Dissertation on the Life and Writings of Theodoret

The same, in the work on the Second Book of Kings, quæst. XLIII, speaking of the hymn, or canticle of David for the victory. It agrees with Psalm XVII, or rather it is the same, having few changes of names. I, however, having interpreted this alongside the other Psalms, thought it superfluous to compose a second interpretation.

Nicephorus, lib. XIV, cap. 54, enumerating the works of Theodoret: Similarly, he left behind another work on the Psalter.

DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF THEODORET

[3] The life of Theodoret, whether we look at the man’s manifold learning or his varied fortune, is most worthy of being recounted. As the former deserves admiration by every right, so it also possesses great power to excite us to imitation; but the latter, although it may seem less worthy of so great a man, nonetheless provides us with great utility. For by his illustrious example, Theodoret has taught us both what path we must enter if we wish to deserve well of the Christian assembly, and what great circumspection is needed so that no light stain might be cast upon a life and the glory of a name lived with praise. ^A All those who have consulted the history of the fifth and sixth centuries and of the synods whose memory falls into these times, know what varied fortune Theodoret experienced, whose lot was the same as that of Eusebius of Caesarea once was. For the man whom many adorned with the highest praises, others held in suspicion regarding the faith, deemed him hardly worthy of their communion, and—such was the iniquity of those times—struck him with anathema. ^B Hardly more fair-minded judges have been found even in our own time, against whom it is difficult not to write an apology. We believe that Garnerius must be entirely added to their number, who here and there in the Dissertations which he included in his *Auctarium*, acted as a bitter judge against our writer; yet we believe that it happened to him rather than to Theodoret that which usually happens to the eyes when they are severely afflicted: it seemed to him, namely, that he saw heresy in the very subject matter, wherever even the slightest appearance or shadow of it might occur. ^C There have, however, been those at every time who, defending the cause of Theodoret, have championed the truth itself, although Cousin, who in his Preface to the French translation of Theodoret’s *Ecclesiastical History* fought for him with great ardor, may perhaps by some be considered, not undeservedly, as being possessed by too great a partiality for him.

Since these things are so, we shall strive to maintain a golden mean, so that we may not seem, either to detract from the praise of a most excellent man through unjust accusations, or to hand down things alien to the truth out of excessive eagerness to praise, or out of a desire to conceal anything human that our author may have suffered.

That this entire Dissertation might not lack order, we shall establish three parts to the life of Theodoret. The first will narrate his origins, successes, and studies up to that year in which he was raised to the episcopal dignity. The second will set forth his deeds up to the Council of Chalcedon, or the fourth ecumenical council. The third, finally, will recount his final fates and the movements that arose after his death, to which the Council of Constantinople, or the fifth ecumenical council, if it did not put an end, at least should have.

What lot Theodoret had at his birth we would be ignorant of, had he not touched upon a few things himself (Hist. relig. cap. 13), from which it is gathered that he was brought to light at Antioch around A.C. 386, although ^D Fabricius (Biblioth. Gr. vol. VII, p. 430) preferred to refer his birth to A.C. 395. We shall not delay in recounting the miracles which he himself reports in the place just cited regarding Macedonius the Ascetic, to whose prayers he attributes his own birth. We have touched upon these things only so that it might appear that he was called Θεοδώρητος (Theodoretus), because he was, as it were, given to his parents by God. Those, therefore, are not mistaken who command that his name be written in Greek with an eta, which we have observed is also done in the codices, after John Picus first taught us this in his Preface to Theodoret’s *Questions on the Octateuch*, which he edited in Greek at Paris in the year 1558. Suidas also seems to defend the same, who, while observing that Theodoretus is indeed a proper name, indicates not obscurely that the other mode of writing is better, with these words which are next: "the gift of God is written with an eta." We do not, however, wish to...

^A greatly oppose those who prefer to write that name with an epsilon, because it is frequently written this way in the codices, especially in the Acrostich of the Catanyctic Canon to the Saviour, in Lambecius, lib. v, p. 268. But let us omit these matters, and return to history, from which we had digressed a little. Theodoret was permitted to enjoy a liberal education, as the times allowed. For from his earliest youth he lived in the monastery of Euprepius near Antioch, where he laid the first foundations of his learning, aided by the favor of Porphyrius, who at that time presided over the Church of Antioch. Consecrated to the monastic life by his parents from his birth, he remained in that monastery for at least thirty years, nor was he willing to depart from it when the honors of lector and deacon had already been conferred upon him. That the time he spent there was not poorly spent is attested by those remarkable specimens of almost divine genius and disciplined judgment which he later produced when he had been raised to the episcopal office. By working on those [6] books, which survive in great numbers, and by training for those most important tasks which he later undertook, he made himself suitable for his calling while still hiding in this monastery. Nor do we wonder that he made such progress in the study of Holy Scripture, since he was able to enjoy the most desirable discipline and instruction of John Chrysostom. How happy are those to whom it falls to become known to upright men, to hang upon their words, and to pattern their own lives after their example; if the history of all times did not teach this, it might be abundantly proven by this single example. We grant, indeed, that Theodoret did not rise to that highest summit in the art of eloquence—which Chrysostom alone, among the sacred rhetoricians, almost held—but we do not hesitate to assert that in that science most worthy of a theologian, which concerns the interpretation of Holy Scripture—not that mystical kind, but the plain, clear, and accommodated to the capacity of each—there is scarcely anyone who is more similar to Chrysostom. In imitating him, Theodoret was so successful that, if we consult his Commentaries on the sacred Books, especially of the New Testament, we would not rarely think we were reading Chrysostom himself. But he did not have only this one master of his art. He also had Theodore, whom they call the Mopsuestian, regarding whom we do not know if they judge rightly who, with the Fathers of the fifth synod, condemn his entire memory. Very few of his writings have come down to us, consigned in the Greek idiom, but more, as Rich. Simon (Crit. tom. 1, p. 107) has well warned against Dupin, must be sought among the Syrians. From the few that have been left to us, whether by the injustice of time or of his adversaries, one can scarcely judge adequately what the so-called wickedness of that man may have been. Yet we know that his authority was the greatest in the entire East, and if, from the Fragments that are everywhere common in the Catenae, ^B one may venture to pass judgment regarding [7] this Writer, he will appear worthy of praise rather than blame. Garnerius himself (Auctarii, p. 184) admits that such things were subsequently read in the Catenae from Theodore on the Psalms, which show that the literal sense was happily expounded by him. Although these things may seem to do little to defend the cause of Theodore, nevertheless, because they proceed from an adversary, and one who was otherwise sufficiently unjust, they will have greater force to commend him than what Facundus has embraced in many books. Whatever the case may be, the familiarity which Theodoret had contracted with him was of little profit. For both, after the fatal dispute over the Three Chapters had been agitated for a sufficiently long time, were condemned at the fifth synod of Constantinople in the year of Christ 555. But what shall we say of Nestorius? It would certainly be wished that no association had existed between our subject and him. However, the great appearance of piety which Nestorius exhibited at that time, when Theodoret was living in the monastery, brought it about that a very close friendship was contracted between the two, which could with difficulty be dissolved by the greatest adversities. For Theodoret was most studious of his friends and most constant in defending them. This was the cause of many evils for him, of which there will be a more suitable place to speak in the next part of this Dissertation. This one thing must now be added, that Theodoret greatly detested the errors of the man whose person he cherished, as his writings and the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon testify. ^C What the beginnings of our writer were, what kind of studies he delighted in, what teachers he had, and what friends he cultivated, we have thus far seen. But it is to be feared, lest—just as some think that he remained hidden in the monastery of Saint Euprepius longer than was fitting—they should also suppose that we have dwelt sufficiently long on these beginnings of his life. [8] Let us, therefore, now accompany Theodoret as he comes forth from the narrow confines of that monastery onto a broader stage, and one more worthy of so great a man. Let us see what role he then played, and what his rare assiduity in administering the episcopal office was. He had already begun to act as a public teacher of the Church when he was appointed deacon by Alexander, the bishop of Antioch at that time. He performed this office with the highest praise, even though he had not yet departed from his monastery, when he would sharply expose the errors of the Apollinarists, Arians, and others in the sermons which he delivered before the sacred assembly. By these sacred battles, if it be permissible to say so, he seemed, as it were, to be preluding the greater struggles which he later underwent; and he gave such great hope of himself that, when the bishop of Cyrrhus, a city of Euphratensian Syria (which others call Chyrrus), had died, Theodotus, the prelate of Antioch at that time, thought our subject most worthy to be moved to this episcopal see. Baronius and Tillemont think that this occurred in the year of Christ 423. They derive the foundation of their opinion from Theodoret’s ^D epistle to Leo, the Roman bishop, which is the one hundred and thirteenth. For in it he says that he had presided over the Church committed to him by God for twenty-six years. The same [man regarding the] episcopal office...

^A is inscribed. But in truth neither of these two letters could have been written before the year of Christ 449, in which the "robber" synod occurred, of which he rightly complains in these letters. The calculation is therefore correct if twenty-six years are subtracted from the total of 449. Others, however, follow a different method of calculation, who posit the year 420. We subscribe to this opinion, both because it seems to be confirmed by letter 83, which was written to Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, and because it is sufficiently supported by other double testimony from our author. For, writing to Eutrechius (the letter is number eighty), he calls himself a Pontiff who has held the bishopric for 25 years. He puts the same number in the letters which he gave to Nomus the consul (the letter is 81). Now, Nomus was consul in the year 445. If, therefore, you take away 25 years, the beginning of Theodoret's episcopal dignity falls in the year 420. In the same letter to Nomus, he testifies that he was ordained against his will. So that no one may wonder at this, two things must be mentioned which seem to have been the cause why he undertook this province against his will. The Cyrestic region, although it contained eight hundred villages, as is clear from the letter given to Leo (which is 113), was nevertheless greatly oppressed by barrenness alone, and was enclosed by mountains, as our author writes to Constantius the prefect (epist. 42), with many ^B and large ones, partly quite bare and partly planted with unfruitful trees. He also calls it a miserable region in the letters written to Pulcheria Augusta (epist. 45). But the abominable heresy of the Marcionites and Arians, which had taken such deep roots there, could have deterred him more, so that it could not be eradicated without the greatest difficulties. But amidst extreme dangers and the greatest calamities, divine grace, which shines all the brighter, was present to blessed Theodoret, and gave him the spirit to go to the province—which, if any other, needed a faithful and skilled bishop—having cast away all fear. Nor were his efforts lacking in success, for which the greater praise is due to him, the greater the difficulties that had to be overcome. It will be helpful to review these in the words of this most excellent man himself, taken from epistle 81: "I brought, he says, eight villages infected with the heresy of Marcion, as well as the neighboring places, to the truth, being willing. I brought another village, filled with Eunomians, and another with Arians, to the light of divine knowledge, and there is no remaining tare of heretics among us, by the grace of God. I did not accomplish this without dangers, but rather with my blood frequently shed, ^C not rarely pelted by stones by them, and carried as if to the very gates of hell." These respond to what he writes to the same Leo, the Roman bishop (epist. 113): "Divine grace assisting me, I freed more than a thousand souls from the disease of Marcion, and led many others who had adhered to the parties of Arius and Eunomius to Christ the Lord. And I was constituted pastor of eight hundred churches (for so many parishes does Cyrus possess) in which no tare is left, but our flock has been snatched from the errors of all heretics. He who sees all things knows how many stones I have received cast at me by wicked heretics, and in how many cities of the Orient trials had to be undergone by me against the Gentiles, against the Jews, and against all the errors of the heretics." But lest anyone think that these things were said by our author out of an immoderate desire for glory, it must be mentioned that the bitter fate of a man oppressed by many calamities at that time demanded this sort of image of his life and this defense. For otherwise he is very sparing in praising himself, which is wont to be characteristic of modest men. Who then is there who does not perceive that our author labored with the utmost zeal so that he might hand down a purer doctrine to his own, and defend it manfully against any errors whatsoever? And who will not admire the diligence and indefatigable study of the man who, although he had eight hundred churches committed to his care, also provided for the salvation of many others? Theodoret thought that this task was given to him, to propose ^D the truths of celestial doctrine not only to the Cyrestic province, but also, as occasion arose, to the people of Antioch, the Berrhoeans, and many others. Nor is the liberality lacking in praise by which he distributed to the needy the wealth he had received from his parents; he consecrated all his revenues to public utility. To give credence to these things, we add his own words from the Epistle to Leo, Bishop of the Romans. "Holding the episcopate, he says, for so many years, I have not acquired a house, nor a field, nor an obol, nor a sepulcher, but I have embraced poverty of my own accord, and that which I had received from my parents, I distributed immediately after their death, as all know who dwell in the Orient." These are almost the same things he writes to Nomus the consul, which we now omit so as not to be longer, and we bring forward only these things from this letter (which is the eighty-first) in truth of the matter, which testify to his provident care for the salvation of his city. "I erected public porticoes, he says, with ecclesiastical revenues, I built two of the largest bridges, I took care of the common baths, and when I found that water was not being brought into our city from the adjacent river, I took care to have an aqueduct prepared, and I filled the city, which lacked water, with waters." These distinguished benefits conferred upon the citizens of the city of Cyrus he also commemorates in the letter given to Anatolius the patrician (which is number seventy-nine). Let those who read these things wonder at the rare moderation of our author in managing and allocating wealth, how far he was from the greed for gain and the immoderate use of secular goods, and how worthy he considered it to be in the person of a bishop not only to care for souls but also to watch over the external salvation of his people and their needs. Of this study, which is certainly worthy of praise, and in which Theodoret scarcely had an equal, one or two testimonies may still be allowed to be recorded. Having entered Euphratesia and its primary city, Cyrus, when he saw that there was a need for physicians, he gave every effort so that those skilled in practicing the healing arts might inhabit this province.

^A For from the civil forum are penalties decreed, and not from the controversies which are agitated regarding the heads of the faith, such as those which concerned themselves with Cyril. There will be no need for a longer dispute against Oudin, for though we could not omit it lest we seem to desert the cause of our writer, we are nevertheless unwilling to prolong it, because the conversation regarding the controversy which was agitated between our own [Theodoret] and Cyril will now be instituted in the next part of this Dissertation, to which we proceed.

One of whom he did much to commend to Apellas in the letter which is number 115. Nor ^B did he show any less paternal love, with which he cherished his own, when the Cyrrhic territory was greatly pressed by public burdens. He was so moved by the misery of those whom he had committed to his care that he interceded with Pulcheria Augusta and the prefect Constantius to relieve those burdens: both epistles (42 and 43), as they are related in subject matter, so they are also related in number. Nor should that extraordinary munificence be passed over in silence, by which, after Carthage was stormed and sacked by the Vandals, he liberally received into hospitality not a few who were struggling with extreme poverty, and deigned to provide for them with his own foresight, especially Celestiacus, whom he afterwards commended to his friends (epist. 29-36) for the better. Thus far have we been occupied in reviewing the virtues of Theodoret, as was fitting, which all, if looked at joined together, exhibit an image of a kind and worthy prelate. We do not see what could or should be added to this. For, I ask, will anyone who has read all these things render our faith doubtful if we say that the man who strove to show himself kind, liberal, and munificent to all, and not only to his own but even to outsiders, also cultivated peace, in such a way that he could never be accused, nor cited into court, for any force brought upon any person, nor for any deceit contrived against others? Thus by every right must it be determined concerning our own, and we do not think there is need for any further testimony. Yet, lest even a slight place for suspicion be left, we will call forth as a witness the letter which he gave to the consul Nomus. In it (which in order is 81) he writes: "I have lived for twenty-five years in such a way that I have neither been called into court by anyone, nor have I myself accused anyone. For as many years, no one of the most religious clerics over whom I presided has frequented the tribunals. I have not taken a pittance or a garment from anyone: no one of my household has ever accepted even a single loaf of bread or an egg. Beyond the rags with which I am clothed, I have wished to possess nothing." Thus also writing to the prefect Eutrechius, at the same time, as we have already noted elsewhere (epist. 80), he testifies that he never interfered with any judicial court, nor was he accused of a crime by anyone. Who therefore would rightly doubt the man’s leniency, equity, and justice toward others? We are therefore greatly surprised that those words could have escaped Oudin, which stand in volume I, *De script. eccles.*, p. 1056: "Since he exercised such great enmities-against Cyril of Alexandria, both before the Ephesine synod which took place in the year 431, and after the synod, in books written against him with bitterness: I wonder in what way Theodoret boasts, and especially flatters himself regarding his mildness in letter 81 to Nomus." These things quite openly reveal an interpretation furthest from the writer’s sense. For when our own [Theodoret] writes to Nomus and Eutrechius that neither he nor any of his own frequented the *δικαστήριον* (tribunal), he intended that it be understood of those crimes for which ^C penalties are decreed by the civil forum, and not of the controversies which are agitated regarding the heads of the faith, such as those which concerned themselves with Cyril.

Twenty and some years of history must be woven by us, since in the other part of this Life it is decided to set forth the deeds of Theodoret up to the Council of Chalcedon. The order of things to be said commands that we make a beginning from those things which preceded the Ephesine Council, ^D which occurred in the year 431 A.D. We must now recount the most disastrous disputes, which at that time began to be agitated in the Eastern and Western Church regarding the cause of Nestorius, an impious man, not without the greatest contention of spirit. For the life of Theodoret was so entangled in these disputes that anyone who undertakes to describe it must touch upon them. But lest it be obscure to some of the readers whence that sharper dispute between Cyril and Theodoret originated, its origins must be sought a little further back. It ought to be known to all that Nestorius, who at that time was prefect of the Constantinopolitan Church, thought less than correctly concerning the divine nature of Christ and the incarnation. Through his disciples, as usually happens, he was scattering his impious dogmas, especially through Anastasius, whom he had as a presbyter, who once had said in a sermon that the Virgin could not be called *Theotokos*. Accused by the clergy of Constantinople, he was however defended by Nestorius. Hence those tears. The fire, which at first seemed to smolder in the royal city, soon erupted into flames, and was not only spreading through the whole East, but was also being carried to Rome. Celestine, the prelate of the Roman Church at this time, called into help by Cyril at the first beginnings of this evil, so that delay might not draw out its duration, thought that it must be met, but he seemed to pour oil on the fire. For he brought that harsher sentence, by which it was enjoined upon Nestorius that within the tenth day from the published sentence, he should say farewell to his errors, and subscribe to the twelve chapters or Anathematisms composed by Cyril, with the threat added that if he did otherwise, he would be cast out of the episcopal seat. Yet another manner of healing, and one in the first place of greater leniency, would have been needed. For Nestorius, whether relying on the sharpness of intellect in which he excelled, and the eloquence by which he surpassed many in his own time, or on the friendship of the courtiers he had in the royal city, and the authority by which he was conspicuous in the East, or finally on the assent of certain other bishops, having become bolder, scorned Celestine's threats. Thus the matter was carried to the Ephesine Council first, or the third ecumenical, over which Cyril presided, who, before that council was held, letters...

were sent to the bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem, so that he might deter them from an enticing association with Nestorius. Moved by these letters, John, Bishop of Antioch, wrote to Nestorius, whom he admonished to return to a sounder faith and to calm the commotions stirred up in the Church. Some attribute this letter, which is a testimony to a good mind and full of charity, to our Theodoret; and Garnerius, in his *Auctarium* (pp. 59 and 119), proposes this opinion with much confidence, although he states in the same work (pp. 469 and 474) that it remains in doubt. However that may be, it seems that the letter was composed with the knowledge and persuasion of our author, and it would have been entirely suited to its intended end if Nestorius’s mind had not been perverse. But he, as those who cling too stubbornly to their own plans are wont to do, gave no place to the exhortation of his friends; instead, he requested of John, on the judgment of their abuses, that he take up the work of refuting Cyril’s twelve anathemas, a task full of danger at that time, and assign it to skilled men. That chance fell to Andrew of Samosata, and, as we lament, to Theodoret. Thus it happened that he who until that time had been well spoken of by all, came to be ill spoken of by many, and involved himself in disputes which would have been altogether better to have avoided. But there are many things that serve to defend Theodoret's cause. It will be better to recount these under Garnerius’s name rather than our own, so that it might appear that even his very adversaries admitted that this most excellent man, even if he suffered [16] some human failing, nevertheless entered into the struggle against Cyril not without praise. Garnerius writes thus in his *Auctarium* (p. 120): "The most auspicious occasion presented itself for joining battle with Cyril, a master of many palms, and the most learned man of almost the entire world, and yet—as it seemed to him—vulnerable to wounds. The reason for daring this was not only honorable—to bring aid to a struggling friend—but also religious: to oppose a man representing the parties of Apollinaris in everything but name. It was a noble thing to assist Nestorius, the prelate of the royal city, the favorite of the court, and at the same time to oppose Cyril, whose power, the greater it grew from the favor of the West, the more odious it was to the East and the more formidable to the emperors themselves. The command of the prelate was pressing; it was pious to obey it, but unsafe to resist it. To refute the anathemas—what else could it be considered than to provoke a battle that would have to be carried out with the whole world watching? Why say more? It was seductive to be called, everywhere on earth, what he was accustomed to being called at Antioch: a miracle of eloquence and a prodigy of learning." There are many things in these observations that Garnerius said rightly and excellently; but there are also things that testify to a mind biased against Theodoret. ^B

On both sides, signs being given, the battle lines all but clashed. But lest the nature of the fight be unequal, each of the combatants made an effort to entice as many as possible to his side. With this intention, Cyril wrote a letter to the monks of Egypt, and exhorted them not to allow traps to be set for themselves by the deceits of Nestorius. To these letters, so that they would not fail of success, he added twelve chapters, and by his own arts he brought it about that he struck fear into many even in the royal city itself.

On the other hand, Theodoret gave letters against Cyril to the monks of Euphratensis, Syria, Phoenice, and Cilicia, which, if God grants life [17] and strength, we shall present in their entirety in Greek and Latin in due time. That letter, of which Garnerius gave only a small part from the Acts of the Synod (Auct. p. 62) in Latin only—because he lacked a transcript of the letter which exists in a certain codex of the Imperial Library of Vienna, which we have now been able to enjoy—has hitherto held a place among the *analekta*.

Rebus thus disposed, it was commanded by the Emperor Theodosius that a council be gathered at Ephesus. The Fathers gathered in great number; Cyril held the primacy, who, in the absence of John, Bishop of Antioch—or, as it seemed to some, because he was deliberately delaying—spoke the final judgment against Nestorius. But with spirits already incited, many riots arose; for when John of Antioch had arrived, he was mightily incensed at Cyril, at Memnon, the Bishop of Ephesus, and at the entire council, and, having taken others into his society, he deposed Cyril and severely punished all who had stood by his side. Greater evils were to be feared for the sacred affair, had not the Emperor Theodosius, having been informed of the disturbed state of the Church, provided that nothing should be done by either side until the case had been examined. However, by various arts and the counsel of the counts to whom the care of investigating the matter had been entrusted by the emperor, it was effected that at last, with the Fathers dismissed, nearly everything remained in its previous state, although the sentence pronounced against Nestorius was confirmed. In the time immediately following this council, the hatred, which had not yet been soothed, received as it were new strength and gave occasion for those most celebrated five books which Theodoret is said to have composed against Cyril and the Ephesine Council. These were highly displeasing to Cyril’s followers, and they seemed so execrable to Marius Mercator (Operum t. II, ed. Garn. p. 265) that he did not blush to write that our author had composed them at the urging of the devil. Nor was Garnerius less incensed at Theodoret for these books [18]; he erred, however, when he writes (Auct. p. 125) that they were burned by order of the Emperor Theodosius, for on page 259 he maintains that this happened to those Dialogues which are inscribed *Eranistes* or *Polymorphus*, and is noted as such by Oudin (I, p. 1101). ^{C D}

Cyril, who had begun to arrange everything at the Ephesine synod according to his own will, but had then experienced an adverse turn of fortune, with a changed state of affairs was agitating for plans of peace. For that controversy with the Orientals had been of little profit to him, and he was being most heavily pressed by the writings composed by our author. Nor did John, Bishop of Antioch, say it was to his advantage to persist in these disputes any longer, since no hope remained that what had been decreed at Ephesus against Nestorius would be rescinded. With minds thus prepared, the emperor's mandate arrived exactly as wished, that Cyril should put aside all enmity and cast off the memory of what he had experienced at Ephesus, and that John, for his part, should subscribe to the sentence passed against Nestorius. Peace

being restored upon these conditions, it seemed that Theodoret was also restored to his position. For from that time on, he cultivated a friendship with Cyril, as the letters still extant, which he either received or sent to him, bear witness. There were, indeed, some who, from the letters he sent at this time to Himerius and Andrew of Samosata, wanted to infer that Theodoret’s friendship was feigned; but they did not consider that it was the lot of our writer that his loyalty should be tested by all those who at that time wished ill to Cyril. Thus, it could not be but that he would seem to some to have returned to the camp from which he had departed. Yet such was the moderation of the man that after peace had been restored to the Church, he attempted nothing new, even though he was urged by many of his friends to express freely the sentiments of his mind. ^A However, there is a point that could not be mentioned without some appearance of suspicion regarding the sincerity of the friendship thus initiated between the two. Namely, when the impious writings of Nestorius had been delivered by order of the emperor to the avenging flames, there were substituted in their place Excerpts from the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus; these, as they displeased many, were refuted by Cyril and defended by Theodoret. Thus, those who were thought barely to have reconciled were seen to diverge again into opposing camps. It is uncertain, however, whether a zeal for contradicting Cyril, or rather a reverence which he thought was owed to those two writers, had more weight with our author, whom we know to have been most steadfast in defending his friends. Be that as it may, Cyril brought his complaints about this to John of Antioch, whose letter regarding this matter, edited from the Vatican codex, Leo Allatius, as well as Garnerius (Auct. p. 97), inserted into his *Vindiciae synodi Ephesinae*, etc., p. 141. ^B Liberatus, indeed, behaved very unfairly toward Theodoret, stating in his *Breviarium*, ch. 9, that a new faction had arisen at the instigation of Theodoret, which had taken the name "Acephali" because it adhered neither to Cyril nor to John. Garnerius, as he is accustomed to do, sides with Liberatus, and in his *Auctarium* frequently mentions this so-called faction. But the fable concerning this class and origin of the Acephali has long since been exploded by Cotelier, Dupin, and others, since it is known that this name was imposed upon certain Eutychians only at a much later time. Nor is any credence to be given to those letters that circulate under the names of Theodoret and Nestorius. For it was long ago observed by Leontius in his book *De sectis* (Biblioth. PP. t. 1, p. 509), by Allatius (l. c. p. 131), and by others, that all these were forged by Nestorians to cast a stain upon the Synod of Ephesus. The same is true of that letter which is said to have been written by our author to John of Antioch immediately after Cyril’s death, the beginning of which is: "Late at last and with difficulty the evil man has died." We wonder how Garnerius not only granted a place to these most filthy letters, taken from the Acts of the Fifth Synod, in his *Auctarium* (p. 98), but even took upon himself the defense of those who, with perverse zeal, vindicate them for our author, when Baronius (*Annal.* t. VI, p. 23 seqq.) had already shown how open these forgeries are. The same was also seen by Possevinus, Lupus, Allatius, Aubertus Miraeus, and all who were possessed of sharper eyes. For who, I ask, would believe that these letters are genuine, when it is most well known and placed beyond all doubt that John of Antioch had perished some years before Cyril? Yet such was the iniquity of Garnerius, and indeed also of Oudin (*De script. eccl.* t. I, p. 1056), who follows him in most matters with blind impulse, that in order to favor an evil cause, they determined that an error lay in the inscription of this letter, as if in place of John’s name, the name of Domnus, whom he had as a successor, ought to be placed. ^C It could opportunely be opposed to this flimsy defense, however, that in a certain place in Garnerius himself where he argues against Cousin, as is his wont, rather bitterly, I remember reading: "It ought to have been fought either thus or not at all." As if Garnerius had not already been sufficiently injurious to the memory of a good man, he also brought forward (Auct. p. 38) a fragment from a Sermon which Theodoret is said to have delivered at Antioch after Cyril’s death in the presence of Domnus. This, like other things of the same kind, he took from the Acts of the Fifth Synod, and relying solely on the less firm authority of Marius Mercator, he sold it as genuine. Moreover, the diligence and integrity of Cousin, against whom Garnerius did indeed fight in his *Notae* (l. c.) [21], but with very weak weapons that certainly could not withstand a new assault, prevent us from accusing the spirit of a man who was otherwise, if you depart from Theodoret’s history, most acute. ^D Since we have now labored to wipe away the various stains that had been cast upon the memory and name of this most excellent man, it does not seem alien to our undertaking to finish this part of our Dissertation with this note, which is most worthy of being marked, which Leo Allatius (l. c. p. 151) exhibits from Cyril’s letter to Valerian. The words are as follows: "If, therefore, any, slandering, say that they think anything other than these things, let them not be believed, but let them, as deceivers and liars, be sent away according to their father the devil, that they may not trouble those who desire to walk uprightly. If, however, some, composing letters for themselves, circulate them as having been written from the person of more eminent men, they ought not to be trusted. For those who have once confessed the faith in writing, how can they write other things, as if they had been turned aside from repentance to no longer wishing to think rightly?" If, therefore, there be any who falsely affirm that they (the Orientals, of course) think differently from these, no faith should be given to their statements, but let them be sent away as impostors and liars, like their father the devil, lest they disturb those who desire to walk rightly. But if there be any who circulate letters composed by themselves, as if they had been edited by celebrated men, their audacity is by no means to be admitted. For those who have once professed their faith through some writing, how is it possible that they should now write the contrary, as if led by repentance, and no longer wish to think rightly? If it had been permitted for Cyril to see those things which, after his death, were forged by shameless

men under the name of Theodoret, what, I ask, would he have thought of those people, to whom the fraud is not apparent at first glance?

^B [22] Harder were the fates which Theodoret experienced thereafter. Dioscorus succeeded Cyril in the Alexandrian see, a man hardly worthy of the great honors conferred upon him. His ambition—to say nothing now of his propensity toward the Eutychians—was contained by no limits, to such an extent that he dared to exercise jurisdiction even in a foreign diocese, as will appear from what follows. To our Theodoret he was the author of many calamities, not as if he had contended with him over the articles of faith (for that might have seemed honorable), but because he had held our man as an adversary back when a dispute had arisen concerning the primacy between Proclus and Cyril, or rather this very Dioscorus, who was at that time the apocrisiarius of the Church of Alexandria. Having been moved to the episcopate, he seized the opportunity he thought was given to him to make more bitter the calamities by which Theodoret was pressed at this time. For he had been accused before the Emperor Theodosius as if he had gathered frequent synods near Antioch and had proposed wicked dogmas in sermons recited before the people. These unjust accusations had such weight with the emperor that, by a Monitory written by Theodosius’s own hand, our man was forbidden to depart from the city of Cyrrhus. He exposes the matter in letters (epist. 78, 80, 82) to Eutrechius the prefect, Anatolius the patrician, and Eusebius, bishop of Ancyra, and rightfully complains about this tumultuous judgment and the injury done to him. Especially worthy of note and apt for illustrating history are those words from his letter to Eutrechius: "Injuries," he says, "without doubt have affected me, for they gave both ears to the calumniators and kept neither for us. For even to murderers and adulterers a place of defense is granted; and a sentence is not passed against them until they have been convicted while present, or have confessed that the accusation is [23] true." But the pontiff became a laughingstock for calumny, not obtaining even that which is customary for grave-robbers, namely, that he might be interrogated as to whether the things he is charged with are true. This hardly equitable way of acting was kept by Dioscorus as well. For when he knew that Theodoret at this time was, as it were, enclosed in a respectable prison, immediately after the accusation made by the Osroenian clergy, he attacked our man with anathema, even though no right over a prelate of a foreign region belonged to him, and Theodoret had excellently defended himself against the unjust criminations in the epistle which is eighty-third in number. Thus Dioscorus thought a great impediment had been removed, which could have resisted him in promoting the error of Eutyches, whom he himself greatly favored. Eutyches was indeed condemned and deposed from his priestly office in the council of Constantinople, which was held a short time later in the year 448 (ann. C. 488 being a calculation error in the original) by the authority of Flavian, the bishop of the royal city, but by the arts of Eudoxia Augusta and Chrysaphius the eunuch, Dioscorus brought it about that in the following year a new ^C synod was convoked, in which he acted as president, and he defended the cause of Eutyches with an armed band so effectively that he was declared innocent and restored to his former dignity. From this later Ephesian synod, which on account of the unspeakable crimes committed against Flavian and other defenders of the purer doctrine they call "robber-synod," Theodoret was ordered to be absent by the mandate of Emperor Theodosius. He foresaw the evils impending over him, as we gather from the letter (112) which he sent to Domnus, bishop of Antioch. And his fear was not in vain; for with many others, whom one would say were companions of his praise rather than of his evils, he was cast out from his episcopal see. But it was altogether glorious at that time to be numbered among those who did not sit in the council of the wicked. For those who stood on Dioscorus’s side in this synod stained their reputation with such wanton audacity that it was more shameful to be admitted than to be cast out. But all the acts of this synod were rescinded by the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, or the fourth ecumenical council, which Leo the Great, Bishop of the Romans, obtained from Emperor Marcian through his prayers. That council was celebrated in the year 451, with Leo the Great acting as president through five legates. The Fathers assembled at Chalcedon performed many illustrious deeds, the frequency of which gave remarkable splendor to that council. We, however, having set aside the rest, will dwell only on those things which pertain to our writer. There are those who think that Theodoret was not admitted until the eighth session, in which almost nothing else was discussed except his cause. Facundus, however, whom others follow, has proven from the Acts of the council that he was present from the very beginning of the synod, despite the vain resistance of the Egyptians and many others. What was done in the eighth session in the cause of Theodoret, and by what conditions he was restored to his see, cannot be reviewed better than from the very Acts of this council. These, however, are found as follows in Hardouin, in *Collectio Conciliorum* vol. II, p. 498 sq.

• While all were sitting before the cancelli of the most holy altar, the most reverend bishops cried out: "Let Theodoret now anathematize Nestorius." Theodoret, the most reverend bishop, passing into the middle, said: "I have offered prayers to the most divine and most pious emperor, and I have offered petitions to the most reverend bishops acting in the place of the most reverend archbishop Leo; and if it seems good to you, let them be read before you, so that you may know how I think." • The most reverend bishops cried out: "We wish nothing to be read; now anathematize Nestorius." • Theodoret, the most reverend bishop, said: "I by the grace of God have been nurtured by the orthodox, and I have been taught in an orthodox way, and I have preached in an orthodox way; and not only Nestorius and [25] Eutyches, but every man who does not rightly understand, I abhor and consider an alien." And while he was saying these things, the most reverend bishops cried out: "Clearly say anathema to Nestorius and his dogmas; anathema to Nestorius and those who love him." • Theodoret, the most reverend bishop, said:

"I would say nothing else, except as I know how to please God. I first satisfy you, because I am not thinking of the city, nor do I have need of honor, nor did I come for this; but because I have suffered slander, I came to satisfy that I am orthodox; and I anathematize every heretic who does not wish to be converted, and Nestorius and Eutyches, and every man who says or thinks there are two sons, I anathematize." • And when he said this, the most reverend bishops cried out: "Say openly anathema to Nestorius and to those who think the things that are his." Theodoret, the most reverend bishop, said: "Unless I set forth how I believe, I do not speak. But I believe..." • And when he said this, the most reverend bishops cried out: "This man is a heretic, this man is a Nestorian; cast the heretic out." Theodoret, the most reverend bishop, said: "Anathema to Nestorius and to him who does not call the Virgin Mary Theotokos, and who divides the one begotten Son into two sons. I indeed have subscribed to the definition of faith, and to the epistle of the most holy and God-beloved archbishop lord Leo, and I think accordingly." And after all these things he said, "Farewell." ^B • The most glorious judges said: "Every doubt concerning the most reverend bishop Theodoret is now removed; since he has also anathematized Nestorius in your presence, and he has been received by the most holy and God-beloved Leo of the elder Rome, and he has willingly accepted the definition of the faith brought forth by your holiness, and in addition has subscribed to the epistle of the aforementioned most holy archbishop Leo. It is lacking, therefore, that a sentence be pronounced by your reverence, so that he may receive his Church, just as the most holy bishop Leo also judged." • All the most reverend bishops cried out: "Theodoret is worthy of the see; the Church should receive its pastor: the Church should receive an orthodox teacher; Theodoret is worthy of the see: many years to archbishop Leo. After God, Leo has judged; the people should receive the orthodox [teacher] worthy of his see. Let the Church be restored to Theodoret the catholic doctor."

Ad the third part of this Life we come, which will set forth the final fate of our subject, and the movements that arose after his death, and thus it will proceed as far as the times of the fifth synod. After the Council of Chalcedon, Theodoret consumed a great interval of time in the monastery situated near Cyrrhus, yet in such a way that he might watch over the well-being of his own Church with the greatest care. That this later part of his life was most desirable, we gather from an epistle sent to John the Oeconomus (146), in which he testifies that he was delighted by the quietude and a life free from cares. From the same epistle it is perceived that new disturbances arose at that time by the fault of Aetius the archdeacon, who did not wish to send the accustomed conclusion of the prayers and supplications, "For unto thee is due glory and to thy Christ and to thy holy Spirit," but had commanded that it was not proper to call Christ [two sons], but to glorify the Only-begotten. As in these times great disputes were accustomed to be stirred up concerning words, so also under this excessive distinction of words some thought that heretics were hiding something, and not without reason did Theodoret fear that the same thing which he himself had once experienced would happen to Aetius, namely, that he would be thought to divide the one Lord our Jesus Christ into two sons, and to believe the Only-begotten indeed the legitimate and natural son, but Christ rather adoptive and spurious, and thus unworthy of glorification. Thus Nestor depicts the state of the matter in the Epistle which we just cited, while he himself did what was becoming of a prudent moderator, with much study, when he not only explained accurately in this Epistle that place concerning the incarnation, about which there was arguing at that time with great contention of minds, but also composed a separate book on this argument, of which, however, only certain fragments have survived to our age. He undoubtedly wrote many books, when he abounded in this quiet leisure. For among many of those which he left, there are some concerning which it is sufficiently certain that they were not composed before the times of the Council of Chalcedon, or, which is the same thing, before peace and quiet were finally restored to our subject. Baronius and Sirmondus are therefore mistaken, who thought that Theodoret had paid his debt to fate shortly after that council, in the year of Christ 453. Gennadius fights against these above all, who testifies that our subject was still alive when Leo the Emperor was assuming the kingdom, and thus in the year of Christ 457. The argument which Labbeus drew from the Chronicle of Marcellinus appears less safe, because in that Chronicle the notation of time is not sufficiently determined. Much less does it seem necessary to insist upon those things which Garnerius (Auct. p. 148) brought forward from the Collectanea of Theodorus Lector, to prove that our subject departed from this life in the year of Christ 458: for the things which are narrated concerning James the Wonder-worker still living in the year of Christ 458 rely upon the vague testimony of Evagrius. We therefore deem it safest to refer the death of Theodoret to the year of Christ 457, with Tillemont and others.

In this year, as we think, he fell asleep in the peace of the Church, and left behind a dear memory of himself to all who, with a mind free from prejudices, assigned ^D a value worthy of his merits. Yet he experienced the same fate after his passing that he had while he was living, which was very unjust. The final line of things is indeed called death, and the ancients wisely commanded that one should speak only good of the dead, but it was not permitted to our subject to be so fortunate as to enjoy an unblemished reputation after death. We must therefore return to the history whose end we seemed already to have reached. As far as possible, the movements which for the entirety of the following century disturbed the East must still be narrated in the fewest words. Such is the habitual condition of great men, that if they have departed this life, those to whom the death of the deceased seems to have loosened tongues and mouths not uncommonly insult their pious hands, the same [text ends]

was the lot of Theodoret. For scarcely had he departed from this life, when the Eutychians, who bore with difficulty the misfortune not only of Eutyches but also of Dioscorus, strove to hand down to posterity with the most bitter slanders the memory of a most excellent man, or rather the memory of the entire Council of Chalcedon. If one were to believe Victor of Tunnuna and Evagrius, though we know both to be little reliable, there were two synods gathered during the reign of Anastasius, one at Constantinople and the other at Sidon in Palestine, in which the memory of our author was condemned. But since the history of both these synods is sufficiently obscure, we shall more profitably direct our efforts toward those points that pertain to the controversial matter of the Three Chapters. ^B Weary of the turmoils which the Eutychians had stirred up, the Emperor Justinian, who was in his time a most ardent defender of the faith, wished to restore peace to the Church by means of a writing directed against the Acephali or Eutychians. While he was meditating on this, he allowed himself to be persuaded by Theodore, at that time bishop of Caesarea, to turn his pen instead against the so-called three chapters, that is, against the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, of our Theodoret 29, and of Ibas of Edessa. For he hoped that in this way he would bring about the return of the Eutychians to the Catholic Church and their acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon. The Emperor, although he greatly favored this Council, nevertheless, because he judged that peace could be restored to the Church in no other way, promulgated a decree by which those three chapters were condemned as impious and blasphemous. The Eutychians rejoiced that they had obtained their wishes, as did Augusta Theodora, who favored them excessively. ^C However, for the counsel to fall short of the desires, the opposition of the Westerners, and especially of Vigilius, who was then bishop of the Romans, stood in the way. And it is indeed to be lamented that Vigilius eventually deserted the just cause, which he could have defended completely. His inconstancy, concerning which one should read the theological dissertation which was published not long ago at Greifswald in the year 1766 by President S. V. Schubert, is sufficiently testified to by the history of the so-called fifth synod, or the fifth ecumenical council, which was convoked at Constantinople chiefly for this cause. Although Vigilius himself had been convinced of the good cause he had to defend, and though he had been greatly entreated by the Africans, by those of Sardinia, and by the Illyrians not to consent to the condemnation of the Three Chapters, yet he professed his assent in that famous "Judicatum," as it is called. He could not approve this deed to the Orientals or to the Westerners as being anything but unworthy, which stirred up hatreds against Vigilius, especially among the Illyrians and the Africans, not to mention the most just anger of Facundus. Would that he could have erased all memory of that matter by the "Constitutum" which he later issued, from which only these few words need to be inserted here, which refer to our author and are as follows: "We decide and decree that nothing be done or said by anyone in injury or disparagement of a man who was most approved at the Council of Chalcedon, to wit, Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, while disparaging his name." ^D But such was the inconstancy of the man, that shortly after the "Constitutum" was published, he revoked this again, proving himself highly injurious not only to those for whose sake the matter was being handled, but also to himself and to his own reputation. We have as a witness to this matter a letter which he himself gave to Eutychius, bishop of the royal city, which exists in the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople, in Hardouin, vol. III, p. 213 ff. However, this letter was so displeasing to Garnier that, in his observations on the fifth synod appended to the Breviary of Liberatus, 30 he attempted, with great but futile effort, to persuade us of its ^D spuriousness. Vigilius, who died in the year 555, left this dispute to be pursued by his successors, but concerning the results of these it matters not to speak now.

It remains for us to speak generally of the writings which Theodoret left in great number, in listing which we shall follow the same order in which they appear both in the Sirmondian edition and in our own. The first and greatest part of these books is constituted by the Commentaries which he wrote on the Sacred Scripture of both the Old and the New Testament. In this branch of literature our author greatly excelled, since, in the judgment of Photius—and what a man he was!—(cod. 203) he captured the palm from Hippolytus and very many others, whether you look to his diction, which discovers and delights with pure and significant words, and hides what is hidden or delights with sweetness, or whether you look to his method, the chief praise of which is that without all circumlocutions it puts forward what it concerns to know, clearly and ornately, yet without omitting those things that can serve to inform the reader. Photius judges much the same, l. c., where he adorns our author's Commentaries on Daniel with those praises which deserve to be applied to all books of the same kind written by this author. 31 The first place among them is occupied by the Questions on the Octateuch, that is, on the five books of Moses, on the book of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. Immediately to these we join the Questions, which hold the next place, on the books of Kings (it is well known that in the Greek Bibles the books of Samuel are reckoned among the books of Kings) and Chronicles: for these seem to have been joined with them in times past, and at least in one codex (205) were read by Photius. The Questions mentioned in the first place he inscribed *εἰς τὰ ἄπορα τῆς θείας Γραφῆς*, which title Photius praises as being singularly appropriate to the work. That the same is also in agreement with the manner of speaking of this writer can be shown from question 28 on the book of Judges, where *πόρον εὑρίσκειν ἐν ἀπόροις* for our author is the same as to find a way out in a doubtful matter. The inscription teaches therefore at first glance that these Questions do not pertain to all these books, but only to the more obscure passages. And herein lies the difference that exists between these and the rest of Theodoret's sacred Commentaries. For those which follow exhibit a continuous Commentary on the entire books, whether of the Old or New Testament, whereas these former embrace only the interpretation of obscure passages.

The method is singular and not approved by all, which the author employed in these books, instructing the reader through questions and their solutions. But he seems to have disclosed his reasoning in the Prologues, where he addresses Hypatius, to whom each book is inscribed, now as "dearest of children," now truly as "most beloved," as one with whom he was on intimate terms, and who in the last years of his life, into which the era of these books falls, was adhering to his side, and whom he held as a companion in his labors in the episcopal office. This method was also fitting for an old man and a teacher most experienced, set with assiduous study in the searching of the Holy Scriptures. That these are the last of the books elaborated by ours is established, we think, by no vain conjecture, because he made no mention of them in any other work, nor in his letters, which he could have done for his own defense in the Epistle which he wrote to Leo, bishop of the Romans, in the year of Christ 449, as we have shown above, or indeed even in that which was directed to Eusebius of Ancyra. What remains is that in these, as in other books of Theodoret, certain things occur which have Theodore of Mopsuestia as their author, others which rightly ought to be referred to Origen, others to Diodore of Tarsus. For it happens not rarely, through the fault of those who gathered the Catenae from the writings of these Fathers, that things which belong to one are attributed to another, which holds true especially of the former whom we mentioned, as well as of Theodore the Heracleote, as has already been observed by Montfaucon, *Palæogr. Gr.* p. 347. ^B There is indeed no mention of the Commentaries on the Psalms in Photius: yet, because there are many writings of Theodoret which he does not recall, and mention of this most excellent work is explicitly thrown in in other books which Photius himself commemorates, it is not to be doubted but that it rightly belongs to our author, to whom it is also attributed by Nicephorus, *Hist. eccles.* lib. xiv. The author himself acknowledges this book as his own in Epistle 82, which was written to Eusebius of Ancyra, and likewise in Question 43 on the second book of Kings. In the Preface he teaches what method of interpretation he used, so that he might escape the censure which others had earned. He notes three faults in particular, the names of the writers having been suppressed, however, lest he injure their modesty. First, he reproaches an excessive zeal for allegory, which Dupin and Garner think was said against Apollinaris. Next, he impugns those who refer all prophecies to the Jews, which accusation indeed those things which are read in the acts of the fifth synod, collat. 5, from Hesychius of Jerusalem, in Hardouin, *l. c.* tom. III, p. 104, speak quite openly as pertaining to Theodore of Mopsuestia. Finally, he argues against the excessive prolixity of others, undoubtedly looking to Chrysostom, whom he followed in this, as in most other books, in preference to the rest, yet so that he studied brevity as much as possible. Having entered upon this path, he completed this labor with happy success, and at the same time earned the praise that, through critical diligence, he surpassed other interpreters of his time. For he employed the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, many fragments of which Montfaucon primarily derived from this Commentary, who also observes, *Prælim. ad Collectionem novam Patrum* p. 10, that our author, even though he often deflects from the Eusebian interpretation of the Psalms, yet from time to time expresses it almost word for word, albeit in a style for the most part more brief. The same thing Garnerius objected to our author regarding Chrysostom (*Auct.* p. 184). But we do not marvel at either, since it is sufficiently evident how great an interchange of names occurred in the Catenae, which could find a place all the more easily, the more, as Nicephorus (*l. c.*) testifies, Theodoret strove to form his style after the example of Chrysostom; whence it happened that if in the manuscripts the name of the author was neglected in some place, not even the most expert librarians were sufficiently certain whether it should be referred to this one or that. And as concerns the passage of Psalm 50:7, brought forward by Garnerius, it is indeed true that almost the same things are read in Chrysostom (*edit. Savilii* t. 1, p. 709 sq.): we have not wished, however, to warn of anything regarding this passage in the Variants placed beneath the text, because in the Augustan codex which we are accustomed to call the third, and which contains the Catena on the Psalms, as has been indicated at greater length in the Preface, we have seen not the name of Chrysostom but of our author inscribed. ^C To these we only add that from Epistle 82 written to Eusebius it can be gathered directly that this book was begun in the year of Christ 435.

The next in order is the Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles.

^A he watered the whole world." He lived in his writings, the fame of which had by then filled the entire world. If it is true, as another alleges, that he inveighed against Theodore of Mopsuestia, whom he otherwise held in high esteem, this certainly testifies to his love of truth and a mind free from partisan bias: for he did the same, as we have already seen, in his Preface to the Psalms. But the truth of the matter is not yet sufficiently clear. The whole accusation relies, of course, upon the authority of Pelagius II, or rather Gregory I, who writes in his third letter to Elias of Aquileia and the bishops of Istria: "When Theodore (of Mopsuestia) wished to interpret the Song of Songs, he claimed that Solomon had flattered the Ethiopian queen through this book: which Theodoret, while reproving, suppressed the name of Theodore, but nonetheless exposed his madness." Yet we read no such thing in Theodoret, l. c. He inveighs only against those who either thought that Solomon was speaking of himself and Pharaoh's daughter in this book, or who substituted Abishag the Shunammite for Pharaoh's daughter. Therefore, we find nothing said in this place about the Ethiopian queen; which opinion, however, if it be Theodore's, could have been included under the general name of old wives' fables, which our author uses in this place. For the fragments which remain from the commentaries of that Theodore on this book, (found in Hardouin, l. c. p. 88 seq.), are entirely in the nature of old wives' tales and unworthy of a Christian doctor. But let us proceed to those things which are objected to in the third place. If the author of these Commentaries grumbled that he was distracted by many cares, not only ecclesiastical, but also secular and military, those who know from the letters of Theodoret cited above what labors and what dangers he sustained to amend the depraved morals of those whose care was entrusted to him will not be surprised. He therefore bore with difficulty the burden imposed upon him, which was heavier than that of military commanders: for with all diligence applied, he could scarcely restrain the petulance ^B of those men. We would prefer to settle the matter thus, and, if need be, to admit a certain tropical mode of expression in these words of our author, rather than to assert, as some do without historical fidelity, that the region of Cyrrhus was at that time miserably disturbed by the unbridled license of garrison soldiers. Furthermore, that Manasses, the wicked king, burned a great part of the sacred Books, as is said in the Preface to this Commentary, is not asserted by our author in any other place, but was it necessary to say everything in one and the same place? He supplied many things in his Commentaries on the books of Chronicles, which he could have said with equal right in those on the books of Kings, had necessity imposed this law upon him. That he set forth his meditations at greater length in this work than perhaps in other books must be attributed not only to the condition of the subject matter, which had much difficulty, but also to the time in which he wrote. For it is not ill inferred from this very style of writing, which is a little diffuse, that this book is one of the first that our author composed. For by usage, as often happens, dexterity in writing is acquired, and the ability to say many things in few words. But the fact that he makes no mention of this book, where it seemed there was a need to defend his doctrine concerning the incarnation, achieves little. For whether he should have spared Theodore at that time, or whether he judged that there was no need for this testimony of his faith, the option of the places in which his faith should be defended was entirely free to him. Finally, we are not so moved by the authority of the Catenae that our cause should be much afraid of this argument. The number of Catenae on the Song of Songs is small, nor among them is there any whose memory is as obscure as that which is cited by Garnier, and attributed to a certain Neophytus. Yet there are some in which there are frequent citations of Origen and others, with whom we know our author is often confused, as in that which Meursius published at Leiden in 1617. It could therefore very easily have happened that in these Catenae, of which the number is small, the memory of our author is missing, whether this happened through the injury of time or the negligence of librarians. Therefore, all these things will not prevent us from claiming this Commentary for our author. For such is commanded by the authority of the manuscripts which Zinus and Sirmondus already used long ago, and by the great affinity which exists between this and other books of Theodoret. A striking example of this is given by that passage on Ezekiel, which is expounded in the Preface to this book in the same way as in our author's Commentary on that prophet.

The next place is held by the Interpretations of the sixteen ^C prophets, namely, of Isaiah, Jeremiah (to which are joined the Lamentations and the book of Baruch), Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve prophets who are called the minor ones. These Commentaries were not written in the same order as they follow one another. Theodoret himself advised in the Preface to that book that Daniel was the first whom he interpreted, and he sought the reason for his choice in the hatred of the Jews toward this prophet. Ezekiel seems to have been next, concerning whom it is certain, at least from the Preface to Jeremiah, that our author had commented on him before he set out to illustrate Jeremiah. In what order he proceeded to the others is not sufficiently clear: but we have it established from the author's own testimony that the last of these labors was the Commentary on the Lamentations, to which the author put an end with these words: "We also add this interpretation to the other prophetic books, so that by the grace of God we have left no prophecy without an interpretation." It is greatly to be lamented that the Commentary on Isaiah has not reached us in its entirety, of which we have only shreds. What Sirmondus gathered from the Catenae does not all pertain to our author, but appears for the most part to be referred to Theodore of Mopsuestia, and, as is still our conjecture, to Eusebius of Caesarea. Before we proceed to the remaining books, it must be noted in a few words that Garnier erred if he reports, in his Auct. p. 188, at the end of the fourth chapter, that our author in his Commentary on the final words of Jeremiah ^D

^A prolixly discussed the chiliastic errors of Apollinarius. But that discussion does not exist in this place, but at the end of the Commentary on Ezekiel, to which must be added those things which are read at the end of the Commentary on Haggai.

The Commentaries on the XIV Epistles of Saint Paul are useful in the first place, composed by our author with such great praise that it is very much to be lamented that the remaining books of the New Testament did not find the same interpreter. There exist, moreover, only a few fragments of Commentaries on the four Gospels, which Montfaucon reviewed in the *Bibliotheca Coisliniana*. He commemorates two of these on Matthew, p. 75 and 247, from Cod. Coisl. 24 and 195. Some few on Luke, p. 251, from Cod. Coisl. 201, and p. 376 ff.; but a single one on John, p. 68, from Cod. 23. Petrus Possinus gathered some things of our author on Matthew in the *Catena of the Greek Fathers on Saint Matthew* edited at Toulouse in 1646. There exist also some of Theodoret, but in Latin only, in Corderius’ *Catena on Saint Luke* edited at Antwerp in 1628. We know, however, from not obscure indications that more exist in the libraries of the King of France. But the Commentaries on the Epistles of Saint Paul which survive among us exhibit a complete and continuous interpretation, which alone embraces in itself whatever ought to have been said elegantly and appositely to explain the literal sense of these books. Nor could other things be expected from our author, ^B since he used as a preceptor Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the latter of whom is said to have been more fortunate in explaining the books of the New Testament than in scrutinizing the sense of the books of the Old Testament. What our author observed at the threshold of the Proemium, no less modestly than honorably, seems to pertain to both; namely, that it is to be feared lest there be those by whom he might be accused of rashness, because after this man and that man, who are the lights of the whole world, he dares to approach the interpretation of the apostolic writings. Of the ancients, only Nicephorus, who in the place cited mentions this excellent writing, is one: but the author himself mentions it both passim in his Epistles and in the first question on Leviticus. It cannot, therefore, be doubted that this book is rightly referred to our author: but in what year it was written seems less certain. It is to be lamented that both that epistle, which leads the procession among the remaining letters of our writer, and does not have a sufficiently distinct mark of time, which if it were available to us, no room for controversy would be left. For he sent these his Commentaries on the apostolic epistles to that friend to whom the first epistle is directed, asking that he openly and freely reveal his mind regarding them. Furthermore, in his letters to Eusebius of Ancyra and Leo, Bishop of the Romans (epist. 82 and 113), he indeed mentions this and other books that already existed at that time, but too vaguely: for he lists all the writings which he had composed both before the Council of Ephesus and in the first twelve years after it. Especially in the latter place, the mark of time is obscure, because he mentions these items in a more general index of books, ^C and prefixes these words: "There are some things which I wrote partly twenty years ago, partly eighteen, partly fifteen, partly twelve." Therefore, must it remain uncertain whether the books which are subsequently commemorated were written in the twelfth or twentieth year before these letters were dated, or within those years? [40] Yet from that Epistle to Leo the Roman, which, as has already been said, pertains to A.D. 449, it is certainly collected that these Commentaries had already been written before the Council of Ephesus. Garnier thinks that their era should be referred to that series of years which intervened between the Council of Ephesus (the earlier one) and the year of Christ 433. His arguments are indeed worthy of attention, but in another place there will be a more suitable occasion for disputing them. Yet this we cannot now pass over in silence, that it is an excellent specimen of a mind ill-disposed toward our author, which the same man produces in the place cited p. 190, where he tries to persuade his readers that Theodoret eagerly seized every opportunity to carp at Cyril in this whole book, because after the Ephesian synod and the peace that had been restored, it was not permitted to him to fight publicly against his adversary. But let the readers remember what we said already at the beginning of this Dissertation, namely that what he wrongly objects to our author must be turned back upon Garnier; for he seemed to himself to see a whole heresy where even the slightest appearance and shadow occurred. Let them remember, we ask, and either pass judgment, or suspend judgment, until they perceive that his bile has been moved more by a new indication of iniquity. But ^D since we must now hasten to other things, we add only this, that the Greek text of this book is owed to Sirmond, who first gave it to the learned world from the Codices, with the Latin version of Hervet added indeed, but used less cautiously, as Richard Simon well warned in the place cited p. 186.

The books of Ecclesiastical History are five, which Theodoret composed with no less praise than elegance for the purpose of supplementing the History of Eusebius of Caesarea. He therefore made a beginning from those times which constitute the final period of Eusebian History, and progressed up to the end of the reign of Theodosius the Younger. [41] He had rivals in Socrates and Sozomen, who at that time applied their minds to composing ecclesiastical history for the same purpose, but they nevertheless left many things over for our author, which he either supplemented or corrected. Thus, indeed, Photius decided (cod. 31), who extols with worthy praises not only the style of speaking, which is most apt for history, but also the abundance of facts narrated by our author, and judges that he is to be preferred by far to Socrates, Sozomen, and Evagrius. Yet the excessive boldness in metaphors could not escape the eyes of a most expert judge in these matters, which, although it cannot be entirely defended, may nevertheless be excused in some way by the genius of the people and the region in which he lived. But others, lest we seem to dissimulate anything, are the blemishes of this book, which Baronius, Dupinius, Valesius, and the Magdeburg Centuriators have either reviewed or corrected, lest anything regarding Garnier's excessive...

^A diligence in casting aspersions on our author should now be said.

Regarding the number of books of this *Ecclesiastical History*, Gennadius has cast doubt in some minds, who reports in c. 89 of his book *De viris illustribus* that our author composed ten books on this subject. The only one who seems to favor this account is Gerh. Vossius, who, when discussing the Greek historians, wished to persuade his readers that there once existed two editions of Theodoret’s *Ecclesiastical History*: one that comprised only the first six books, and another that comprised the subsequent five, in which he had supplemented the *History* up to the time of the Emperor Leo. But no credence at all is due to this fable, which is opposed not only by the authority of Photius, Nicephorus, Cassiodorus, and Evagrius, but also by the testimony of Theodoret himself, which stands at the end of the final or fifth book: ^B "For my part," he says, "ending the history here, I ask the readers to reward our labor with their prayers. For this *History* comprises a period of one hundred and five years, beginning with the madness of Arius and ending with the death of the men worthy of praise, Theodore (that is, of Mopsuestia) and Theodotus (of Antioch)." Even if he had wanted to continue the thread of his *History* further, the supreme prudence and modesty of the man—which, as is fitting, were admired by Valesius and Beausobre in *Hist. Manich.*, vol. I, p. 226—would not have permitted him to touch upon those times in which the hateful history of the Nestorian controversy occurred. For he would certainly be greatly mistaken who, from the silence with which Theodoret wished to suppress those quarrels, were to infer that he had set out to write this *History* before the time of the Council of Ephesus. For the less this conjecture can maintain itself, the more it is hindered by what our author relates in book V, c. 36, concerning the relics of Saint Chrysostom brought to Constantinople, and the piety of Theodosius and his sisters. Now, since it appears from the *History* of Socrates that the body of Chrysostom was brought into the royal city in the sixteenth consulship of Theodosius, and thus in the year of Christ 438, there is no doubt that our author composed his *History* a long time after the Council of Ephesus. Thus, only the man’s own moderation brought it about that he was silent concerning the quarrels, in the recounting of which he would have been most suited, had it been possible to do so without offense to others. ^C Since these things are so, who does not see that Garnier is an unjust judge of our author, whose words are these in p. 192, seq. of the *Auctarium*: "I think, first, this work of Theodoret is nothing other than a history of the Arian heresy (the same exists nearly ibid. p. 194), whether in itself or in its propagation. Next, that it was written with the design that the sources might be shown from which the errors that he attributed to the Catholics appeared to Theodoret to have arisen. Third, that in the Arians [43] he was defending proponents of the hypostatic union; in Eusebius of Nicomedia, Cyril; in Athanasius, or even in Chrysostom, Nestorium; that in others, friends of Nestorius were being outlined. Fourth, that finally Cyril and Proclus are now silently refuted in those who had denounced Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia as heretics in writing and in deed, when both are introduced as defenders of the faith." Must one abuse his talent in this way, so that, by whatever means possible, the integrity of a good man should be rendered suspicious? But why say more? From what has gone before, we believe it is sufficiently clear how injurious Garnier is toward Theodoret. Whoever desires more, let him read Ittigius *de Bibliothecis et Catenis Patrum*, p. 729, and the same author's *Preface* to the books of the *Ecclesiastical History* of the century, p. 8 seq. Garnier showed himself less than fair to the learned Cousin, who translated Theodoret's *Ecclesiastical History* into the French language, and likewise to a man of no less remarkable praise, Henr. Valesius, who on many accounts deserved well of our author as well as of other *Ecclesiastical History* writers edited together, whose latest edition appeared at Turin in the year 1748, enriched with many observations of scholars and variant readings sprinkled into the Cambridge edition of Guil. Reading.

We shall be briefer in reviewing the *Religious History*, which is entitled *Philotheos Historia* or *Ascetic Polity*. The utility derived from the reading of this book is less, inasmuch as it contains nothing beyond the lives of the Ascetics (a), and thus demands readers who are curious rather than eager to learn. There are things told in this book that are indeed singular; we would not wish, however, to say that Theodoret is as deserving of censure as appeared to Frid. Spanheim and others. For even if men of this sort would find little credence among us, regard must nevertheless be had [44] for the times. A certain part of this work is constituted by the *Oration* or *Dissertation on Charity*, which Sirmond inserted into the *Appendix*, but which Hervetus, in his Latin version, more correctly appended to this book.

A much greater utility is provided to us by the *Letters* of Theodoret, which hold the position next to his Works, and should be the more precious to us the more they illuminate the history of our writer. There are one hundred and forty-seven in number, though one that was written to John, bishop of Germanicia, is missing; it has found its place in the *Appendix*, vol. IV, p. 702. Nicephorus formerly read over five hundred of our author's letters, and if one might rely on his word, it is truly to be lamented that such a great part of them has perished. Garnier wished to make amends for this loss in some way, both by those letters which he presented from the beginning of his *Auctarium* for the enrichment of the third volume of the Sirmondian edition, and by dissertation 5, inserted in the same place, which is entitled *De Theodoreti et Orientalium causa*. This entire dissertation, which disappointed the expectation of many, contains nothing beyond va-

^Arious letters of the Fathers; first, from Christ-Lapo, and later edited by Stephen Baluze in his new Collection of Councils under the name of the *Synodicon against the Tragedy of Irenaeus*. However, it is rightly doubted whether those letters which Garnerius wished to claim for our author are genuine. For he was so carried away by his own fervor that he even placed faith in those which have the most manifest marks of forgery, such as the one which is said to have been written upon the death of Cyril to John of Antioch, regarding which we have already disputed in another place. Nor will it need to be urged at great length, for we have already given proof in the preceding pages from Leontius and Allatius, that many letters were forged under our author’s name by those who were addicted to the party of Nestorius. Great as was the readiness of Garnerius in admitting those letters which he thought served his purpose, just as great was his peevishness if there was a question to be discussed concerning those which testify that the mind of Theodoret was alien to the impious doctrines of Nestorius. Hence, he did not consider the *Epistle to Sporacius* to be genuine—which Sirmond relegated to the Appendix—not because he thought it spurious, as Garnerius asserts, but because its argument is almost the same as the twelfth chapter of the fourth book of the *Haereticarum Fabularum*, and thus it seems to be able to occupy a place among the letters with difficulty. For the rest, Dupin and Garnerius constructed various classes of these letters, but that whole artifice rests on very uncertain foundations, because it is not sufficiently established concerning many of these letters at what time they were written.

^Bsupplies an indication of time, from which we can gather that this book had been composed even before the *lystrikē* (robber) synod. Finally, we add to these another piece of evidence, which we seek from the letter (130) written to Bishop Timothy. We are therefore astonished that Baraterius, a youth of precocious talent and an ornament of his time, could have conceived the idea that these Dialogues were not to be attributed to our Theodoret, but perhaps to a younger writer of this name—to that one, namely, to whom some, along with Garnerius, ascribe those books of Ecclesiastical History which Gennadius, as we have said above, attributed to our author without any sufficiently serious foundation for his case. Nevertheless, he did not propose this opinion as merely probable in the Appendix to his *Anti-Artemonius* (published at Nuremberg in 1735), but also wished to defend it more stubbornly against the writers of the *Memoires*, as they are called, of Trivulzio, in a singular little book which is inserted in the *Bibliotheca Germanica* (written in the French language, as is known), vol. XLVIII, p. 50 seq. But such was his youthful audacity, which is not without all praise. And the very disputation of the youth, who seemed to be wise beyond his years, has some things which would not be unworthy of further discussion, but these will now have to be left to another place and time. We proceed to the remaining books of our author, if we first warn the readers of a new lapse of Garnerius in a few words. There will be little need to add anything more. Whoever reads carefully will see the snake hidden in the grass.

^Cthose things which preceded. The same thing happened to Garnerius, as has been said several times before, when he read this book; for who, unless it were he, would have dreamed that all these things were said against Cyril? So that we may make our words credible, we shall append these few things which exist in the author, p. 132, and recur in p. 240 with barely changed words: "In this work, he says, he disguises his purpose with a certain marvelous art: for while he pretends by dialogism to be disputing against the Apollinarians, he is in actual fact attacking Cyril and the Catholics; nay, he strives to confirm the doctrine of Nestorius by demonstration, as he himself puts it. He does indeed praise Cyril in the second Dialogue, but with a malicious praise, etc." Why is it not permitted to imitate these last words thus: Garnerius inveighs against Theodoret, but with malicious hatred?

The *Eranistes* or *Polymorphus* is of a dogmatic or polemical nature, as it might appear, a book extremely useful for refuting the Eutychians, which, opposed to their errors, was so ill-received by Emperor Theodosius, or rather by those by whose arts he was ruled, that by the order of the emperor it was deemed worthy of the flames. The dignity of the book was not indeed lessened by this unjust fate; however, lest any mark of infamy should cling to it, provision was made by Marcian, who wisely decided that this sanction of Theodosius should be rescinded. This book embraces three Dialogues, each of which has taken its name from its subject matter. The first is inscribed *Atreptos* (Immutable), the second *Asynchythos* (Unconfused), the third *Apathes* (Impassible). In the first, he teaches that the divinity of the only-begotten Son is immutable; in the second, that the union of divinity and humanity in Christ the Lord was not mixed or unconfused; ^D[46] in the third, finally, that the divinity of our Savior was free from passions. Subjoined to these are *Apodeixeis dia syllogismōn* (Demonstrations through syllogisms), where he attacks with valid reasoning the errors against which he disputes in this book. It could hardly be doubted that this is a genuine writing of Theodoret, since not only did Photius, codex 46, make mention of it, but also Nicephorus, who, in the place already cited several times, indicated this book by the name *logous treis peri theiōn dogmatōn dialogistikōs syntethentas* (three discourses composed in dialogue form concerning divine dogmas). The author himself also makes mention of it, both in the letter (16) to Irenaeus the bishop, and in that (83) which he gave to Dioscorus of Alexandria, which provides no obscure indication of its time, from which we can gather that this book had been composed before the *lystrikē* synod.

The four books of the *Haereticarum fabularum* also testify to the multifarious learning of our author, in which he reviews all the heresies that had become known from the days of Simon Magus up to the times of Nestorius and Eutyches: after setting forth all of which, in the fifth book he subjoined an *Epitome* of divine dogmas, to demonstrate how light and darkness differ from each other, which are his own words at the beginning of the last book. This is without doubt that book which Nicephorus mentions under the name of *pseudous kai alētheias diagnōsis* (Discernment of Falsehood and Truth), [48] by which title it is also distinguished in Possevin, *Appar. sacri* tom. II, p. 457, where a volume is commemorated among the books composed by our author which is inscribed *The Distinction of Falsehood and Truth*. After the Council of Chalcedon, this book...

^A was composed by our author—a fact which the epistle prefixed to Sporacius, by whose counsel and plan he undertook this labor, declares with clear indications. Those who, along with Garnerius, Cave, Oudin, and others believe that the twelfth chapter of the fourth book is a later interpolation because Nestorius is depicted in it in dark colors, as is appropriate, are greatly pressed by this chronological note. The arguments used by Garnerius to defend his opinion indeed do not seem to lack a certain superficial plausibility, but Dupin has answered all of them sufficiently in his *Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques*, vol. III. The testimony of Theodore the Abbot alone—not to mention Photius—will suffice to dissolve all objections. For these are his words in the argument concerning the Council of Ephesus: "If anyone wishes to know that Theodoret greatly hated Nestorius, let him read the book written by Theodoret himself concerning heresies." Can these words be drawn to any other book, or any other part of this book, than what exists in book IV, ch. 12, unless force is to be applied to the text? Yet Garnerius seemed to be so blinded in the very light of truth that he thought not only this part of the fourth book should be denied to our author, but also that the whole book on heresies favored Nestorius and opposed Cyril. And so that no one may think this is said by us more harshly than truly, I do not regret transcribing his very words. [49] Thus indeed he writes, *Auct.* p. 145: "I have called it a laborious and artificial work. For how much labor had to be expended in examining the writers who, up to that day, had defended the cause of the Catholic faith against heresies? But what skill it took, and how cunningly it was done, to write about individuals in such a way that the reader, gradually and imperceptibly, would himself be burdened with the odium of an agreement with the heretics regarding the defenders of the one incarnate nature of the Word, and would liberate the proponents of two—that is, as the times were, or at least the opinion of the common people, he would accuse Cyril and absolve Nestorius." Things not dissimilar are read on p. 245 of the same work, which, however, to have cited is to have refuted. Let whoever wishes consult Ittig’s *Dissertation on the Heresiarchs of the Apostolic Age*, p. 13.

^C There follow ten Orations, or Homilies, on Providence, in which he seems to have exhausted whatever can be said on this noble subject. The first five contain those things which contribute to proving Divine Providence; whether you look at the admirable structure of this world, or the fabrication of our own body, or all created things and their most wise governance. The sixth and the two following concern the answering of objections which could be drawn from the inequitable lot of many men. The last two have great power to incite a zeal for virtue. For they teach that the manifest monuments ^D of Divine Providence exist not only among the Jews, but among all men, and that we must most certainly await the fruits of piety, even if in this life they might seem to be of little use. That these homilies were once recited at Antioch by our author is the conjecture of many, and [50] it is not without a certain appearance of truth. Dupin assigns their date to the year of Christ 433, while Garnerius assigns them to 430 or 431.

Garnerius took it upon himself to illustrate the same argument in that most elegant work which he titled *Cure of Hellenic Maladies*, whose sixth book deals with Divine Providence. He achieved more in that work: for he so overturned the entire religion—or rather, superstition—of the Gentiles in twelve books that he elegantly defended the purity and honor of the holier faith. Perhaps Garnerius's conjecture that this book was written by Theodoret against the Emperor Julian is more ingenious than true. Whatever the case may be, he indefatigably examined the writings of the Gentiles, not only of this one but of all who had become famous for their genius and name at that time, as was first observed by Sylburgius, to whom we owe the Greek-Latin edition of this outstanding work, published at Heidelberg in the year 1592, which remains the most excellent of them all. Photius and Nicephorus are indeed silent about this work, but Tzetzes mentions it in his *Chiliads* IX, as does Theodoret himself in Epistle 113 to Leo the Roman, and in Epistle 116 to Renatus, as well as in the first *Question on Leviticus*. Greatly, therefore, are Rivetus and Cocus mistaken, who thought this book belonged to another author. Two epigrams concern this book in particular, which we think it not irrelevant to our undertaking to insert here as they are less known. [51] The first, described from a certain Augustan codex, exists in Possevinus, *Apparatus sacer* vol. II, p. 457, and is thus:

As another Neilos flooding with your words, Theodoret, you drown the error of the Achaeans, Increasing the seed of the true faith.

The second is read in a certain codex of the Bibliotheca Augusta Vindobonensis (according to Lambecius, book IV, p. 179), which was described by Peter the Patrician from another very ancient codex and is dedicated in this epigram to the Emperor Leo. Yet because the passage is rather long, we append only these first lines, which pertain to our author:

And this book too is worthy of your skill, Great Emperor Leo. For it bears within it, Lord, The solemn, cunning, false myth-makings Of the former Greeks, overturned by a wise teacher; And indeed it shows the oracles of Loxias To be false, profane, crooked, and leading astray, From which those before were darkened by error, Having slipped from the straight path. And simply and generally it clearly refutes The wordiness of those dogmas.