HISTORICAL AND LITERARY NOTICE*
SOURCES. — The works of Theodoret himself, especially his letters; the letters of St. Leo the Great; the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (Mansi, vols. IV and V) and of Chalcedon (Mansi, vols. VI and VII). The Synodicon Cassinense (Works of Theodoret, vol. IV). — SUBSIDIES: J. Garnier, *History of Theodoret* and *Second Dissertation on the Books of Theodoret* in the *Supplement to Theodoret*, or Works, vol. V (Paris, 1684), pp. 109-258; J. V. Schulze, *Dissertation on the Life and Writings of Theodoret* in his Works (ed. Schulze, Halle, 1769), vol. I; Dupin, vol. IV, pp. 81-118; Tillemont, vol. XV: *Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus*, pp. 207-340 (with notes, pp. 868-78); Ceillier, vol. XIV, chap. 4 (pp. 32-267); Casimir Oudin, vol. I, col. 1051-1134; G. Cave, vol. I, pp. 405-9; J. A. Fabricius, *Bibliotheca Graeca*, vol. VIII, pp. 277-309, and vol. VII, pp. 429-32.
Theodoret, given to God by a sterile mother through the pious prayers of a certain celebrated monk, was born at Antioch c. 386 (or 393). Consecrated to God from infancy, he was early instructed in the liberal arts and the sound faith; and, being imbued with the Holy Scriptures, he drew from among the monks both the precepts and the examples of a holier life A. After having lived for no short time in a monastery B and having performed the duties of lector and deacon, he was unwillingly ordained bishop of Cyrrhus in Syria (a. 423 or 420) C.
In his episcopal office he was distinguished by eminent virtues: voluntary poverty, a zeal for peace, a love for the faith, and works of charity. For he not only distributed to the poor all the goods that had come to him after the death of his parents, but he also expended all his ecclesiastical revenues for the public good, content with frugal food and simple clothing; he cherished peace to such a degree that for twenty years neither he nor any of his clergy appeared before a judge due to a lawsuit; he assisted captives, fugitives, and the oppressed most benignly, both with money and with his patronage D. But he applied himself most diligently to the true faith, both in his own diocese and in other regions of the East; for when he found his diocese infected with various heresies, especially those of the Marcionites and the Arians, with diligent study, fearing neither labors nor dangers, he led everyone liberated from the snares of error back to the path of truth, so that no germ of perverse doctrine remained in the entire Cyrrhestica [E]; he also frequently delivered sacred sermons for the true faith at Antioch with most abundant fruit [F].
Theodoret was, however, tossed by most serious storms while the Nestorian and Eutychian disputes were raging. For although he kept the orthodox faith whole and defended it energetically, still, being joined by ancient friendship to John of Antioch and to Nestorius himself, he imprudently gave credence to the false rumors spread about Cyril. Hence, reading the writings of the same against Nestorius with a preoccupied mind, he seemed to himself to detect the errors of Apollinaris in them, and thinking that an injustice was being done to Nestorius, he did not easily desert the cause of a friend; and, a fatal schism having arisen, he stood on the side of the Orientals. Thus it happened that before the Council of Ephesus, at the command of John of Antioch, he vehemently opposed the anathemas of Cyril and, afterward, the Council of Ephesus itself in published writings [G]. But having been taught better after some years
*From D. Joseph Fessler, *Institutiones Patrologiae*. Innsbruck, 1851. Vol. II, p. 688.
he finally entered into peace and communion with Cyril, although he did not immediately consent to the condemnation of Nestorius, whom he judged to be orthodox, and maintained that the anathematisms of Cyril, which he considered heretical, had been retracted by his new formula of faith . The stain of Nestorianism, however, once having taken hold of him, could not be entirely erased, especially since he undertook to defend Theodore of Mopsuestia, the fountainhead of Nestorianism, against Cyril [i]. Hence, as soon as the opposing heresy of the Eutychians began to sprout, Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria, since he was nurturing a new heresy and knew of no adversary of it more bitter than Theodoret, turned all his schemes against him through calumniators sent in first, who would defame him in the East as a heretic and a supporter of Nestorius; for the Eutychians were accustomed to strike Catholics with the odium of this name [j]. Then, when the pseudo-synod of Ephesus was already being prepared, Dioscorus, in order to suppress the absent Theodoret and the truth itself more easily, pleaded with the emperor that Theodoret should not come there, but be ordered to stay at home [k]. Thus, absent and unheard, he was despoiled of his bishopric and sent into exile in the pseudo-synod of Ephesus [l]. But Pope Leo, whom he had appealed to when unjustly deposed [m], restored him fully to his own see [n], and the Council of Chalcedon soon after, reviewing the judgment, admitted him into its assembly as orthodox [o]. After that council, he was permitted to enjoy rest and peace until the end of his life in the year 458 [p].
THE WORKS OF THEODORET
Theodoret left behind various kinds of writings: I. Exegetical, II. Historical, III. Dogmatic, and IV. Epistles.I. EXEGETICAL WORKS
I. The first and greatest part of these books is made up of the Commentaries which he wrote on the Holy Scripture of both the Old and the New Testament. To this belong: 1. Questions (εἰς τὰ ἄπορα τῆς θείας Γραφῆς κατ’ ἐκλογήν) on the Octateuch, that is, on the five books of Moses, and on the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth; also 2. Questions on the books of Kings and Chronicles (vol. I). This work is inscribed to a certain young man, at whose prayers, having been moved, in the final years of his life he undertook such a labor, presenting the marrow, as it were, of the understanding of Holy Scripture in a short compendium. These works do not constitute a continuous commentary, but encompass an interpretation of the more obscure passages only, for which end he proposes questions and appends their solutions, using that form of explanation which seemed to him more useful and more similar to Christ’s example, and finally, one that would have less weariness and tedium. In the former work are brought forward certain testimonies of Origen, Diodorus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, which, whether Theodoret himself or someone else added, is not sufficiently agreed upon among the learned [q]. 3. Interpretation of the 150 Psalms (vol. I), written not long after the Council of Ephesus. This most excellent work he wrote for the sake of the clergy and monks, who day and night have the Davidic verses in their mouths, so that they might understand what they chant.A In this he studied brevity no less than clarity, so adhering to the literal sense that he nowhere diverted into allegory, and he diligently explained the prophetic passages concerning Christ and the Church. 4. The *Interpretation of the Song of Songs* (vol. II) declares such a difficult and sublime book in such a simple and clear manner that he understands Christ and the Church everywhere under the names of the bridegroom and bride. 5. The *Commentaries on all the Major and Minor Prophets* (vol. II) are written in a similar, excellent manner, for each of which he prefixes a very brief introduction by way of an argument. 6. The *Interpretation of the fourteen Epistles of Saint Paul* (vol. III) embraces in a most brief and continuous manner whatever could be elegantly and aptly said to explain the literal meaning of these books, with a brief introduction (argument) likewise prefixed to each of Paul's Epistles, so that this commentary truly seems to surpass all others of Theodoret. B Theodoret followed the same method in explaining Holy Scripture that the ancients, the most celebrated interpreters of Scripture, had once held. For, having earnestly prayed for the aid of divine grace and having diligently followed the footsteps of the Fathers, he explained the sacred volumes with a most pure intention at the request of his friends. Indeed, being persuaded that a singular gift is granted to everyone by God and that everyone is obligated to make the best use of the gift committed to him from heaven, he deemed it his duty to satisfy the desire and need of those studying Holy Scripture to the best of his ability. And in truth, he fulfilled this office admirably, since, being alien to the allegorical type of interpretation and not overly indulgent toward moral interpretation, he strove to render the literal sense as briefly and as clearly as possible. To this end, he was abundantly fortified with all those resources that assist the interpreter of the sacred Scriptures: knowledge of languages, the use of various ancient versions, and the expositions of the early Fathers; above all, however, he proposed Saint Chrysostom to himself as one to be imitated. Therefore, he has at all times been numbered among those who rightly hold the chief place among the interpreters of Holy Scripture; whence he is to be highly commended by all who love the divine Scriptures and diligently search for their genuine sense.
II. THEODORET'S HISTORICAL WORKS. III. DOGMATIC. IV. EPISTLES.
C II. The historical works, through which he likewise earned great praise for himself, are these: 1. The *Ecclesiastical History*, in five books (vol. III), which recounts the fate of the Arian heresy and the events in the Antiochene patriarchate from the rise of this same heresy up to the year 429, narrating many things with synodical letters and other public testimonies inserted, which...
are connected by brief narratives. In this work, however, one might justly desire a more careful distinction of times and order of events; indeed, the excessive praise of Theodore of Mopsuestia, whom he maintains was a great Doctor until the very end of his life, has been the reason why the Apostolic See refuses to accept that history.
2. The *Religious History* (Φιλόθεος ἱστορία, vol. III) contains the lives and eulogies of thirty most holy ascetics, who lived an admirable life partly in the East and partly in neighboring places, whose spiritual struggles Theodoret either witnessed himself or received from witnesses most worthy of trust; whence, although some things very marvelous are related therein, one ought by no means to detract from the credibility of his narrative, but rather it is fitting to admire the power of the grace of God in men who rightly cooperate with it. The final part of this work is constituted by the *Oration on Charity*, clearly displaying the cause by which those admirable men were impelled to proceed to struggles that exceed human nature; therefore, in that conclusion of the work, he copiously expounds the nature, excellence, effects, and causes of charity.
3. The *Compendium of Heretical Fables* (vol. IV), written for the consul Sporacius, is completed in five books. In the first four books, he describes in brief all the heresies from the time of the apostles and the various errors of each; to which he has subjoined in the fifth book a summary of the Catholic faith (θεῖον δογμάτων ἐπιτομή), so that each person may use it, as it were, as a rule of the right faith amidst the manifold shoals of errors.
III. Dogmatic Works. 1. The *Eranistes* or *Polymorphus* (vol. IV) against the Eutychians, written around the year 447, is contained in four books, of which the first three have the form of Dialogues, while the fourth is inscribed *Demonstration by Syllogisms*. To each of these Dialogues a singular name has been given from its subject matter; the first is inscribed *Atreptos* or *The Immutable* (book I), because it is proven therein that the divinity of the Only-begotten Son is immutable; the second is *Asynchytos*, *The Inconfused* (book II), in which, specifically, it is demonstrated that the union of divinity and humanity in Christ the Lord is not mixed or confused; the third is *Apathes*, *The Impassible* (book III), where it is shown that the divinity of our Savior was free from passions, and these dogmas are confirmed chiefly by the authority of the holy Fathers of the whole Catholic world. Finally, in book IV, he reduces to syllogisms what he had argued in the Dialogues more at length and in an oratorical manner, so that the force of the arguments might be clearer and more effective. It is fitting to join to this most learned work another little treatise inscribed: *That even after the assumption of humanity, the only Son is our Lord Jesus Christ*, in which Theodoret explains his faith concerning the incarnation of the Son of God most excellently and clearly, confirms it from Holy Scripture and the consensus of the holy Fathers, and defends it against Nestorius and Eutyches.
A with the power and abundance of arguments they treat this noble theme, so that no other of the writers of ancient Greece can be said to be equal or superior to him (h). The first five embrace whatever tends to the proving of divine providence, whether one considers the admirable structure of this world, the fabric of our own body, or the most wise governance of all things. The latter five show the same providence as manifest particularly in human affairs and their varied condition—in riches and poverty (Or. VI), in dominion and servitude (Or. VII and VIII), and finally in the present and future lot of the pious, and most especially in the mystery of the Redemption of the human race (Or. IX and X).
3. The *Cure of Greek Maladies* (Vol. IV) is a most elegant and learned apology for the Christian religion (i). For since the Gentiles frequently mocked the Christians, as if they commended faith alone, and furthermore venerated the martyrs—men who had miserably died—with foolish presumption, Theodoret undertook to defend our religion. In these excellent discourses he defends the faith of the Christians and excuses the lack of scientific knowledge in the apostles; then, conversely, he sets forth the doctrines of the Gentiles and Christians regarding the principle of the Universe (II), spiritual creatures (III), the creation of the world (IV), the nature of man (V), and providence (VI), the sacrifices of the Gentiles and Jews (VII), the veneration of martyrs and the cult of heroes (VIII), the apostles and the lawgivers of the Gentiles (IX), the predictions of the prophets and the oracles of the Gentiles (X), the doctrine concerning the end of the world and the last judgment (XI), and finally the moral precepts contained in the Gospel and in the books of the philosophers, and the life of Christians and philosophers (XII).
4. The *Refutation of the 12 Chapters or Anathemas of Cyril* (Vol. V, pp. 1-68), written around A.D. 439, reveals a mind quite hostile to Cyril, whence he takes his sentiments for the worse and inveighs with greater harshness than is just against the holy Father.
IV. Nearly 200 *Epistles* (j) are partly dogmatic (ep. 21, 83, 84, 85, 109, 125, 130, 143, 144, 145, 146), partly consolatory (ep. 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 27, 65, 69, 120, 132, 136), partly *heortastica* (ep. 4, 5, 6, 25, 26, 38-41, 53-56, 63, 64, 72, 74), that is, customarily sent on feast days; the rest regard B various events of his own life, or are familiar, commendatory, or congratulatory. Nothing in that genre of writing is more perfect; for the very virtues of the epistles—brevity, perspicuity, elegance, urbanity, modesty, observance of decorum, and an ingenious, prudent, and learned simplicity—shine forth so admirably in the epistles of Theodoret that they may be an example to those who write (k).
The writings of Theodoret, by which he defended Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and opposed Saint Cyril and the Ephesine synod, were condemned by the Catholic Church by a solemn sentence (l). Among his condemned works that survive to this day belongs the *Refutation of the Anathemas of Saint Cyril* and many epistles, especially the epistle to the monks of Euphratesia, etc. (m). After Theodore of Mopsuestia, he seems to have been the first among the Greeks who, in that *Refutation of the Anathemas of Cyril*, [denied that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son...]
(n). His style is quite easy, clear, and abundant; it truly savors of Attic grace, which both keeps the reader’s attention without weariness and does not hinder clarity with brevity (o).
NOTE I. Not a few of the works of Theodoret are now lost, as is evident from his own epistles (see ep. 82, 113, 116, 145). Among these, those particularly worthy of mention are: the mystical book containing 12 discourses (ep. 82 and *Hæret. Fabul.* lib. v, c. 18. Cf. Garnerius, *Dissert.* II, c. 9, § 1); the books or discourses *On Virginity* (see his commentary on I Corinthians VII, 34; *Opp.* t. III, p. 155); five discourses *On Saint John Chrysostom* (see the fragments in Photius, *cod.* 273, p. 827-30; Garnerius's *Auctarium* p. 30-34, and Theodoret's *Works* ed. Schulze t. V, p. 98-103. Cf. Ceillier *l. c.* art. II, § 12, n. 3, p. 190-91); furthermore, the books *Against the Jews*, *Against Marcion*, *Against the Arians and Macedonians*, and *Against the Apollinarians* (Cf. Garnerius, *Dissert.* II, c. 9, § 2-4. Gallandius, *Biblioth.* t. IX, p. 416-17, presents certain fragments of Theodoret *On the Trinity*, *Against Sabellius*, and *Against Arius*; Cf. *ibid.* *Prolegom.* c. 13, n. 4); finally, the *Pentalogion on the Incarnation* (Πενταλόγιον περὶ ἐνανθρωπήσεως), or five books *On the Incarnation*, and the *Apology for Theodore of Mopsuestia* (fragments in the Council of Constantinople II, *Collat.* v, *ap.* Mansi t. IX, col. 252-54). Cf. also J. A. Fabricius, *Biblioth. Græc.*, vol. VIII, p. 306-7.
NOTE II. The discourse or *Encomium on the Nativity of John the Baptist* is of doubtful authorship (appearing in Greek and Latin in Garnerius’s *Auctarium*, p. 21-30, and in Theodoret’s *Works* ed. Schulze t. V, p. 84-97); it is not unworthy of Theodoret (Tillemont *l. c.*, art. LL, p. 358; Ceillier *l. c.*, art. II, § 12, n. 3, p. 190), yet it is ascribed by many to Theodoret the Younger. Cf. J. A. Fabricius, *Biblioth. Græc.*, vol. VIII, p. 296-97, and vol. X, p. 258.
NOTE III. The following works are highly doubtful, or rather supposititious: a) 17 discourses *Against certain sentiments of St. Cyril and the Catholics* (against various propositions), with a prefatory epistle prefixed to them (Greek and Latin in Garnerius’s *Auctarium*, p. 683-726, and in Theodoret’s *Works* ed. Schulze t. V, p. 1113-74; likewise in the *Works of St. Athanasius* t. II, p. 491-514); these appear, on the testimony of Marius Mercator, to have as their author Eutherius of Tyana, a friend of Nestorius and Theodoret, even though Photius (*cod.* 46, p. 14-15) ascribes them to Theodoret. Cf. Garnerius and Schulze *l. c.*; Montfaucon in the *Works of St. Athanasius* t. II, p. 472-73; Cas. Oudin t. I, col. 1131-32; Ceillier *l. c.*, art. II, § 41, n. 4 (p. 188); and J. A. Fabricius, *Biblioth. Græc.*, vol. VIII, p. 304-5. b) 7 Dialogues *Against the Anomæans, Macedonians, and Apollinarians* (Greek and Latin in Garnerius’s *Auctarium*, p. 273-406, and in Theodoret’s *Works* ed. Schulze t. V, p. 915-1112; likewise in the *Works of St. Athanasius* t. II, p. 407-491; and appearing less completely under the title: *Athanasius's 5 Dialogues on the Holy Trinity*, ed. Th. Beza, Paris 1570, in-8). Garnerius (*Dissert.* II, *Append.*, *Auctar.* p. 259-72) strove to vindicate these for Theodoret, but they are of an ancient but uncertain author, perhaps St. Maximus the Confessor. Cf. Montfaucon, *Monit.* in the *Works of St. Athanasius* t. I, p. 406-7 and 472; Schulze in Theodoret’s *Works* t. V, p. 420; Tillemont *l. c.*, art. XLVII (p. 324); Ceillier *l. c.*, art. II, § 41, n. 4 (p. 188). For other works supposed to be by Theodoret, see Garnerius, *Dissert.* II, c. 8 (*Auctar.* p. 249-55).
EDITIONS: The entire *Works* of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, in Greek and Latin, edited by Jacques Sirmond, S.J., Paris, 1642, in 4 volumes folio; to which must be added the *Auctarium Theodoreti, Cyrensis episcopi* (or *Volume V of the Works*), edited by J. Garnerius (and Hardouin), Paris, 1684, folio. This complete edition (with the order in the later volumes slightly changed, the text several times amended, and with prefaces, observations, notes, indexes, and a glossary added) was revised anew by J. L. Schulze, Halle, 1769-74, 5 volumes in octavo (each volume of this edition consists of two parts). The *Works* of Theodoret edited in Greek by Eugenius, deacon of Bulgaria, Halle, 1768-75, 5 volumes in-4.
(n) For thus does Theodoret write in *Reprehens. anathematismi ix*: “If he said that the Spirit is the Spirit’s own of the Son, insofar as He is of the same nature as Him and proceeds from the Father, we shall accept this statement together and receive it as pious. But if [he meant] that He has His existence as from the Son or through the Son, this we shall reject as blasphemous and impious.” (*Opp. S. Cyrilli* t. VI, p. 228; *Opp. Theodoreti* t. IV, p. 718.) Theodoret expressed similar sentiments in epistle 154, ed. Schulze t. IV, p. 1293, and in his epistle to John of Antioch (*Synodicon Cassin.* c. 95. Cf. *ibid.* the scholion of Chr. Lupus, *Opp.* t. VII, p. 253-54). Furthermore, cf. J. Garnerius in *Dissert.* III, c. 1 (*Auctar.* p. 458-61) and J. A. Fabricius, *Biblioth. Græc.*, vol. VIII, p. 279. (o) See Nicephorus Callistus, *Hist. eccles.* lib. xiv, c. 54. So also Photius, *cod.* 31 (p. 8), *cod.* 46 (p. 15), *cod.* 56 (p. 22), and *cod.* 203 (p. 271); Tillemont n. 1 (p. 261-64).