (a. 649), Hard. l. I, III, p. 896, and by Maximus, Opp. II, p. 91. But those *logoi* were not orations (Schroeckh l. I, XV, p. 207, *Reden*?), but, as Tillem. l. I, 445 correctly says, books *On the Miracles of Jesus Christ*, unless, which I very much suspect, they are to be entirely expunged from the catalog of Theodorean books. Perhaps a less accurate method of citing them gave rise to them, and that passage was taken from the commentary on Matthew.

F. Three books against Persian magic

Photius, c. 81, correctly vindicated for Theodorus of Mopsuestia three books *On Persian Magic and what the difference of piety is*, written to Mastubius, an Armenian (originating from Armenia), a chorepiscopus, because of his Nestorian opinions which were especially conspicuous in the third book and because of the fiction concerning the restoration of the wicked, to which the writer was favorable (a); cf. Ebediesu l. c., p. 34, two books *Against Magic*; Leont. l. c., p. 689, "others against the Magusaeans" (b); p. 690, "which Photius l. I says he wrote against the Magusaeans." ^C In the first book, the abominable doctrine of the Persians is set forth, which Zarades (c) introduced, namely concerning the Saronam (d), whom he introduces as the leader of all, even if ^D fortune...

^A causes him to fall into transgression by nature and not by intent, and that by making a libation, so that he might produce the one—he begat him and Satan (δ); and concerning their incest, and in short, having set forth word for word the impious and most shameful doctrine (α), he refutes it. ^B He writes the book against those of the West who had contracted this disease, of whom he also says the author of the heresy originated there, but who was wont to haunt the regions of the East and, composing treatises on behalf of the heresy newly devised by him, would send them to those living on their ancestral soil, by whom many were drawn there to his own way of thinking, so that entire churches were filled with the error (g). Now Ariam, their leader—for I cannot clearly say whether he designates or names him—he says he found this man also fabricating a fifth Gospel and hiding it away in the libraries of Eusebius of Palestine, and that he cast aside the divine and ancient Scripture, which the Seventy had gathered to translate, as well as those of Symmachus and Aquila and the others, and he was emboldened to compose a separate and new one; he who was neither trained from childhood like them in the Hebrew tongue, nor instructed in the sense of the divine Scripture, but giving himself over to certain low-minded Hebrews, he took courage from them to write a separate edition. It is not necessary that I explain at length with these words who Jerome refers to; I admire the opinion of Ammianus, Schott, Noris, Basnage, and Tillemont, that his designation is ill-omened. Cave rightly exploded the notion that "Aram" was derived from "ara" (curse), since it is clearly stated to be the Aramean (h). Regarding that fifth Gospel of the Nazarenes, see Jerome on Matthew xii (ed. Martian, Potter on Clem. Alex. Strom. III, 2, p. 515), which you would wrongly deny with Hyde, l.c., p. 297; see also what Gesenius noted in De inscr. Phœnic.-Gr., p. 17.

On the perfection of government

Five books against the defenders of original sin

(a) Ormazd, Ormuz, Hormizda. Theodore, so far as I know, said *Opmíodan*, but Hormisdas is a name more often said of men, derived from the same source, *Ωρομάσθης* (Plut. De Is. et Os., Moral. ed. Wyttenb., I, p. 513); *Ωρομάσδης* (Diog. Laert. Procem.). (b) Ahriman. V. Kleuker l.l., p. 5. (c) Such reproaches later fell into the discipline of the Magi in the great consensus of the Fathers (cf. Phot. l.l.). (d) I conclude from these that Theodore had before his eyes certain writings which were circulated under the name of Zoroaster. Cf. Euseb. Præp. ev., I, 10. (e) The same Theodoret seems to look toward those things which he reports that he wrote against the Magi. Cf. Theodoret. ep. 113, IV, p. 1191. (f) Tillemont, who thinks Theodore the presbyter attacked the Magi l.l., p. 447, relies on the weakest argument. "In the title," he says, "he (sc. Photius) only qualifies Theodore as a priest (?); so he did this work before his episcopate." 615, tells of the origin of Pelagianism, in which it is doubtful whether that Rufinus, a Syrian by nation, an Aquileian, is to be understood. Fontanini discussed this at length in *Hist. lit. Aquil.*, I. v, c. 18, § 4, sq., but since I could not reach this book, I note that I now interpose my own opinion. The matter is disputed in both directions by Noris l.l. and Garnier on Mar. Merc., I, Diss. de primis auctor. et defens. hær. Pelag., c. 3. Most recently, Joseph Honorius Marzuttini, in *Diss. de Turanii Rufini presb. Aquil. fide et religione* (Patav. 1835, 8), contends that Rufinus of Aquileia was wrongly confused with the Syrian. V. *Biblioteca Italiana*, n. CCXL, p. (Mediol. 1835). (h) Thom. Ittigius wrote a dissertation on Aram, an obscure ecclesiastical anti-Pelagian writer.

^A (cf. Cav. I. I., Basn. 1. 1., Neander 1. 1., II, p. 1360, 1361); what are we to say that Garnerius, by his conjecture, accused Theodore of a lie or evil fraud, whereby he might have published books against Jerome after they had been altered against Augustine? Norisius is somewhat better than Garnerius (loc. cit., I, p. 88 sq.): "The Pelagians, when they learned that they were being attacked by their adversaries Jerome and Augustine in their writings, sought the patronage of Theodore of Mopsuestia, to whom they also brought Jerome’s Dialogues, which had been only recently published. He, swollen with knowledge—so that he alone might appear to be wise—despising the talents of others, approved only of his own things; wherefore, against the three books of Jerome, he forged a rather fair-sized volume divided into five books." (p. 88). The same author (v. d.) thinks that Theodore also attacked Augustine’s books *De peccatorum meritis et remissione*, and Epistle 89 to Hilary. For he assumes that Jerome has only a few words at the end of his Dialogues for establishing original sin, but that he relies for that matter on the laborious volumes of Augustine *De peccatorum meritis et remissione*, which were brought to him in Asia; and that Theodore, when he had read these, undoubtedly investigated them, especially since it is clear from the excerpts of Photius that he attacked those things which are read in Augustine as being explained only regarding the guilt of origin. Certainly Pelagius and his disciples sent the praised volumes of Augustine, together with the epistle to Hilary read at the Synod of Diospolis, to the new patron of the sect. (p. 99). Finally, he considers those books of Theodore to have been written in about the year 416, on account of the words of Photius — λόγους ὑπὲρ τῆς καινοποιηθείσης αὐτῷ αἱρέσεως — and because, as the encyclical letters of Zosimus, published in the year 418 and sent—by the testimony of Marius Mercator—to the Oriental Churches and fortified by the subscriptions of the Holy Fathers throughout the whole world, Theodore would scarcely have dared to write so many things against the orthodox sentiment. Baumgarten-Crusius, in his *Lehrbuch der christl. Dogmengesch.*, p. 323, notes in a word that Theodore defended Coelestius against Jerome. A man clearly singular, I wish he had explained his opinion more broadly.

^B IV, p. 47); *Dial. III adv. Pelag.*, init., p. 555; (De scriptor. eccl., s. v. Jacob. Cf. Schott, *Isag. in libros N. T.*, p. 8 sq.; Credner, *Beiträge zur Einl. in die bibl. Schr.*, I, p. 388 sq.). However, Jerome’s new translation of the Bible gave his enemies an opportunity to blame him that was quite convenient. V. v. c. Rufin. *invect.* II, Opp. Hier. IV, p. 441. The books which Jerome is said to have sent into his homeland regarding the new heresy can be none other than the three *Dialogues against the Pelagians* (IV, p. 483 sq.), written in the year 415. It is understood from those things which Photius reported that Theodore wrote against the Westerners living in the East, and that he held Jerome to be the author of the new heresy, which he thought had even infected the West with his own man. Photius, however, when he related those things, summarized the doctrine of that heresy which Theodore followed in these few points: 1) that humans — φύσει πρότερον ἀγαθοὺς — were righteous by nature before, but that nature is already corrupted and made mortal by Adam’s sin, — καὶ οὐκ ἐν τῇ προαιρέσει κεκτῆσθαι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. 2) That not even newly born infants are free from sin, since on account of Adam’s sin, nature—made sinful—is transmitted to all his posterity. Cf. Ps. L, 7, etc. *Baptism., cœn. sacr.*, that both sacraments are offered to infants. 3) That no human is righteous. Cf. Ps. CXLII, 2, etc. 4) That not even Christ, insofar as He had assumed a sinful nature, was free from sin, although elsewhere they had attributed an incarnation to Him — σχήματι μόνον. 5) That matrimony, or certainly the lust of copulation and the emission of seed and all things of this sort by which our race is propagated, are of a corrupted nature. After he observed that Theodore had sometimes refuted these things excellently, especially by a legitimate interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, but that he had fallen into the errors of Nestorius and Origen, he discusses those Theodorean sentiments: that indeed Adam was made mortal from the beginning, but that God feigned it so that we would hate sin, as if death were imposed in place of a penalty for sin: [and] that there is a double remission of sins. Finally, he described Theodore’s style of speaking correctly.

^C But indeed, it does not entirely agree with Photius and Marius Mercator, who, in the second book of Theodore’s *codex IV* and *III* against St. Augustine, defending original sin and saying that Adam was made mortal through transgression in a Catholic manner, translated four fragments into Latin (loc. cit., p. 702 sq.; they are also read in Noris. loc. cit., I, p. 93 sq.). In the three previous fragments, Theodore shows, relying primarily on biblical arguments, that Adam was created mortal and that there is no original sin; but in the last one, he denies that there are eternal punishments after the resurrection. In this disagreement between Photius and Marius Mercator, it is debated by learned men whether Theodore wrote against Jerome or against Augustine, as well as in the most famous work which is read in the seventh of the dissertations, in the appendix to the dissertation *De hæresiarchis ævi apostolici* subjoined, p. 466 sq.; J. Frane is my authority.

^D To state what I think: I assert that Theodore composed those books shortly after the Pelagian dispute arose, but that he had read neither Jerome’s nor Augustine’s writings. That is rendered undoubted by Jerome’s memory; but the latter is certain because it is evident from the fact that Theodore did not know Latin, and also because there is no trace of this matter in the fragments nor in those things which we have received about those books. Although Jerome only denied in his *Dialogues* that it was possible for a human to be without sin if he wished, and that God’s commands were easy. Nay, if you remember well the method which Theodore followed in disputing, it is not left to be doubted that the Pelagians, immediately after the synod held at Diospolis in the month of December of the year 415, informed him by letters (a) of those things which contained that dispute, with those things added which were in that Buddens *Isag. in theol. univers.*, p. 932. (a) It is possible that at that time Coelestius himself approached Theodore; yet I assert nothing.

For those who had knowledge of the divine Scriptures, but only in secret, disparaged [it], that is beside the point. For it is not the power of public laws that should be understood here, but rather the austerity of Jerome and the authority with which he tyrannized over men; see also what follows immediately: "But lastly he fell into this novelty of dogma, saying—." But we have not yet spoken of Marius Mercator. Although we need not dwell on him, since it might seem that Theodore could only have disputed against Augustine on original sin through a simple error. Yet Theodore does mention the very wise defenders of original sin in the place cited. It is possible he may have discovered some things about Augustine; I affirm that he leveled his weapons primarily against Jerome, as the leader of that heresy.

If we have argued correctly, it is manifest that Theodore wrote about original sin in the year 316, or at least in 317 (a). Tillemont holds a different view, followed in part by Garnerius: "The work was written after the laws of the year 418 against the Pelagians (the rescript of Honorius, given on the day before the Kalends of May 418, is read in Augustine, *Opp.* X, app., p. 70; Salvian, *Opp.* Bremen 1688, 4, p. 374 sq.), since he claimed that fear of the imperial power prevented him from speaking against his adversaries; and it was quite likely after the year 421, during the time that his diocese served as a retreat for Julian and the other Pelagian bishops, and perhaps for Pelagius himself, who was particularly animated against St. Jerome and could well have retreated there after having been driven from Jerusalem. But if the manner in which Photius relates that he spoke there of St. Jerome compels us to believe that he spoke of him as a living man, this work would have to be dated to 419 or 420." But that passage of Theodore (Marius Merc. *l. c.*, p. 703), in which, when he calls the wonderful assertor of original sin [a man] of absurd scriptural interpretation, he says, "fear allowed me to say nothing against him," but only those who had knowledge of the divine Scriptures disparaged [it] in secret, has no pertinence here. For neither should the power of public laws be understood, but the austerity of Jerome, etc.

But we have not yet spoken of Marius Mercator. Although we need not dwell on him, as this man, with an easy error, seemed to think that Theodore could have disputed on original sin only against Augustine. Yet Theodore does mention the very wise defenders of original sin in the place cited. It is possible he may have gathered some things about Augustine; I affirm that he hurled his missiles primarily against Jerome, as the leader of that heresy.

If Theodore refuted in each of his five books those five opinions of his adversaries which Photius brought forward, he repeated the same things more often, moved by the argument of the matter. The chief question, on which the rest hung, centered on Adam, regarding whom it had to be taught that, being created mortal, he had brought nothing untoward to human nature. He used arguments that were mostly exegetical; however, his interpretation of Genesis II, 17 wavered, ^B and he produced that opinion which would easily offend many. Several other questions were related to that one, for example, regarding the power of baptism, into which perhaps he had not yet inquired with sufficient accuracy. The Pelagian disputes generally enlarged his doctrine. But the greatest difference lay between Theodore and the assertors of original sin. He, accustomed to feeling more Augustinianly about human nature, resolved the matter by exegesis and those arguments that sober reason would have provided; they, moved by the affections of the heart and led by ecclesiastical matters, pursued their decrees by the path and method of a philosopher.

It remains for me to speak of the reasons by which Theodore was subsequently joined with the Pelagians. Many Pelagians, driven from Italy and pressed in other places, went to Theodore in the year 422, having learned that he favored them. ^C Julian, bishop of Eclanum, "together with his associates and partners and fellow-sufferers, with great effort strove unto him as if unto a teacher of Christian dogmas," as Marius Mercator testifies (b); but he also mentions Coelestius. One might not absurdly conjecture that Pelagius himself had betaken himself to Mopsuestia. At that time, I believe, the Pelagians first became known to Nestorius and entered into a disastrous association with him. But Theodore continued with them until his death (c), nor ever, as Tillemont wrongly supposed, did he ^D err on this matter through malice.

persuaded ^A Julian, he anathematized him. He relies, moreover, on Marius Mercator (l. 1, p. 625): "Let him recognize," says he, "Julian from this translation (of Theodore's symbol), if he does not disdain to read it, while there remains with Theodore that for which we have said he deceived Nestorius in bad faith, and even more to himself and his own dogma—and that he himself, after his departure from Cilicia, was condemned by him in the synod of the bishops of his province." But Julian is ordered to recognize from the translation of the symbol that Theodore was contrary to him, and that he himself was condemned by him in the synod of the bishops of the province after his departure from Cilicia. Hence that opinion could then stand if Julian had been condemned by name in the symbol. Rather, Marius Mercator means this: after Cilicia was left by Julian, there was an assembly of the bishops of the province in which Theodore read his symbol, in which he taught other things perversely, but taught about Adam in a Catholic manner. Those who felt otherwise he condemned with anathema, and thus Julian as well. That this interpretation of that place is true is proven both by the symbol itself, which contains more about Adam than Marius Mercator could interpret to his own point of view, and by those things which Marius Mercator argued about the symbol. He condemned his perverse doctrine concerning the incarnation; he added nothing about original sin. Add that if you posit otherwise, you are involved in difficulties from which you may with difficulty extricate yourself. It is less probable, however, that that assembly of bishops was held because of the Pelagian disputes. Moreover, it cannot be concluded with certainty from Marius Mercator that that symbol was composed only after Julian's departure from Cilicia. It was not made then, but read then.

*I. Mystical Books.* For the mystical books, cf. Hesychius, *l. c.*, p. 104—the mystical sermons—which Facundus (I, 2) called a mystical codex, Ebediesu (*l. c.*, p. 33) a tome on arcana (Assemani less correctly translates "On the Sacraments"), which the elder Theodore wrote (cf. Hesychius, *l. c.*). A very short fragment of the thirteenth book, in which Paul of Samosata, who had regarded Christ as a pure man, is called an angel of the devil, was brought forward by Facundus (I), and Hesychius, looking to these, had presumed ^B him to be narrating about the appearing of the Lord. For I do not believe that it was only the incarnation that was set forth in those books, but in general the Christian arcana. To this opinion, some credibility is added because Simeon the presbyter and monk (Nestorian, 13th century) relates some things about the holy supper and baptism (cf. Assemani, *Bibl. Or.*, III, 1, p. 563) which Theodore is held to have taught in the book *De profundis*, which can be none other than the one under discussion. He indeed brings forward trifles hardly originating from Theodore: that of the particles of eucharistic bread consecrated by Christ at the supper and distributed to the apostles, only John preserved his particle until Pentecost, from which, as from leaven, the apostles had made bread, with which they celebrated the first liturgy in the upper room. Thus the sacred leaven was translated from one eucharistic bread to another through Adaeus and Maris, the disciples of the apostles, to the Eastern Syrians, by whom it is most holily preserved. Furthermore, the water which had flowed from the side of Christ, collected by John in a jar, was another leaven of baptismal water and was handed down by the same Adaeus to the Eastern Syrians: but whether the book is corrupted, or—for the same John himself is said to have handed it down—ill-understood, in it there was also a discourse on the sacraments. Moreover, the later Nestorians fell into many trifles. Cf. *e.g.* Thilo, *cod. N. T. apocr.*, I, p. xxxii sqq.

*K. Epistles.* Finally, I mention the epistles here, since they were at least in part of dogmatic subject matter. It is known from codex 177 that Photius read the epistles of Theodore. Ebediesu (l. c., p. 35) [mentions] the *Book of Pearls*, in which his epistles are collected. One fragment from the second epistle to Artemius of Alexandria, presbyter, which treats of the Trinity, was exhibited by Facundus (III, 5); three [fragments] of an epistle to Domnus, in which it is discussed concerning the union of the natures of Christ *κατὰ εὐδοκίαν* (according to good pleasure), were brought forward from the collection of dogmatic *χρήσεων* (uses) of Anastasius the presbyter by Jacob Sirmond (to Facundus IX, 3). I have already said above (p. 61, 62 [col. 47]) that Theodore, in my opinion, expounded more fully on the Song of Songs in a certain epistle.

^D (a) After he (Julian) had left that country, the bishops of the province having held a council against the Pelagians, Theodore was there with the others and pronounced anathemas against Julian.

CHAPTER V.

CONCERNING THE PRACTICAL WRITINGS OF THEODORE.

Regarding the writings of Theodore which may be called practical, there are two hymns which should be attributed [to him] if they were rightly assigned to him. But one of them is Ephrem's (cf. Assemani, *l. c.*, I, p. 60), and whether the hymn which, as Assemani (*l. c.*, II, p. 488) testifies, is present in a certain Syriac codex of the Vatican library, is more truly Theodore's, I indeed strongly fear. In Theodore, no one would easily recognize a poetic talent. But these writings are more correctly to be claimed for him: A. *Tome on the Priesthood.* Cf. Ebediesu, *l. c.*, p. 83. B. *Tome to the Monks.* Cf. Ebediesu, *l. c.*, p. 34.

C. Oration on legislation

D. Book for those to be baptized

Antonius and Jacobus, presbyters, who had come to Philadelphia from Constantinople with letters of recommendation from Anastasius and Photis, presbyters zealous for the Nestorian parties, brought with them a certain *Exposition of impious doctrines*, to which certain heretics (some of the heretics from Lydia, the Quartodecimans) agreed to subscribe as they were about to return to the ecclesiastical formula. This was reported to the Council of Ephesus by Charisius, presbyter and administrator of the church of the Philadelphians, which forbade under penalty that anyone should offer to a heretic any other than the Nicene Symbol, nor should anyone hold what that exposition of faith prescribed. Cf. Act. C. Ephes. act. vi, Hard. I, I, p. 1511 sqq. Regarding this matter, the acts were reread at Chalcedon (cf. Act. C. Chalc. I, I, II, p. 246 sqq.). But the exposition of depraved faith presented in those acts is attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia in Act. C. Const. II, iv, 71, and Leontius of Byzantium (loc. cit., p. 687) undoubtedly referred to the same. But Facundus (III, 2) denied that it was Theodore’s, since it was not attributed to him in the Acts of the Synod of Ephesus, and Cyril had written to the Easterners: “The definition was brought forth in the holy Synod of Ephesus as if placed by Theodore, just as the presenters said” (cf. also Cyril, Opp.)—whose struggles against heretics and whose zeal for correct dogmas Cyril had praised, and he could not have denied the Trinity. Nonsense. For it is not obscure why Theodore was accused at Ephesus in that way. For the reverence for the most famous man, who had died a few years earlier, had not yet vanished to such an extent that it did not seem better to reject his doctrine while leaving his memory intact, and those very words of Cyril are evidence that this was truly said. Although Marius Mercator is by now most serious, the character of the Symbol (c) itself is entirely Theodorean, whether you look to the doctrine; note, for example, the words *δεσπότης*, *συνάφεια*, to the manner in which the dual person of Christ is denied, and to the things taught concerning both Adams and both *καταστάσεις*; or to the oratorical style (d). Moreover, Theodore is not to be thought to have assumed the authority of composing a Symbol rashly. Cf. Bingham, *Origin. eccl.* (Grischov. I, Hal., 1751, p. 148 sqq.). But he did what he did to ensure that his new Symbol was entirely composed to the necessities ^C of the time, ^D and according to the usage of the Symbol in the Philadelphian church; the final words—*everyone who does not keep the holy day of Easter*—are clearly to be understood as not being Theodore’s, but added for the sake of the church. They are also missing in the versions in Marius Mercator.

^A ...had committed themselves to the errors of the heretics, against which it would be easy to stumble, he might implant the genuine faith in their minds.

*E. Liturgy.* Theodore’s liturgy is brought forward by Leontius alone (l. c., p. 687), and Eusebius Renaudot has produced the Greek from the codices in *Liturg. Or. coll.* II, p. 582: «Τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἕτερον καλὸν τῶν εἰρημένων οὐ δεύτερον. Ἀναφορὰν γὰρ σχεδιάζει ἑτέραν παρὰ τὴν πατρόθεν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις παραδεδομένην, μήτε τὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων αἰδεσθείς (α), μήτε τὴν τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου (β) ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι συγγραφεῖσαν λόγου τινὸς κρίνων ἀξίαν· ἐν ᾗ ἀναφορᾷ βλασφημῶν, οὐ γὰρ εὐχῶν τὴν τελετὴν ἀνεπλήρωσεν.» But in later times the Nestorians (c) very often commemorate it, nor do I doubt that Theodore, influenced by the conditions of his own time, composed a liturgy, a thing which it was permitted for every bishop to do. Cf. Bingham, *l. l.* I, p. 117. And certainly his contemporaries in liturgical matters, who seemed to need emendation, ^B are understood to have applied their efforts to this. But it is asked whether that liturgy of Theodore, which is in use among the Nestorians (d) and which Renaudot (e) has presented in Latin, is genuine and entire, or otherwise. This difficult question is rendered more difficult by the fact that Renaudot used very recent codices, one of which was mutilated and the other strangely interpolated. Cf. *l. l.*, p. 566. I suspect, however, that only a few things which seemed to savor of Nestorianism were removed by interpolation. In general, three things must be held regarding the liturgies of the ancients (f): first, that they emerged gradually and little by little; second, that the most illustrious doctors of the Church, whose liturgies are praised, did not so much invent new ones as they increased and emended those which were already in use; third, that these very liturgies, being increased and emended, as they were worn out by long use, underwent greater or lesser mutations over time. From which it follows that Theodore’s liturgy, as it was genuine...

^C That he was initiated into that Nestorian formula, perhaps as a disciple of the Antiochene school (Muenter, in *Stendlin and Tzschirner’s Archiv für Kirchengesch.*, I, p. 25), who, removed somewhat from the din of contentions, sought to consult for peace in his booklet. And so he inculcates again and again how recondite the mystery of the Incarnation is, and he shrinks from the rashness of those who seem to themselves to have fully perceived it. He makes use of an oratorical style that is verbose here and there, in which he has expended much diligence. What of the fact that he has emulated Attic elegance? Cf. *v. c.* p. 372, *Syid*, p. 375, *al.*, υἱεῖς, p. 385, θέσει, p. 581, δοξάζειν, *putare*. Those to whom he speaks he has called sometimes τοὺς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τροφίμους (p. 575), sometimes τοὺς Ἐκκλησίας υἱεῖς (p. 575), sometimes τοὺς Ἐκκλησίας παῖδας (p. 572). The remaining noteworthy things—dogmatic matters, primarily—I pass over here, lest I be prolix.

(a) ...not knowing what it is. In my opinion, it is to be understood as that which was then in common use, whose origin the credulity of that time traced back to the apostles. Nor is it less probable that it was the same one whose scraps Bingham collected from the genuine writings of Chrysostom (*l. l.*, v, p. 193 sq.). (b) Basil’s liturgy remains in Greek, Syriac, and Coptic, but it differs significantly among itself in the various languages. See Renaudot, *l. l.*, I, p. 1 sq.; p. 57 sq.; II, p. 548 sq. (Op. Basil. ed. Garn., II, p. 674 sq.). It has certainly been interpolated and has experienced the various injuries of time, but I do not see how you can say that either it, or indeed any other, was not derived from Basil. ^D I would only wish you to consider rightly by what method new liturgies were composed. (c) I believe that she omitted that which was in the missals but not in the works of Theodore. There was another volume of a different subject, *De arcanis* (the sacraments), to which Assemani and others referred the book for the baptized and the liturgy. See above. (d) According to the testimony of Assemani (*l. l.*, III, 31, p. 228), it exists in all the missal books of the Nestorians. It is read twice in the Amiden codices; cf. Assemani, *l. l.*, I, p. 581, 583. (e) Fabricius, *l. l.*, X, p. 561: Fragments from the liturgy in Syriac and Latin, *ap.* Richard Simon, *ad Gabriel. Philadelphum*, p. 148 sq. Renaudot’s error with added Syriac words. (f) With profit, cf. regarding these, Bingham, *l. l.*, v, p. 411 sq.

(*) In the Works of Justin, perhaps because of the first words «ἱκανῶς τὸν κατὰ Ἰουδαίων καὶ Ἑλλήνων λέξαντες ἔλεγχον» he insinuated it.

is that it is not whole, though it is uncertain what has been removed or added. But to explain what must be determined regarding its authenticity, we must go back a little further. There are four Nestorian liturgies, of which the first is called the Apostles' (of Addai and Mari) (cf. Renaudot, *loc. cit.* II, pp. 584, 597). It is the most customary, and also ancient, but throughout the passage of time it has been greatly changed (cf. *ibid.* p. 588, where the priest prays to Mary that she might intercede with the Son for him). The second is Diodorus', which, as far as I am aware, has not yet been edited. Renaudot, who had said in the *loc. cit.* II, pp. 569, 575, 622, that there was no liturgy of Diodorus, and whom La Croze followed in *Hist. du Christ. des Indes*, I, p. 323 (cf. his *Remarques sur l'hist. du Chr. des Indes*, Halle 1757, p. 15), was refuted by Assemani, *loc. cit.* III, 1, pp. 29, 30; see also p. 236. The third, that of Theodore, ^B celebrated from the first Sunday of the Annunciation until Palm Sunday, differs from the first primarily in that the priest speaks more prolixly. Finally, the fourth, that of Nestorius (Renaudot, *loc. cit.* II, pp. 626-638), celebrated five times each year, bears the same character as Theodore's, except that it is more verbose. It is indeed ancient, but it is wrongly attributed to Nestorius. And why this was done, certain traces of an old Constantinopolitan liturgy, which seem to be present in it, betray. Now, since that first one and the fourth (we say nothing of the second) are falsely attributed to certain authors, you would wrongly conclude that the same applies to the third. For the Nestorians did not engage in trifling here; rather, they fell into an easy error. That common liturgy, accepted by the Fathers, was easily derived from the apostles; the other, as it seems, was brought from elsewhere ^C and easily ascribed to Nestorius. But since it is certain that Theodore composed a liturgy, I for my part would ascribe that one to him. Yet I do not dare to advance beyond probability. Nothing is accomplished in this matter from the internal character of the liturgy. For, to say nothing of the language, doctrine in liturgical books is neither elucidated with dogmatic clarity, nor is anything brought forward in them except what is accepted in the assembly for which they are intended. Moreover, not only that liturgy of Nestorius, as Renaudot *loc. cit.* pp. 643, 644 thinks, contains manifest signs of Nestorianism, but the others also contain them, namely those things that can fall into liturgies. I believe that various Nestorian missal books will provide enough arguments.

EXCERPT FROM LEON ALLATIUS' DIATRIBE ON THE THEODORES

Theodore of Mopsuestia heard Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, and Flavian, prelate ^C of the Church of Antioch; and, nourished by their doctrines and taught to labor clearly and strongly—as Domnus of Antioch says to the Emperor Theodosius, and John in his epistle to the Council of the Orientals—he was sent into the ranks of the heretics. He was a fellow student of John, bishop of Constantinople, and he educated Nestorius, as Evagrius holds in *Eccl. Hist.* lib. I, cap. 2, among others; and both Theodore himself and Nestorius became presbyters of the Church of Antioch. But Nestorius, while still a presbyter, heard Theodore of Mopsuestia teaching as bishop, who was himself also distinguished in teaching, as Gennadius testifies in cap. 53, and was a speaker who spoke *ex tempore*. Before he presided over the episcopate, he withdrew into the desert and lived a solitary life, but, enticed by the filth of wordly pleasures, he fled from the life which he had embraced, saying farewell to the world, and became a deserter: afterward, repenting at the words of Chrysostom, he obtained pardon for his transgressions, and, ^D having once more embraced the institute of life, he continued as far as he was able. Finally, having become a bishop, he departed in the peace of Catholic communion, not only without any complaint, but even with great glory, as Facundus of Hermiane notes in *Pro trium capitulorum defensione*, lib. VIII, cap. 1, citing John of Antioch, and he is adorned everywhere throughout his whole life by struggles against the Arians, and Eunomians, and other heretics, and is defended in many ways by the Council of Chalcedon, by John of Constantinople and Gregory the Nazianzen, while he was alive, and after his death by John and Domnus of Antioch, and by the whole synod of the East, and by Cyril of Alexandria, and by Proclus of Constantinople against the calumnies of his adversaries. And indeed, while he was still among the living, Leontius also proves in *De sectis*, act. IV, 3, that he had incurred the offense of no one regarding his dogmas. "About those times, there were two great men, Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who contended against the Arians, and Macedonius, and Apollinarius, and the whole..."

of the sacred Scriptures they illustrated with commentaries, and being held in great esteem, they died; and while they lived, no one found fault with any of their statements, but many even wrote encomiums for them; for Basil, indeed, praises them, and John Chrysostom. Later, however, when the Nestorian dogma was set in motion, Cyril, who had formerly praised them, was compelled to write against their works, because Nestorius was confirming his own dogma from them; for, having written commentaries on the holy Scriptures, they did not stop at what was proper, but wishing to divide the utterances in the holy Scripture—some relating to the divinity, others to the humanity—they were found to be introducing two hypostases and a division of Christ. And for this reason Cyril was compelled to write against them, because Nestorius was confirming his own dogma from them. For this reason, also, while they were alive, no one spoke against them, because the necessity of fighting against the greater heresies covered such dogmas. But a little while after Theodore and Diodorus had died, the heresy of Nestorius arose. ^A Ibas also was himself a Nestorian, as the letter written by him to Maris the Persian indicates, in which he praises Theodore up and down, by whose authority Nestorius confirmed his own dogmas. But they raise the question again, saying: "And why did he not demand that he [i.e., Ibas] anathematize Theodore, but instead accepted his letter to Maris, in which there is much that is praising of Theodore?" And for this, they ought rather to complain of holy Cyril than of the synod; for it is established that the man of holy memory, Cyril, when some were seeking this very thing—that Theodore be subjected to anathema—wrote to Proclus that it was by no means necessary to anathematize ^B Theodore: "For," he says, "all the Orientals have Theodore as a great teacher, and if we anathematize him, we shall cause a great schism in the Church of the Orientals; among whom is one, Ibas, who will not permit him to be anathematized." Therefore, that which the holy Cyril prevented, how could the synod have done? Cyril, indeed, did not abstain from the communion of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was even then being proclaimed—just as when he was alive—throughout the East; for he saw that the most vital points of piety were preserved in pristine dogmas. ^C But whatever they may assert, it is certain that the sayings of Theodore which favored the Nestorian heresy, or which were outside the norm of the Catholic faith, whether they had been disseminated in his own writings or in the commentaries of others, were never approved by the orthodox Fathers; on the contrary, they were rejected and subjected to anathema by many in private, and then finally in the Fifth General Council, together with Theodore himself, as heretical and harmful to Catholic ears, and Theodore’s memory was thrust from the diptychs, as Emperor Justinian records in his edict. ^D Theodore, however, having died in his own impiety, was proscribed by the entire Church. Furthermore, even the whole body of the Church in Mopsuestia, of which he is said to have been bishop, because of his blasphemies—on account of which he was numbered by the holy Fathers with the Greeks, the Jews, and the Sodomites—erased his name from that time on from the sacred diptychs of the Church, as the records drawn up concerning this matter in the same city by the synod of the province demonstrate.

^A And in his place, they substituted the name of Cyril of Alexandria, who had undertaken a struggle against him and his dogmas, a fact which is proved by the testimonies of many in the synod of Mopsuestia. George Cedrenus, in his Synopsis of the Fifth General Synod, p. 376, says: "They also anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius—that man of Jewish mind—together with the so-called 16th epistle." Photius, in *Bibliotheca*, cod. 18: "The acts of the fifth synod were read, in which the so-called 'Three Chapters' were discussed—those concerning Origen, who was condemned with his writings; and those concerning Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who were likewise condemned." And Gregory the Great, in his letter (lib. VII, ep. 34), reports that the apostolic see refused to receive the History of Sozomen, for this reason alone: that he is too profuse in his praises of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and declares that he was a doctor of the Church. But the apostolic see refuses to receive the History of Sozomen itself, because he tells many lies and praises Theodore of Mopsuestia too much, and claims that right up to the day of his death he was a great doctor of the Church. Regarding this, Vossius notes in his *De historicis Graecis*, lib. II, cap. 20: "What he says about Theodore of Mopsuestia, you will not find today in Sozomen, but in Theodoret (Hist. V, 40). Wherefore it might seem to be an error of Gregory. But it is more likely that Sozomen wrote this in those parts of his work which are lost; for Sozomen himself relates in his preface that he had brought his History down to the seventeenth consulship of Theodosius the Younger, so that nearly fifty years of history are missing." You may read more about this elsewhere, indeed in the Chronicle of Victor of Tunnuna, found in Basnage, vol. I.

Theodore the Presbyter of Raithu recites the perverted opinions of Theodore in his book *On the Incarnation of the Lord*. ^B After this Apollinarius, there immediately arose a certain Theodore of the city of Mopsuestia, in the region of Cilicia, who had obtained the bishopric. He appeared as the plain opposite of Apollinarius, casting with a bold mind and an undaunted heart extraordinary insults upon the Lord Christ, calling him one man, similar to us, and an ordinary person, who by the progress of grace received from God was called God, and from the baptism in the Jordan had obtained among the first the gift of the Holy Spirit, being baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. He said that God the Word, on account of his excellent virtue, had willingly dwelt in him, and had bestowed upon him divine dignity and, thereafter, adoration after his consummation. By these and other impious statements, he said that he knew of two natures in Christ, terminated by their own proper limits, and reconciled between themselves only by habitude. This is a second heresy: to confess one nature and two natures defined by their own limits in Christ is not correct. Suidas has recorded these very things in his Lexicon under the entry ^C Theodore of Mopsuestia. George Cedrenus, in his *Synopsis chronica*, p. 381, in which the Emperor Justinian writes in his *Epistle to the Synod*: "These four synods having thus taken place, and having been confirmed, and holding sway in the Church of God, those who held to the views of Nestorius strove to have their heresy prevail again by means of the excuse of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who blasphemed far worse than his disciple Nestorius. Wherefore, we, too, following our fathers and wishing the orthodox faith to be preserved unharmed, exhort that his blasphemies be examined and that a judgment be made against him and those of his mind; for, in addition to his other innumerable blasphemies uttered against Christ our God—namely, that the God Word is one and Christ is another, [that he was] troubled by the passions of the soul and the desires of the flesh, and ^D of worse things, gradually departing toward better things by the progress of works, and having become blameless through the best manner of life, and having been baptized as a mere man in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and that through baptism he had received the grace of the Holy Spirit and had been judged worthy of adoption; and that Christ was to be adored in the person of the God Word according to the likeness of a royal image; and after the resurrection had become immutable in his thoughts and without sin. And in addition to these things, he said that the union of the God Word with Christ was such as the Apostle said regarding the man and the woman: 'The two shall be one flesh.'" With these four councils thus having been acted upon and confirmed, and holding authority in the Church of God, those of Nestorius's...

^A followers who have once again endeavored to confirm their heresy, rely upon the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who blasphemed much worse than Nestorius, his disciple. We therefore, following our holy Fathers, and wishing to preserve the right faith without any stain, exhort you that, by examining the blasphemies of this man too, you might pass judgment upon him and his followers; for, besides countless other things which he impiously vomited forth as curses against Christ our God, he also put forth this: that the Word of God is one being, and Christ, who was troubled by the passions of the soul and the desires of the flesh which caused him distress, is another, and that, by degrees, as he desisted from worse things, he advanced in the progress of his actions toward better, and used an irreproachable manner of an excellent life; who, as a mere man, was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, received the grace of the Holy Spirit through baptism, was deemed worthy of adoption, and was worshipped as Christ in the person of the Word of God in the likeness of the royal image; and that after the resurrection he was of constant mind and void of sins. Furthermore, he pronounced that the union of the Word with Christ was that which was spoken by the Apostle regarding husband and wife: "And the two shall be one flesh." Hesychius, a priest of Jerusalem, also pursues the wicked dogmas of Theodore in his *Ecclesiastical History*, the words of which are recited in the fifth synod, collat. 5, and others.

He wrote nearly countless volumes, in which, while he opposes the heresies of others, he at the same time gives birth to others and ^B labors in vain; and while he refutes Apollinaris, he brings forth the impious dogmas of Nestorius. John of Antioch and the synod of the East to Proclus of Constantinople, as is found in Facundus, book VIII, ch. 1: "Our souls are too much wounded, because we endure such calumnies not only from those living who wish to disturb the Churches, but also from him who has progressed well in his life, the blessed Theodore, who for forty-five years shone brightly in doctrine, and refuted every heresy, and, receiving no detraction from the orthodox anywhere in his life, after his departure from here a long time ago, and after many struggles, and after ten thousand books written against heresies, and after having been approved in the sight of priests and emperors and peoples, is now in danger of enduring the things of the heretics and being preached as next to them." We shall commemorate, from so many books, those which we were permitted to note. Let the

Interpretation of Creation

He also adorned the Davidic Psalms with commentary and expositions. From these expositions some are recited, by which his heresy and agreement with Nestorius are convinced, namely from the commentary on Psalms VIII, XXI, and LXVIII, in the fifth general synod, collat. 4, and on Psalm XLVIII, by Facundus Hermianensis, book IX, ch. 4, so that he might defend Theodore from heresy. Whether he has done this rightly, let it be the judgment of others. We are compelled to think otherwise, who know that these expositions on the Psalms were not entirely approved by Theodore himself. For he writes that many things slipped past him, as one just beginning, which need more mature correction, as the same man writes to Cerdon in his book *On Allegory and History against Origen* in Facundus, book III, ch. 6, and book X, ch. 1: "I, indeed, do not attribute the fact that you praise our work to anyone else than to the friendship which you have toward ^D us, which you have also always shown in many and great matters; and especially since you admire those things which were written on the Psalms, which we also wrote first of all the rest. We did not, however, have as much diligence regarding that matter as we ought to have had; for we have suffered whatever happens to beginners, being established in the inexperience of writing: since also many changes, by that...

time which we now occupy, have been adopted, which it is not the business of the present time to narrate: for which reason many things were composed by us rather negligently, and especially those which are first. Nor does Facundus deny this in his book ^A X, ch. 5: Theodore of his own accord reproving himself in his exposition of the Psalms, confessed that many things were composed by him negligently, and especially those which were first, and he asserted that some things had been inserted into his books by the Apollinarists. But Hesychius the priest of Jerusalem narrates the matter to us as it actually happened, in his *Ecclesiastical History*: And again, he began to live well, and again to be in the clerical state, and having left Antioch, he migrated to Tarsus, from which he passed to Mopsuestia, being ordained bishop in that place, when the time for manifesting the preaching of that impiety had not yet, by God's will, arrived. But he, beginning his first elements of doctrine from Jewish vanity, wrote a book on the prophecy of the Psalms, denying all the predictions concerning the Lord. But being blamed and in danger, he said things contrary to his own mind, not by his own will, but compelled by the complaints of all, and promising to delete the book itself, he secretly preserved the poison of Jewish impiety: for while pretending to hand over his commentaries, he maliciously attempted to hide the bait; much time indeed, in a small space speaking perversely, he who was deservedly hidden. There exists even now the

Exposition, continued to the Psalter, of Theodore of Antioch, in a continuous explanation of the Psalter,

Also, some things are recited from his commentary on the *Song of Songs* in the fifth general council, collat. 4. But let us hear from the same what he himself felt about that book: "When I was weary of reading the *Song of Songs*, because they were set forth neither according to the prophetic style, nor according to the tradition of histories, as the scripture of Kings, nor do they use demonstrative admonition of study, I do not know how the precept of your letters, demanding from us an irredeemable reason concerning the *Song of Songs*, made me more diligent concerning it—violently, indeed. And thus, for I did not cease, and at the very beginning of the reading, as though with studious alacrity, nodding frequently and sleeping, as at the banquet of the nuptial book, and this royal one, lulled to sleep, etc." The rest can be seen in the same council, collat. 4.

^C Also, from his commentary on the twelve prophets, some things are recited in the same synod, collat. [i]without examination, of those who apply the prophetic voices; on Joel P., 'It is proposed to us now to begin the interpretation of the blessed prophet Joel'; on Amos P., 'It is evident therefore that also the blessed prophet Amos, whom he interprets by the grace of God'; on Abdias P., 'The Idumeans were hostile to the Israelites from above'; on Jonas P., 'He is the one itself, being God of both the Old and New'; on Micheas P., 'Similar to those about Osee, and Amos, and the rest, as many as'; on Nahum P., 'Nineveh was a great city, full of a multitude, as the divine Scripture teaches'; on Abbacuc P., 'Now the Assyrian had led the ten tribes into their own land'; on Sophonias P., 'Not far from the blessed Abbacuc in time is this prophecy'; on Aggaeus P., 'Osee indeed, and Joel, and Amos, and Micheas are the blessed prophets common to all'[/i] (b).

In explaining also the volumes of the New Testament, he applied diligent labor. Hence, from his commentary on Matthew, ^D lib. 1 and 4, some things are recited in the same synod, collat. 4, and in Facundus, lib. 11, ch. 2. Also from his commentary on Luke, some things of his are brought forward in the same council, and many in the Greek catenae on the Gospel of Luke. Just as also from his commentary on John, lib. 1 and lib. 6, most things, and from Facundus, lib. 9, ch. 3, some things.

Of this same exposition on the *Acts of the Apostles*, Emperor Justinian speaks in his *Edict on the orthodox faith*, the beginning of which is: [i]"Knowing that there is nothing. But worse is that in the interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles said to be by him, the same Theodore compares Christ, etc."[/i] Moreover, what is worse, even in the exposition which he composed on the *Acts of the Apostles*, the same Theodore compares Christ, etc. From book 1 of this exposition, some things are reported in the same synod, collat. cited.

Also Facundus mentions his exposition on the *Epistle to the Romans*, lib. 3, ch. 6. And from those same he adduces some things. From the same interpretation, some things are recited in the fifth synod, collat. cited (c). He also wrote a book or commentary on [index: entries preserved]

^A the opinions, when they encounter his books. But not even Theodore, outstripping the Greeks and Jews and all heretics in impiety—for this man, in addition to his other blasphemies, was not content with misinterpreting to his own errors the Creed of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, but also despised it—and to proceed further, sometimes bears the pretexts of disturbances. ^B And having despised this, he set forth another creed filled with every impiety, in which he dared to anathematize those who thought otherwise; so that, according to his madness, all the holy apostles and Fathers were condemned. But this impious creed of Theodore was read both in the first synod at Ephesus and at Chalcedon, and was condemned by both synods along with the one who set it forth and those who received it. ^C But your holiness should know that when the exposition composed by him, as the presenters alleged, was brought to the holy synod, as it contained nothing sound, the holy synod condemned it as being full of distorted concepts and, as it were, generating the impiety of Nestorius. But while condemning those who so thought, it provided for the situation by not mentioning the man, nor did it subject the man himself by name to the anathema for the sake of dispensation, so that those who had applied their mind to the reputation of the man might not discard themselves from the churches. The dispensation in these matters is an excellent and wise thing. For if he were still living and were a comrade-in-arms to the blasphemies of Nestorius, or wished to argue in support of the things that he himself wrote, he would have suffered also the anathema against his own person; since, however, he has departed to God, it suffices, as I think, for the things written by him unsuitably to be cast out by those who hold the right faith. ^D *Let your holiness know that when the exposition composed by him was brought to the holy synod—for so those who brought it said—as it contained nothing sound, the holy synod indeed condemned it, as being full of perverted concepts, and welling up, as it were, with the impiety of Nestorius; yet in condemning those who held such views, it exercised dispensation and did not mention the man, nor did it put him by name under the anathema, by reason of dispensation, so that some, having regard for the reputation of the man, might not cast themselves out of the churches. But the dispensation in these matters is an excellent and wise thing. For if he were still among the living, and were an ally in the blasphemies of Nestorius, or wanted to argue on behalf of the things he himself wrote, he would have suffered an anathema against his own person as well; but since he has departed to God, it suffices, as I imagine, that these things written by him so oddly be cast out by those who have sound views.*

^A Since it is proven that he was opposed to Sabellius, and that he acknowledged three persons in the Trinity, and [since he claimed] that this symbol, in which they allege the Trinity is denied, was not by the testimony of the ancients [the work] of Theodore, nor could he have denied it — [a man] whom blessed Cyril records as having written twenty or perhaps even more books against the Arian and Eunomian heresies, and other works; whatever the case may be, this symbol was recited in the Fifth General Synod, and was condemned together with its author, collat. 4. And after the blasphemies of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his impious symbol were read, the holy synod exclaimed: "Satan composed this symbol. Anathema to him who composed this symbol." The First Ephesian Synod anathematized this symbol together with its author. We know of but one symbol of faith, which the holy Fathers of Nicaea set forth and handed down.

Furthermore, he wrote against Apollinaris and his heresies many books, which those who favor the praises of Theodore highly extol. Theodoret, in his *Ecclesiastical History*, in the final chapter: *At that time, when divine Theodotus ruled the Church of Antioch, Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, a teacher of the whole Church and one who had fought victoriously against every heretical phalanx, reached the end of his life.* This man enjoyed the teaching of Diodorus the Great, and became a companion and fellow-worker of the most divine John; for together they drank from the spiritual streams of Diodorus. And for thirty-six years he continued in his office, arraying himself against the phalanx of Arius and Eunomius, and fighting against the rapacious doctrine of Apollinaris, and providing superior pasture for the divine sheep. ^B Leontius of Byzantium also mentions him in *Against Nestorius and Eutyches*. Many things from the third and fourth books of the same work are recited in the Fifth Synod, *dicta* collat. Facundus also brings forward some things in book III, cap. 2, and book IX, cap. 4, and book X, cap. 1. Was this a different work of his, *Against the Synusiasts and Apollinarists*? Apollinarists are called Synusiasts, because they taught that the nature of God and the man Christ was one, that is, *synchyton*, or commingled and composite, human and divine: and therefore they are called [followers of synchysis]. Facundus, lib. VIII, cap. 4: *For Theodore acted frequently, as much in books as in sermons to the people, Against the Synusiasts, or as they are called from the name of their author, Apollinarists, the progenitors of the Eutychian dementia, who arising in his times said that there was one nature of Christ; in opposing whom, if he is found to have lapsed through human frailty in his wording, what impious act did the synod do, believing that he remained in the Catholic sense with such great people attesting to it?* Thus, those who wrote against the Apollinarists were said to write *against the Synusiasts*. Thus Diodorus of Tarsus is praised by Leontius, lib. I, and Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Antioch [are praised] under the same title by Anastasius in his *Ecloge* of testimonies, cap. (a). Some things from this work are recited in the Fifth Synod, which are said to have been proposed and refuted by blessed Cyril, collat. 4.

Against the heresies of the Arians and Eunomians, he interpreted twenty or perhaps more books, and other evangelical and apostolic statements besides these, concerning which St. Cyril reports in Facundus, lib. II, cap. 3: *And these labors of his, no one has dared to criticize, but rather to honor with correct decree the zeal for sound dogmas which is in them; which are also recited in the Fifth Synod, and among these are those things which Facundus commemorates under this title: From the second book of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, On the fact that Christ is one, against Theodore.* ^C But the reading of the synod, by which Theodore is censured, not praised, is far different. For it holds thus: *Which books, indeed, one would not wish to criticize, but rather would honor, if the correctness of the dogmas were in them.* He says the books of Theodore could have been praised if they taught nothing depraved: but soon it is demonstrated that some impious things are in them.

Item, twenty-five books *Against Eunomius for divine Basil*. Photius reads in *Bibliotheca* cod. [number missing]: ^D *The books of Theodore of Antioch for Basil against Eunomius in twenty-five books were read. His phrasing is not particularly brilliant, but in his thoughts and arguments he is extremely dense, and he abounds excellently in testimonies from Holy Scripture. He refutes the arguments of Eunomius almost word for word, showing him to be very ignorant of external disciplines, and much more so of our theology.* But this man, as I think, was the bishop of Mopsuestia. He says in cod. 177 that the books were twenty-eight. And to this writing of Cyril, indeed, the aforesaid Fifth Synod gave testimony, collat. 4.

^A Ex Leonis Allatii. From this, some things are adduced in the Fifth General Council, citation 4 being often praised.

This same man is that Theodore who, in twenty-eight books, did not sluggishly fight against Eunomius, and who confirmed the position of Saint Basil, or rather, the truth itself. And cod. 138 mentions the same work, discussing the writing of Eunomius against Basil: "Upon which Theodore, and Gregory of Nyssa, and Sophronius—of whom we have made mention above—happening, after bruising it with many blows of argument, no less than their predecessor, they cast the dead thing, reeking of all filth, back upon its author." Whether these things, which Facundus recounts in book IX, cap. 3, were culled from this or a superior work, who, since neither exists, shall judge?

Against Origen regarding allegory and history, to Cerdon. Whence also he incurred the hatred of the Origenists. Facundus, book III, cap. 6.

Against those who assert that man sins by nature, not by will, five books. Photius read this in the Bibliotheca, cod. 177: "The work of Theodore of Antioch—who is that bishop of Mopsuestia, as we have learned from certain epistles—was read, under this title: *Against those who assert that men sin by nature, not by will.* That disputation is concluded in five books, which he wrote against the Westerners infected with this plague. For thence the heresy arose; they report that the author of this heresy, living in regions of the East, sent the books composed on the newly-devised heresy to his countrymen in his homeland, so that by this art he might draw many there into his own opinion, and thus imbue entire churches with those absurd notions." ^B Seek the rest from the same source. Photius also noted that he had inserted many unsound things into this [work], and he expressed what manner of man he was in that work.

*Opus Mysticum* (Mystical Work). From the thirteenth book of which Facundus, in book III, cap. 1, recounts the words against Paul of Samosata.

That God taught sin, and introduced death. Likewise, the book *To the Baptized*. From which some things are brought forward in the Fifth Synod, citation mentioned, and Facundus recounts some things in book IX, cap. 3, from the *Book to the Baptized*. Was it the same [work], or a different one?

*On the Incarnation* in fifteen books. For in the fifteenth book he concluded the whole work *On the Incarnation*, as Facundus reports in book IX, cap. 3. Gennadius reviews its arguments in *De viris illustribus*, cap. 12: Theodore, presbyter of the Church of Antioch, a man cautious in knowledge and fluent in tongue, wrote fifteen books against the Apollinarians and Eunomians *On the Incarnation of the Lord*, containing fifteen thousand lines. In which, with the purest reason and testimonies of the Scriptures, he shows that the Lord Jesus had the fullness of humanity just as he had the fullness of the divinity. He also teaches that man consists only of two substances, that is, soul and body, and that sense and spirit are not another substance, but are functions innate to the soul, by which it breathes, by which it is rational, and by which it makes the body sensible. The fourteenth book of this work, however, discussing properly the nature of the uncreated and solely incorporeal Lord of all, the Trinity, and the reason for creatures, he explained with a pious sense by the authority of the holy Scriptures; and in the fifteenth volume, he confirmed and fortified the whole body of his work by citing the traditions of the Fathers. Justinian mentions [this] in his *Edict on the Orthodox Faith*:

^C "But also, when the author of the epistle says that there is one power, or authority, of the two natures, he clearly reveals himself to be a follower of heretical assertions—of Theodore indeed, who affirms the same in various impiously published books *On the Incarnation*; and of Nestorius in various writings, etc." ^D And Cyril of Alexandria (t. V, part II, p. 198), in his epistle to the clergy and to Lampon the presbyter: "But the Eastern bishops were accusing [some], as if they were indeed keeping silent about the name of Nestorius, and pretending to turn away from him, but were skipping over to the books of Theodore *On the Incarnation*, in which are set forth things much worse than the blasphemies of Nestorius; for he was the father of Nestorius' heresy, and the impious man spoke his own views in those things in which he is now." Many impious things from books I, II, VII, VIII, XII, XIII, et [ceteris].

(a) Philologists have long since recognized that Theodore, if it had been possible, would have wounded St. Jerome with this book because of the things he was writing against the Pelagians.

^A 14. They are recited in the Fifth Council. See also Facundus, who very often makes use of the testimonies of that work. The same Theodore himself, however, at the beginning of the work to which he had given the title *On Apollinaris and his Heresy*, testifies that it was interpolated by heretics, and especially by the Apollinarists. His words are cited by Facundus, book x, chapter 1: "For thirty years have now passed since we wrote the book *On the Incarnation of the Lord*, extending to fifteen thousand lines. In it, we examined the errors of Arius and Eunomius regarding this matter, as well as the empty presumption of Apollinaris throughout that entire work, so that, in my opinion, I omitted nothing that pertained to the solidity of ecclesiastical orthodoxy and the conviction of their impiety. But those who presume everything most easily, and who furthermore were instructed by Apollinaris, who had been the leader of this heresy, made our work manifest to all who felt the same way, if by any means they might find there something capable of refuting the things that are written in it. But since no one presumed to take up the contest against the writings, they followed the example of weak and cunning athletes who, while they cannot struggle against stronger opponents, attempt to overthrow them with the snares and stratagems they have at their disposal. For they themselves, without a doubt, wrote certain absurd things that would never have been spoken by us. Finally, they interpolated these very things into a certain part of our writings and displayed them to their associates; and sometimes they even showed them to our own followers, who, because of their gullibility, listened to everything with willing minds, and—as they thought—presented this as proof of our impiety to those who saw it. But one of these writings was the claim that there are two sons. For this is how they made it appear in this work, saying that it is necessary to think and to say there are two sons, and that we vehemently defend this statement, whereas in that writing we were everywhere clearly saying that one ought not to say there are two sons. It was necessary, therefore, that those writings appear not only absurd but also weak to those who heard them, since it was impossible to prove this by any sound reason or argument; and for that reason, it was written by them as weak, so that the one who had written it might more easily be refuted thereby. One of our own, therefore, because of his great gullibility, believed these to be our writings, and for this reason was deemed worthy of being believed by those who had read those things, and he reported ^D to us those things that had been written. When, therefore, we heard this, we indeed reproached him for having believed, against our own stated words, things concerning these matters which he had often heard us speak both in Church and in private, since he should have judged our voice to be more trustworthy than the writings for the purpose of demonstrating our opinion, which it is our wish to preserve in matters of dogma." Hence Facundus concludes: "You have received, most clement emperor, the manner and the ^B guile with which the sowers of the Eutychian sect have laid snares against the words of Theodore, and how they have attempted to turn the minds of the most fickle Catholics away from his doctrine, so that they not only interpreted in a depraved way those things which he taught in a right sense, in opposition to their folly, but even corrupted his books through the insertion of falsehoods. But he, from that point, argued against their malice or the gullibility of the Catholics with confidence, because he openly proclaimed in the Church of Christ things that were consistent with sound doctrine, and his voice was more trustworthy than written documents as proof of his sentiment. For writings of one who is absent—which can be corrupted by the enemies of the Church—should not have been preferred to the testimony of his voice." And book ix, chapter 3: "For to whom, if he be of sound mind, would not the title of the work itself suffice for understanding the faith of Theodore? For who, hearing that he had composed books *On the Incarnation*, or—to express this properly, not indeed in Latin, but with a necessary word, as it is said by the Greeks—*On the Inhumanation* of the Son of God, would think that he had preached two sons? For how would he who spoke of the Son of God, that is, the Word of God, not also say 'Man' when he said he was 'inhumanated'?" Regarding this title *σαρκώσεως καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσεως*, and the distinction between the orthodox and the heterodox regarding it, repeat what we said above.

Meanwhile, it must be noted that when Possevinus transfers the words of Gennadius to Theodore the Raithenite, and asserts that Godefridus Tilmannus translated this book from Greek into Latin and that Margarinus de La Bigne inserted it into the *Bibliotheca of the Holy Fathers*, tom. I of the Paris edition, he errs in more than one way. For this Antiochene, who wrote fifteen books *On the Incarnation of the Lord*, is far different from Theodore the Raithenite: and the book of Theodore the Raithenite *On the Divine Economy and the Manner of the Flesh Assumed by God*, in which the discussion concerns Mani, Paul of Samosata, Apollinaris, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, and Eutyches, and which was turned into Latin by Tilmannus, is far different from this one of the Antiochene ^C divided into fifteen books. And that this Antiochene is Theodore of Mopsuestia, and not the Raithenite, is proven in many ways from Photius and others. And clearly, the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia *On the Incarnation*, as far as I know, do not exist (indeed, they have entirely perished). See what we say below concerning Theodore the Raithenite.

On the Magic of the Persians, three books.

differs from pious worship; three little books, ^A which he inscribes to Mastubius, who was acting as chorepiscopus. In the first book, he sets forth the wicked dogma of the Persians, which Zasrades introduced; or concerning Zaruam, whom he makes the prince of all things, and even calls fate; hence, with a libation offered, that he might beget Hormisdas, and that he begot him and Satan besides; concerning their mixing of blood (incestuous marriages); finally, when he has set forth the simply impious and obscene dogma word for word, in the former book he refutes it. In the remaining two, he treats of the pious doctrine of the faith, and having taken his exordium from the creation of the world, he slips in like manner by a digression to the law of grace itself. This is believed to be that Theodore of Mopsuestia; for he proclaims that he confirms the heresy of Nestorius mainly in the third book. In fact, he also fashions the restoration of the impious to their former state.

Against the calumnies of Julian the Apostate against Christians, he is praised in the Greek catena on Luke: ^B *Theodore of Mopsuestia, from the works against the accusations of Julian the Apostate against Christians.*

Anastasius praises the letter to Domnus in his *Ecloge of Dogmatic Uses* with these words: *Theodore of Mopsuestia, from the letter to Domnus.*

But, he says, Sozomen writes that Theodore was a Polyhistor, and adds also that he was sufficiently learned in rhetoric. Alemannus answers very learnedly: It is true he is called a Polyhistor, not as being eloquent and fine-sounding, but as one who is possessed of much literature, and of varied and manifold knowledge, as A. Gellius says of Apion, who was called Polyhistor. Cyril, however (against Julian, book X, p. 342), so as to express the faculty of speaking and the erudition of Clement of Alexandria by his own names, called him that, and which words he explains elsewhere (book II, p. 231). ^C Nor indeed did one who was versed in the orators, and who had heard the supreme rhetoricians, as did Theodore with Libanius, immediately emerge eloquent and refined. For he neither had a nature adapted to that, nor did he think it worth the work to polish it with art, as he clearly declares in those monuments of his which we have seen. We have in fact read certain fragments of his various works, some expositions of psalms, and complete commentaries on the minor prophets, which, if Savile does not have them at hand, let him consult Photius in the cited places, who read some of his works and judged them thus: *His style is neither noble, nor very clear; he repeats the same things for the most part, and it is somehow graceless and unpleasant.* And he is unclear, although he does not make use of strange diction, but rather of long-windedness from his excessive use of periods and successive parentheses, through which the mind is stretched to the utmost from the subject matter, and he abounds in the oblique cases of nouns and in participle constructions, and he repeats the same things frequently ^D and without any order, and his repetitions are longer than the narratives themselves, which is entirely without method and filled with surrounding circumstances, and for such reasons not a few scatter the darkness of his writings. Although he uses words that are not unusual, he is nonetheless obscure: partly because he has for the most part excessively long periods and frequent interpositions, through which the sense retreats as far as possible from the matter proposed; partly also because he abounds in oblique cases of nouns and in participles, and he revolves and re-revolves the same things frequently, and not with enough adornment, and finally because his repetitions, being more numerous than the narratives themselves, which is done altogether without method, are crammed with the adjuncts of things.

Letter to Artemius the Alexandrian presbyter. Facundus recites some things from it in book III, chapter 3.

Letter to John Chrysostom, in which he answers Chrysostom after his fall. Since the epitomizers of Gesner did not understand this, they translated it: *Antigramma against John Chrysostom*. And it is found in manuscripts in the libraries of Italy under this title: *Theodore the fallen’s response to the letter of our holy father John Chrysostom.* And certainly they speak inconsiderately who distinguish this fall from Theodore of Mopsuestia, since one and the same is this fall, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as Theodore of Antioch, which most men, since they had not smelled it out, made different. And concerning these last, the conjecture and suspicion of Photius, among others, seems to be sufficient and abundant. Savile returned the letter to the appendix of the works of Chrysostom, for two booklets of Chrysostom belong to it. *It cannot be*, says the rigid and gloomy censor, *this cold, inept, and almost ridiculous treatise of Theodore, whom Sozomen holds was a Polyhistor and trained in the liberal disciplines.* But that it is clearly not ridiculous, the weeping itself and the tears with which it is everywhere inundated, do not allow. Rather, Savile is the ridiculous one, as he was saying.

^A and because of such causes he casts not a little obscurity upon his writings. If this, therefore, is Theodore’s style of speaking, this epistle of which we are speaking is the very own of Theodore (a).

Savile continues: "Nor, in my opinion, can this *syntagma* belong to that age, since both at that time and for several centuries later, the surname of Chrysostom appears to have been unknown, as can be confirmed from George of Alexandria, who lived at least two hundred years later." At what age the name Chrysostom was first heard, we have spoken more fully elsewhere, Alemannus adds, so that there is no need to repeat it here. To those things we add only these: although Chrysostom, before he came into solitude, had often given a specimen of his eloquence, as in that oration *On the Emperor Valentinian and his Children*, which Libanius admired, yet it approaches closer to the truth that the title was later given to Chrysostom. And first, it was acclaimed so honorably either by the Antiochenes, as Metaphrastes says, or by the Byzantines to whom he preached. But Theodore wrote to Chrysostom while he was still dwelling in solitude. Now the Vatican Codex DLXVI, from which Savile had this epistle of Theodore transcribed, is very ancient, but it admitted the name of Chrysostom only in the margin; for the codices DLXIX and MCCCCLV do not have it as an addition. Just as these do not harm the surname of John, so that former [codex] does not in the least support Savile in marking Theodore's epistle as an imposture.

He observes another imposture. Toward the end, he says, he addresses Chrysostom as "father," when nevertheless, if I am not mistaken, Chrysostom as a youth wrote to Theodore, who was undoubtedly also a youth, as one who had not yet reached the twentieth year of his age. For thus Theodore addresses him: "Most God-loving brother and father, for I never doubted that I should entitle you as a father and give to a brother the honors due." And about his companion and contemporary, Libanius in the book *On his own Fortune* has this: "I was very close to Crispinus, a young man from Heraclea, who, being my contemporary, used to look upon me as a father, obeying my rules in greater and lesser matters." What wonder is it, then, if Theodore does not absolutely call Chrysostom "father," but also calls him "brother"? He does not call him "father" from length of age, but from maturity, prudence, and counsel; for Chrysostom did not once perform the role of a father toward Theodore, both when he enticed him to undertake the monastic rule of life, as Socrates and Sozomen relate, and when both, still boys, were hearing Libanius at Athens, *when I gave you much advice as you were going to the schools*. "When," he says, "I would often advise you as you went to the literary school." That those of this kind who would either recall others to a better way of life or instruct them in the doctrine of religion were called fathers, no learned person is ignorant. Caesarius, the brother of Gregory Nazianzen, although a physician by training and a quaestor by office, is often saluted as "father" by friends in the dialogue he addresses, because, as Clement of Alexandria says in the first *Stromata*, "we immediately call those fathers by whom we have been imbued with doctrine." *If everyone who is instructed is a son*, as the same author adds, *then he is a son, that is, he is deservedly named.* Origen was accustomed to write to Gregory Neocaesariensis, as it is in the *Philocalia* ch. 13: "Greetings in God, my most zealous and most venerable lord and son Gregory, from Origen." He calls him "lord" for the nobility of his birth, but "son" for his instruction. Paulinus the Christian (b) thus writes to Ausonius the pagan:

When I learn to hold this, can I Not show it, that is, to a father, To whom God willed that I should owe All holy and dear names by right? I owe to you my studies, dignity, letters, The honor of my language, toga, and fame; Advanced, raised, and instructed, I owe [all] to you, patron, teacher, father.

Just as he calls Timothy *paida* (child), to whom Dionysius the Areopagite [writes]. But Chrysostom, departing into exile, with a singular declaration of charity, calls those whom he had also begotten through the Gospel as sons unto Christ, "fathers": "We are one body, nor is the body separated from the head, nor the head from the body; we are separated by place, but united by love; nor will death be able to sever us; for even if my body should die, the soul lives, and remembers the people; you are my fathers."

^D I, for my part, observe also that example of Jonas recited in the epistle, where Theodore says: "For that one was not grieved for misanthropy, but he was in danger, lest he should produce a slander against the one who sent him, as if he were a liar." Nor indeed did he grieve because he hated men, but he was endangered lest he should turn the clemency of the one sending him into the crime of a lie; the passage, I say, does not here depart much from that of Theodore in his genuine commentary on Jonas, which we have edited (Jon. iv, 2), *that from this it would result for him that he would receive the reputation of a false man and a deceiver.* I have been pleased to discuss these things briefly for the sake of an exercise, yet in such a way that I gladly leave the dispute to the judge.

(a) This epistle of the fallen Theodore was rejected in the Maurist edition of Chrysostom, vol. 1, p. 801 sqq. But now Montfaucon, with the liberty he is accustomed to, resolutely damns it as the invention of some insipid little Greek, and goes over to Savile’s opinion, moved not only by the nature of the style, as he says, but also by those titles of Chrysostom and father, which gave Savile a scruple not without reason. I indeed do not wish to offer an apology for this writing, but certainly if Montfaucon had seen this unpublished diatribe of Allatius, he would perhaps have pronounced a milder and more temperate judgment. For as regards the word "Chrysostom," Allatius proves that it was added late to the manuscripts of this epistle; but that the title of "father" is used by Theodore in a moral and broad sense is evident from his words near the end, ἄδελφὲ καὶ πάτερ, "brother and father." For Theodore calls Chrysostom both father and brother at the same time, which no one will deny can aptly be said of a young man also [who acts] well-meriting and loving.

(b) In Muratori’s edition of poems, X, 79. Now, regarding this edition, I am aware of the learned, very severe, and light-worthy notations by the illustrious man Viti Juvenatii.

^A of you can I forget? You are to me fathers, you are to me life, you are to me excellence. We are one body, neither is the head separated from the body, nor the body from the head. Even if we are divided by place, we are joined by charity; I will not be parted from you even by death: for even if my body dies, my soul lives and will keep the memory of you; you are to me fathers. How shall I forget you? You are to me fathers, you are to me life, you are to me glorification. You will also find this token of Chrysostom’s charity toward his own people in the third homily on the Acts of the Apostles, which is noted for it.

Savile cared little to hiss away, with these frigid arguments, Theodore’s epistle, which is adverse to the Calvinists and Lutherans, had he not brought forward another rotten defense of the same, favoring his own sectaries, as if from the very egg; for he says that the *Antirrema* of Theodore, taken from the Vatican library—if it is legitimate and not spurious—is entirely different from the oration mentioned by Sozomen, which Theodore seems to have adorned in his own excuse, not at all provoked by Chrysostom, either before his return or at the very time of his return from the desert. What is this oration of Theodore that Savile makes up for himself by citing Sozomen as the author? A cunning man indeed! As soon as he heard that Theodore, a monk who had cast off his cowl, had brought forward something in his own defense, he immediately sniffed out some excellent little nighttime work, adorned in the way that became a monk who was a deserter, renouncing God to whom he had vowed himself, bidding farewell to chastity and continence, and seeking marriages and wedlock. ^C If Savile had found an oration of Theodore anywhere in the libraries covering those chapters, he would have edited it much more willingly for the sake of the sectaries than this epistle, which asserts monastic discipline, the observance of chastity, the vows to be made and holily fulfilled by monks to God, the confession of sins, the tears of penance, and the efficacy of intercessions—an epistle at which he is so stomach-turned and nauseated that he calls it cold, inept, and ridiculous. But, I ask, let us see what reason Savile had to dream up that oration of Theodore. For Sozomen, whom he cites, does not say this; for these are his words (book viii, 2): "But when this man at the beginning met with the divine laws and had conversation with holy men, he praised this way of life and condemned the secular one; but he did not persist with the same zeal. Having repented, he was drawn to his former life, as is to be expected, adorning what he was pursuing with contrary arguments from ancient examples, as he was very learned, and he returned to the city." ^D Here indeed Theodore did at first, when he fell in with the sacred laws and conversed with holy men, approve of this kind of life and condemn the secular; but he did not persist in that same resolve. Yet, led by repentance, he was drawn back to his former habit of life, and what is consistent, adorning his resolve with contrary arguments, he returned to the city—for he had a varied and many-sided reading—having left. Sozomen records no oration here composed by Theodore, but only hints at some arguments brought forward by him during his deliberation, and perhaps suggested by his departure with the prefect of the monastery. Whether these were indeed brought forward by him, Sozomen openly denies he knows for certain, but says that it is credible, *οἷα εἰκός*, and probable, and likely. Behold Savile, clearly deceived in a childish way. We look for trustworthiness in Sozomen from another standpoint; for, being more than reasonably addicted to Theodore, he appears to have cast a veil over the truth in his narrative of his lapse. It is therefore to be noted here that not only in the times of Justinian were there devotees of Theodore ^B who would excuse his lapse and heresies, and endeavor to interpret them in a milder sense, such as Facundus, Bishop of Hermiana, in his twelve books *On the Three Chapters*, Basilius Cilix, Leontius, and others; but also his equals and contemporaries had taken care of the same thing with the greatest zeal. For Theodoret affirms in his epistles (a) that he wrote a book *For Diodorus and Theodore*, in which he dismantled the writing that had been produced against them, "fearing nothing of the power of the accusers." Justinian hints at this book in his profession of faith: "Theodoret, who wrote many books for Theodore and lavishly celebrated his praises." In which how remarkably he thought of Theodore can be gathered, both from his epistles, where he names him "that holy one," and also from the last book and chapter of his *Ecclesiastical History*, where he extols him with great praises. Sozomen surely thought these same things about Theodore, wherefore historical trustworthiness wavers terribly when he pursues Theodore’s lapse in such a way that one understands no crime in a man whom Chrysostom repeats a hundred times *ἐκπεπτωκέναι* (having fallen away). *Ἔκπτωσις* among ecclesiastical writers is, as Caesarius, just praised above, says, "The decline from virtue to the worse, and the urge from virginity to licentiousness" (*ἡ ἐξ ἀρετῆς ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ὑπονόστησις, καὶ ἡ ἐκ παρθενίας ἐπὶ ἀλγινείαν ὁρμή*)—when one recedes and falls away from virtue to vices and from modesty to lust. Nor was Theodore, before he departed from the desert, so loose in all his vows that he could beat a retreat and look backward. Chrysostom recalls to his mind "the covenants toward Christ," the spiritual marriage with Christ. Theodore himself in this epistle says: "Pray, venerable Fathers, that the good confession which I made before God and angels and men may be kept in my sight" (*Εὔξασθε, τίμιοι Πατέρες, μνησθῆναί μου τῆς καλῆς ὁμολογίας, ἣν ὡμολόγησα ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἀνθρώπων*). Pray, venerable Fathers, that that promise which I vowed before God and angels and men may stand before my eyes. What then does Sozomen add about honorable and lawful matrimony, which Theodore was contemplating? Why also does he call it a "marriage"? For Chrysostom writes to Theodore:—

"Marriage, he says, is honorable, and the bed undefiled; but it is no longer possible for you to keep the rights of marriage; for to leave him who is joined to the heavenly bridegroom, and to join himself to a woman, is adultery, even if you call it marriage a myriad times." ^A But, you say, "honorable the marriage, and the bed undefiled." To you, however, the rights of matrimony can by no means apply. For if anyone be joined to the heavenly spouse, and then, having repudiated him, should couple himself to a woman, he commits adultery, even though you might contentiously call it marriage ten thousand times. Therefore, whoever wishes to recall to the account of truth the fall of Theodore, let him hear Chrysostom alone, it is necessary, from whom the matter stands thus. Not long after Theodore had given his name to Christ, he was forced ^B to attend to domestic affairs; and while, because of the capacity granted him for a while by the prefect of the monastery, he was spending time in the city, he was driven astray, and, ensnared by the allurements of the flesh, he was preparing to join to himself in marriage Hermione, whom he had loved most ardently. This first fall of Theodore, now a monk, into the mire of luxury, as Chrysostom himself notes, was "the first fall of your soul." But before he withdrew into the desert, he is unjustly accused by Savile of the same mire and unchastity, who incorrectly took in a negative sense that word when he frequented the "schools," and thinks that the schools were places in Antioch dedicated to pleasures and wantonness, which Theodore as an adolescent frequented, whereas Chrysostom designates by the term customary to the Greeks a school of letters, just as in his first epistle (edit. t. I, p. 28) to the same Theodore concerning the son of Urban the Phoenician, he takes the same name to signify a literary matter: "This man, having first said a long farewell to the exercises of the schools..." ^C Here, "having first said a long farewell to scholastic exercises, he was then seen to be useless, since" as Chrysostom immediately adds: "Having lept away from all labors concerning speech, he was unable to reap any fruit from there." He withdrew himself too hastily from literary labors, so that he perceived no utility from them. And in the fourth psalm: "There is no need to go to a school of letters, nor to hire pedagogues and rhetors and sophists." But Savile ought to have the less erred in that place, because he joined to the word "schools" the active verb "frequent," which Greek writers used so according to custom for studies that they have called students "frequenters." Finally, let us not dissimulate even this: Savile incorrectly inscribes the 112th Chrysostomian epistle "To Bishop Theodore." He is truly ignorant of how great the controversy ^D was among the Fathers concerning that epistle under the Emperor Justinian, and it must entirely be rendered "To Theodore the Bishop"—and he is this Mopsuestian about whom we treat, as Liberatus the Carthaginian deacon and Facundus of Hermiane, book VII, 7, who donated that entire epistle to the Latin tongue, affirm, and urge it in his own writing as a testimony to the adversaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia. But the Vatican codices of the epistles of Chrysostom, DCCXII and MCXCIV, respond well to those of Liberatus and Facundus. However, the Emperor Justinian, in his *Libellus* of the profession of faith, seems to have read only one epistle of Chrysostom to Theodore, namely that one which he had sent to him when he had fallen; but he did not acknowledge another, which might contain his praises. The Fathers of the second Constantinopolitan council, however, although they do not deny it to Chrysostom, yet judge otherwise concerning it than do the supporters of Theodore of Mopsuestia. For they say: "But if anyone concedes that it was written to Theodore himself, it is certain that John, who through his whole pontificate rightly handled the word of truth, not knowing he had written such blasphemies, had sent such a letter to him." Others report two Theodores, leaders of the Church of Mopsuestia, and wish that this epistle of Chrysostom was given to the latter. Theophanes in his chronology: "But the epistle of Chrysostom to Theodore of Mopsuestia was not to the first, but to the last one who happened to be." The epistle of Chrysostom was given to the Theodore of Mopsuestia, not to the senior bishop of his Church, but to the junior. But Theophanes errs: for Theodore the Younger, a Galatian by race, reached the supreme day of his life, as the acts of the council of Mopsuestia clearly declare and often repeat, in the twentieth year of the Emperor Justinian, namely one hundred and forty years and more after the death of John Chrysostom. Nor do the diptychs of that Church, read in the same synod, have another Theodore after that Antiochene fall. But let it be that it was another, whose name had fallen from those ecclesiastical tables, he truly will also have been scarcely immediately from the fall, so that no other leader of the Church of Mopsuestia intervened between them, and Theophanes understands this; not even by this reason will his opinion stand: for Chrysostom dies in exile while Theodore the Antiochene, who had fallen, was still surviving, who died long after under Theodosius the Younger, having completed the thirty-sixth year of his rule of the Church, as Theodoret narrates in the last book of his *History*. But indeed neither can this epistle, because it is Chrysostom's and was given to Theodore of Mopsuestia, support the supporters of his [opinion], which Justinian and Theophanes fear. For as it could escape the fathers who had gathered in Constantinople for the cause of the three chapters, and others, that the impiety of Theodore existed, so too could it happen to Chrysostom while writing about him with more honorable words. Certainly it escaped the greatest teachers of the East of that time and the prelates of the churches: Nectarius of Constantinople, Theophilus of Alexandria, Flavian of Antioch, Gregory of Nyssa, Amphilochius of Iconium, Palladius of Caesarea, and others with whom Theodore sat and gave sentence, having been celebrated in Constantinople under the Emperors Ar-

Arcadius and Honorius ^A with their respective consuls, precisely a little before John Chrysostom assumed the administration of the Church of Constantinople.

Let us add this also: Robert Balfour, in his annotations on Theodore of Raithu, seems to believe that there is another Theodore of Mopsuestia, whom Nicephorus in Book XIV of his *Ecclesiastical History*, c. 30, and Theodoret in Book V in the final section, praise with full voice. However, this is discovered to be false from what we have said, and especially since, at the time of the fifth general council, there was no other Mopsuestian Theodore besides this one, and this was abundantly proven in the Mopsuestian synod; which the bishops of the second province of Cilicia, and several others from the diptychs of the Mopsuestian Church, and the testimonies of most approved men prove, that there is no mention of the ancient Theodore—that is, the one about whom we are now writing—and that another Theodore, who was written at the end of the diptychs, originated from Galatia and had died three years earlier. Therefore, the words of Theodoret do not concern this second one. For who, having died so many years ago, could have remembered this man who was living under Justinian? And since there was no other until the times of this more recent man, the words of Theodoret are certainly about the ancient Theodore of Mopsuestia. Nicephorus transcribes the words and the opinion of Theodoret, and he has no discourse about any other than the one of whom Theodoret himself had spoken. Let this other more recent Theodore, concocted by Balfour and others and so greatly praised by Theodoret, therefore be banished.

Furthermore, regarding this Theodore (for it will be worth the effort to note this, whether on account of the Nestorian heresy or for some other cause), his authority and cult among the Syrians were so great that they translated very many of his works into their own language. But what those works were, Ebediesu, bishop of Sobas and Armenia, in the *Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Books* which he wrote in the Syriac language, expressed in this manner. The most learned in oriental languages, Abraham Ecchellensis, rendered his words thus (a): Theodore the commentator composed forty-one volumes, which are ^B unique and consist of thirty chapters. Item, an exposition on the five books of Moses, which he comprised in three volumes, worked out in a marvelous manner, for the great Alphaeus. He also expounded the Psalms of David in three books, for Cerdon and his brother. He commented on the twelve prophets in two volumes, for Mar Tyrius (c). He commented on Samuel in one volume, for Mamarianus. He also commented on Job in two volumes, for Cyril of Alexandria. He commented on Ecclesiastes in a single book, at the urgent request of Porphyrius. He also exposed Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel, covering each in individual volumes, with which he set a limit to his lucubrations on the Old Testament. He expounded Matthew in one volume, for Julius; Luke and John in two volumes, for Eusebius; he comprised the Acts of the Apostles in one volume, for Basil; he expounded the Epistle to the Romans, also for Eusebius; he expounded and clarified both Epistles to the Corinthians in two volumes, at the request of Theodore. Eustratius (d) requested an exposition of the four epistles which I am about to commemorate, namely the Epistle to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians, and to the Colossians. He expounded the two to the Thessalonians at the request of Jacob. Item, two to Timothy, at the supplication of Peter; and at the request of Cyrinus he commented on the Epistles to Titus and Philemon. And he addressed to the same man his commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews; and thus he set a limit to his commentaries on the Epistles of the Apostle in five volumes. He wrote besides a book *On the Sacraments*, and another *On the Faith*, a volume *On the Priesthood*, and two *On the Holy Spirit*, one *On the Incarnation*, two *Against Eunomius*. Item, two against those asserting that sin is placed in our very nature; two (three) *Against Magic*, one *To the Monks*, one *On Obscure Locution*, one *On the Perfection of Works* (e), five *Against Those Who Interpret the Scriptures Figuratively*, one *For Basil*, and one *On the Assumer and the Assumed*. Item, one book which he titled *Of Pearls*, and that which comprises his ^C letters. Finally, a treatise *On Legislation*, with which he put an end to his lucubrations (f).

Allatius, who seems unskilled in oriental languages, did not recognize the errors of Ecchellensis; Ecchellensis otherwise narrates in his preface (p. 27) that it was at his urging that he published this catalogue.

(a) Jos. Sim. Assemanus later reprinted this catalogue, more emended and illustrated with many notes, in his *Bibliotheca Orientalis*, t. III, from which I have judged some better readings should be taken. (b) That is (as Assemanus explains), the bulk of which is so great that it exceeds the books of all the prophets a hundred and fifty times over. (c) Ecchellensis [has] *Turim*, Assemanus *Mar Tyrium*. I suspect it should be read, for the Syriac title *mar*, *Martyrium*. For indeed Martyrius, who was later Patriarch of Antioch, was a contemporary and praiser of Chrysostom, and therefore also contemporary with Mopsuestus. Consult our *Nova Bibliotheca PP. IV*, where there is a part of the panegyric on Chrysostom spoken by this Martyrius. Certainly *Turis monachus* is read in the aforementioned Ecchellensis p. 73, but Assemanus omits this, who ought to have written it between ch. 87 and 88. He omitted it, however, because he recognized it to be an error of Ecchellensis, about whose other errors he warns us in the aforementioned volume, p. 1 and 4. (d) Allatius took *Estratea* from Ecchellensis p. 29, who had also repeated this error in the index, by which error, from the patron Eustratius, he made *Estrateam* the author. (e) Ecchellensis [has] *On the Perfection of Government*. (f) We also have diligently spoken about the writings of Mopsuestenus in the preface to volume I of our earlier edition of the *Scripturae veteres*, from which place some things not mentioned by Allatius can be known, and especially from Fabr. cum Harl. B. G. t. X. p. 346 sqq., that is to say the liturgy, the hymn, biblical questions, the commentary on Mark, and [the work] *On the Miracles of Christ*. Item, in our *Script. vet. VII*, p. 73, we presented a fragment *Theodorou peri Nestorianon*, which, however, is perhaps to be understood as [Theodore of] Raithu, not Mopsuestenus. But then in volume VI of the *Script. vet.*, after the commentaries on the XII minor prophets, we added other copious fragments of Mopsuestenus, which we are later going to accumulate with a full hand. Item vol. I, in the aforementioned preface, we said how in vain many have said (though I now except Allatius) that Mopsuestenus wrote ten thousand books. For who does not now know that "a myriad" is said by the Greeks for a large number, just as "six hundred" is used by the Latins?