Jean Garnier’s Supplement to the Works of Theodoret

THEODORET AUCTARIUM, BISHOP OF CYRRHUS, PREPARED BY JEAN GARNIER. REVISED BY JOHANN LUDWIG SCHULZE.

To Volume I, in which are contained commentaries on Holy Scripture.

ADMONITION TO THE READER (1-71)

COMPENDIOUS RATIO OF THEODORET FROM HIS HYPOMNESTICA

Regarding the manner in which the Psalter was composed, and how the Psalms were arranged; concerning the books which are mentioned in the Scriptures as if they existed, yet are not to be found; concerning those things which were done at the end of David's time; and concerning the interpreters of the Psalter, their number and their age.

^A Omnis, quam habemus, Scriptura, tum Antiqua, tum Nova, divinitus inspirata est, utilisque ad [sc. discendam virtutem et fidem veram. Psalterii autem liber, in tempore quo...]

(Note: The Greek text begins here at col. 20.)

Πᾶσα μὲν ἡ καθ' ἡμᾶς Γραφὴ Παλαιά τε καὶ ^A Καινή, θεόπνευστός ἐστι, καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδα-

διδα- σκαλίαν ἀρετῆς, καὶ πίστεως ἀληθοῦς. Ἡ δὲ τῶν ^A Ψαλμῶν βίβλος, ὅτε πάντων ὡς παράδεισος, ἐν ἑαυτῇ πεφυτευμένα τὰ ἄνθεα φέρουσα, μελωδεῖ ἐπ' αὐτῶν καὶ ψάλλουσα δείκνυσιν.

Ἔχει δὲ καὶ παρατήρησίν τινα τοῖς βουλομένοις προσέχειν, καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα πως τῆς διαγωγῆς τῶν ψυχῶν, καὶ τὸν ἐπ᾿ ἀρετῇ τρέχοντα καὶ βουλόμενον κατανοῆσαι τὴν τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐν σώματι παρουσίαν· ὑπομιμνήσκειν πρότερον διὰ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως, τά τε κινήματα καὶ τὴν κατάστασιν τῆς ψυχῆς· καὶ οὕτω λοιπὸν τυποῖ καὶ διδάσκει τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας τοῖς τοιούτοις ψυχωφελέσι καὶ θεοσεβέσι λόγοις, οὕτω τε περὶ ἕκαστον τὸν τύπον καὶ τὴν διδασκαλίαν· καὶ τί μὲν λέγων, ἀρέσκειν δύναται τῷ Κυρίῳ, διὰ ποίων δὲ ῥημάτων ἐπιδιορθοῦσθαι δύναται καὶ εὐχαριστεῖν τῷ Κυρίῳ, ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ εἰς ^B ἀσέβειαν καταπίπτειν τὸν παρὰ τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγοντα.

Ὁ γὰρ χαρακτὴρ καὶ ἡ διαίρεσις τῆς βίβλου τῶν Ψαλμῶν, εἰς ὠφέλειαν πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐγένετο, καὶ ἡγοῦμαι ἐν τούτοις τοῖς λόγοις τῆς βίβλου τὸν πάντα βίον τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τάς τε τῆς ψυχῆς διαθέσεις, καὶ τῶν λογισμῶν τὰ κινήματα μετρεῖσθαι καὶ περιέχεσθαι, καὶ μηδὲν πλέον ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὠφελιμώτερον εὑρίσκεσθαι.

Ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς ἐνετείλατο τῷ Μωσεί γράψαι τὴν μεγάλην ᾠδήν, καὶ διδάξαι τῷ λαῷ· τόν τε καθιστάμενον ἄρχοντα κελεύει γράψαι τὸ Δευτερονόμιον, καὶ ἔχειν τοῦτο εἰς ὠφέλειαν τοῖς γνησίως ἐν αὐτοῖς μελετῶσιν ἀμέλει. Ὁπηνίκα εἰς τὴν γῆν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας εἰσῆλθεν ὁ τοῦ Ναυῆ Ἰησοῦς, βλέπων τὰς τῶν ἐθνῶν παρατάξεις, καὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς τῶν ^C ὠφελίμους Ἀμορραίων καὶ Γετθαίων, καὶ Ἰεβουσσαίων, καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς πάντας συνεισελθόντας κατ' αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν πόλεμον, ἀντὶ ὅπλων καὶ ξιφῶν, τὸ Δευτερονόμιον ἀναγνούς, εἰς τὰ ὦτα πάντων, τά τε ῥήματα τοῦ νόμου ὑπομνήσας, καὶ τούτοις τὸν λαὸν καθοπλίσας, περιγέγονε τῶν πολεμίων. Ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς Ἰωσίας εὑρεθέντος τοῦ βιβλίου, καὶ ἀναγνωσθέντος εἰς τὰς πάντων ἀκοάς, οὐκέτι τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἐφοβεῖτο.

Καὶ γὰρ παρὰ φρονίμων καὶ σοφωτάτων ἀνδρῶν ἤκουσα λεγόντων, ὡς ἄρα τὸ παλαιὸν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ μόνον ἀναγινώσκοντες τῶν Ψαλμῶν τὰς γραφάς, ἐδίωκον δαίμονας. Ὅθεν καταγνώσεως πάσης ^D ἀξίους εἶναι ἔλεγον, τοὺς ταῦτα μὲν ἀφιέντας, συντιθέντας δὲ ἑαυτοῖς ἔξωθεν ῥήματα πειθανά, καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἐξορκιστὰς αὐτοὺς ὀνομάζοντας.

Καὶ ὡς εἴρηται, οἱ παλαιοὶ ὁπότε εἶχον πρὸς τοὺς ὑπεναντίους πόλεμον, ἀνεγίνωσκον τὸ Δευτερονόμιον ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, καὶ ἡ κιβωτὸς — [alt-version omitted]

^A ἔχουσα τὰ πυξία τοῦ νόμου προώδευε πάντων, καὶ ἤρχει τούτοις ἀντὶ πάσης παρατάξεως ὅπλων καὶ ξιφῶν εἰς βοήθειαν· εἰ μή τις ἦν παρὰ τοῖς βαστάζουσι τοῦτο, καὶ ἐν τοῖς λαοῖς προκρατήσασα ἁμαρτία καὶ ὑπόκρισις.

Ταύτην οὖν τὴν κιβωτὸν βασιλεύσας Δαβίδ, μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Σαούλ τελευτὴν ἀναγαγών, οὖσαν ἐν οἴκῳ ᾿Αμιναδὰβ ἔτη εἴκοσι, ἐξότου ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αζωτίων μετενήνεκτο, καὶ ἐπιθεὶς ἐπὶ ἅμαξαν καινὴν, ἄγειν ἐπειρᾶτο εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ. Καὶ δὴ Ὀζᾶς ἄπιστος ὤν, ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, πέπτωκε παταχθείς. Ἐφ᾽ ᾧ δειλιάσας ὁ Δαβίδ, εἰσήγαγε τὴν κιβωτὸν εἰς οἶκον ᾿Αβδαδὰμ τοῦ Γετθαίου, καὶ μαθὼν ὅτι εὐλόγηται ᾿Αβδαδάμ, κατελθὼν ἀνελάβετο ταύτην, καὶ ἄγει εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ.

Ἐπιλέγεται δὲ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Δαβὶδ κλήρῳ ψαλτῳδοὺς ἀρχόντων ᾠδῶν τέσσαρας, τὸν ᾿Ασάφ, τὸν Ἐμάν, τὸν ᾿Αθὰμ, τὸν Ἰδιθούμ, τοῦ ψάλλειν καὶ ᾄδειν ἐνώπιον τῆς κιβωτοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ εἰς ἐξομολόγησιν καὶ αἴνεσιν, ἐν ὀργάνοις ἡρμοσμένοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς, καὶ κινύραις, καὶ ναύλαις, καὶ τυμπάνοις, καὶ κυμβάλοις, καὶ ψαλτηρίῳ, καὶ κερατίνῃ, οἷς ὁ ἀριθμὸς ἐπετέτακτο ᾀδόντων διακόσιοι ὀγδοήκοντα ὀκτώ, ἑκάστῳ ἑβδομήκοντα δύο, ἐκ τοῦ Χὰμ τριάκοντα δύο, τοῦ Σὴμ εἴκοσι πέντε, τοῦ Ἰάφεθ πεντεκαίδεκα, κατὰ τὴν γενομένην οἰκονομίαν, ἡνίκα ὁ πύργος ᾠκοδομήθη ὑπὸ ἀπίστων ἀνδρῶν, ἑβδομήκοντα δύο ἐθνῶν μερισμὸς ἐτελεῖτο γλωσσῶν. Οἷς ἀσυμφώνου φωνῆς γενομένης εἰς διασπορὰν ἐχώρησαν ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἐλαυνόμενοι. ^B Οὗτοι τοίνυν πάντες ἵσταντο ἐνώπιον τῆς κιβωτοῦ ψάλλοντες καὶ ᾄδοντες ὕμνον τῷ Θεῷ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι.

Μέσος δὲ αὐτῶν ἵστατο ὁ μακάριος Δαβίδ, αὐτὸς ἄρχων τῶν ᾠδῶν, κρατῶν ἐπὶ χεῖρας τὸ ψαλτήριον· ἡνίκα δὲ ἐπί τινα τούτων ἐσκίρτα τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἐπεπήδα μόνος ἐκεῖνος, καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἐπαύοντο ἐπιφωνοῦντες ἀκολούθως τῷ ψάλλοντι, λέγοντες τὸ ᾿Αλληλούϊα, ὃ σημαίνει ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραΐδος φωνῆς εἰς τὴν Ἑλληνίδα μετατιθέμενον, Τῷ ὄντι Θεῷ· καὶ οὕτως ᾄδοντες τῷ Κυρίῳ διετέλουν.

VARIAE LECTIONES

Concerning the arrangement of the Psalms.

^A Since rampant idolatry had taken hold of the Jewish nation, such a state of forgetfulness concerning the holy Books befell them, that they had forgotten not only the traditions of their fathers, but even Moses himself, and kept the book of the Law in no remembrance at all. For this reason, the Psalms were arranged not as they were read, but as they were discovered; and thus it came to pass that those which belonged to later times were placed before the earlier ones because they were found first, while those that belonged to earlier times, because they were discovered after others, took a later place; you may find the very same thing to be the case among the prophets as well.

What deeds David performed toward the end of his life, and what things regarding him are worthy of admiration.

^B The prophet (David) wrote his entire history in each of the psalms as they coincided with his hymns, and he spent his whole life singing hymns to God, and for this purpose he possessed a psalter, which is a musical instrument. He established choirs of psalm-singers, placing the entire Levitical race—which at that time numbered more than thirty thousand—under three choir directors to sing continuously and to laud God with his hymns; he composed countless psalms, which he distributed to these Levitical choir directors.

^C But King Hezekiah, wishing to reduce the multitude of psalms to a smaller order, chose through the Levites, from that great multitude, these one hundred and fifty psalms, which he had received through the wise men among the people. David willed that Solomon, whom he had begotten of Bathsheba, should be the successor to his kingdom; and when he had been anointed by the prophet Nathan, David himself honored him, confirming the kingdom to him, and exhorted him to preserve sincere piety toward God, declaring this to be the foundation of the best government. He also commanded him to build the temple, imparting the entire plan, the measurements, and the design for the whole structure, and leaving him expenses worthy of such magnificent preparation. For there were ten thousand talents of gold, and a hundred thousand talents of silver; but of brass and ^D iron there was no reckoning. Now, those who treated him with contumely, at the time when he was suffering misfortune

he did not allow to remain unknown; for he enumerated even these, when he handed the kingdom over to Solomon. ^B

Interpretation of the word "diapsalma."

When there is a change of some musical melody or rhythm, the notation for a "diapsalma" seems to be appended; and often, too, when there is a change of sentiment or person. Therefore, this mark always indicated an interval in the speech, where there was otherwise no place for silence. This interval has been called "diapsalma" by the interpreters.

For as the psalmody proceeded continuously, if any other illumination of the Holy Spirit occurred in the meantime, while David was prophesying, it provided an interval of time for his intellect ^C to receive the knowledge of the things which the Holy Spirit had suggested. And just as often some people, whether walking on the road or conversing with one another at a banquet, if a sound suddenly strikes their ears, stop their speech and turn their mind toward the sound, paying close attention through the silence to see if they who are listening can grasp the power of the sound: so also the great David, prophesying under the Spirit, would do this, pausing in his melody for the One sounding spiritually within him.

Who translated the Psalter, and how many there were, and when.

The first version is that which is called the Septuagint. Because they were ^D Hebrews, they were chosen, six men from each tribe, and they translated the divine Scripture under King Ptolemy Philadelphus, three hundred and thirty years before the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.

The second is that of Aquila. He, being from the city of Sinope in Pontus and a Greek, was baptized in Jerusalem; and again, the wretch renouncing the Christian faith and running to the Jews, he himself also translated the divine Scripture, in the reign of Emperor Hadrian—who died of a wasting disease—four hundred and thirty years and four months after the translation of the Seventy.

^A

The third is that of Symmachus. This man was a Samaritan by birth, and since he was held in no honor among his own people, being sick with the fever of ambition and the desire for principate, he fled to the Jews and was circumcised a second time. And to subvert the Samaritans, he himself also undertook a translation of the divine Scripture, in the time of the Emperor Severus, fifty-six years after the translation of Aquila.

The fourth is that of Theodotion of Ephesus. He, being of the sect of Marcion of Pontus, also undertook a translation in the time of the Emperor Commodus, at the same time as Symmachus, to subvert his own heresy.

The fifth translation was found hidden in jars, in the time of the Emperor Caracalla, in Jericho.

The sixth translation likewise was found hidden in jars, in the time of Alexander ^B, son of Mammaea, in Nicopolis, which is by Actium.

The seventh and last translation is that of the holy Lucian, the great ascetic and martyr, who also, having encountered the aforementioned editions and the Hebrew books, and having painstakingly inspected what was lacking in or superfluous to the truth, and having corrected each in its proper place in the Scriptures, published it for the Christian brothers; and this translation, indeed, after the struggle and martyrdom of this same holy Lucian, which he underwent under the tyrants Diocletian and Maximian—that is to say, the very book of the edition written in his own hand—was found in Nicomedia under the Emperor Constantine the Great among the Jews, in the wall of a small chest, [index: entries preserved]

which had been placed there, for the sake of protection, by King Constantine the Great, within the wall of a small tower, covered with plaster.

Which books are mentioned, but are not found.

The books of Nathan, Addo, Achiad the Silonite, Semei, and Jehu are stated to exist in the Book of Kings. These were indeed prophets, and they wrote about the things they prophesied; but their books are not found.

It is said in Chronicles that there were three thousand of David's Psalms; however, only one hundred and fifty of them were selected by the friends of King Hezekiah, while the rest were hidden away.

The Scripture in Chronicles relates that five thousand proverbs were published by Solomon; but now, only those which the Church has received exist.

The inscription of the Song of Solomon testifies that this mystical song was selected from many songs.

Josephus relates that the prophet Ezekiel wrote two books of prophecies; but we know that only one is found.

TO VOLUME III.

*And his sweat became as it were great drops of blood.*

Although he often foretold his passion to the apostles, and gave them προσημάνας (a prior sign) of the passion, and rebuked the blessed Peter when he prayed that this might not happen, yet when the time of the passion was at hand, he cried out: *Now is my soul troubled* [b]; and the divine nature permitted the humanity to undergo such agony, that he sweated great drops of blood, was strengthened by an angel, and overcame fear. For it was necessary that in this, too, the nature that was undergoing the passion should be revealed.

[b] John XII, 27.

rops of blood, was strengthened by an angel, and overcame fear. For it was necessary that in this, too, the nature that was undergoing the passion should be revealed. John XII, 27.

TO VOLUME IV.

THEODORETI SERMONES ET HOMILIÆ.

If the herald and forerunner of the Word had need of earthly words for his praise, even then there would be no reason for me to be confident in this oration; rather, I would have set forth the excuse that to pursue the proposed theme is both impossible and absurd, and greater than any speech. But since he has received his testimony and praise from above, and from the divine and primal Word, every speech brought forth for him is superfluous, and the praise of the tongue moved to eulogy of him is redundant. For who could even say such a thing, and by what means could he possibly attain the truth? For not even if every speech were brought together into one, and created a single, brilliant, and great voice, could it render worthy praise to John, who was inspired by divine power beyond what can be told, and who embraces all things incomprehensible and immense. So much so that a single voice suffices for him—the Lord's own divine voice, indeed—of which he is truly worthy, and because of which every other voice yields and falls short of his merits.

Wherefore it seems better to me to speak neither a little nor a great deal about the proposed subject, lest I appear to do something reckless, attaching a discourse of my own to a subject of such magnitude, a discourse which is otherwise unpolished and would now certainly be judged useless, since it could explain nothing of that which belongs to John.

^B To me, therefore, it is better and more useful to remain silent than to speak; but since I see many distressed by this, and calling for an oration—especially on this day of his nativity, which has made this gathering larger, and especially since each one has come prepared to hear, and, counting our intention as somehow superfluous and untimely, would turn it as a reproach against us—I judge therefore that I must break my silence, contrary to my intention, and deliver an oration, however lowly, to those who demand it, lest I appear to offend those whom it is better to please.

And truly, since that voice has gone before, it was also fitting that our voice should be released to praise his nativity and proclaim his coming, which was above the order of nature. There will therefore be some pardon for this discourse! ^{C D}

^A and an excuse, at least in this, that it embraces something adapted to the purpose. But if only the nativity of the Baptist is now to be set forth for this purpose, and the rest is passed over, this very fact might perhaps be censured as a deficiency, as if I had nothing to say of those things that are desired—such as everything that has been omitted regarding his subsequent life, his character, and his death, from which, nevertheless, proofs of praise abound for those who might wish to praise him.

Although I do not seem to have a correct opinion on this very point. For what, even if there is no mention of other things, will not this single thing suffice as a sufficient argument, and will it not, as is fitting, although it be a single thing, provide a shining subject matter for speaking? Those stupendous beginnings of the herald, even if called upon toward praise alone, can indeed fill the whole argument of the oration without any digression.

Into this field, therefore, as much as possible, let the oration run, according to the measure of one's ability, and with the others omitted—which, as you know, each have their own subject matter for discussion—it is necessary first to have a discourse concerning the parents who were inspired by God; who they were, and how that gift came to them divinely and beyond the laws of nature: that glorious seed, indeed, of the happy birth of the parents, an ornament as well as an end.

^B Who, indeed, does not know Zacharias and Elisabeth, joined together by the same marriage and customs, bound no less by virtue than by body, weighed down by no desire for earthly things, leaning entirely toward celestial things; whose purity of life, whose ascent to God, whose care for better things, and whose, as it were, deification of the mind, and whose dignity and splendor—both among others and in their own tribe—was so distinguished that even at home they excelled their own kin?

For Zacharias was sprung from a prophetic and priestly lineage; and his wife, likewise, was a prophetess, a participant in the same dignity and order by reason of her kinship with her husband. For both, a double clarity shone ^C in place of a single one: one would say that in them every exercise of piety was a path from which all the streams of heavenly grace, as is fitting, flowed down into them.

There was only one thing that did not turn out according to their own desire, namely, that they had lived until then without children and were barren—a thing which among others was held to be so detestable and abject, that in that time it was considered a disgrace; although to them it was not so very sad or burdensome. For they knew, if anyone did, that God is the one who presides over our affairs and provides for the utilities of each person; that time, nature, and everything whatsoever ^D depend upon His will, which, as it seems good to Him, He disposes, changes, and subverts: that it is most easy for Him to open a barren womb and to cause a nature that has become effete, after the age has passed, to bring forth. For what is so difficult that it is not most easy for God?

et ac subvertat: ipsi facillimum esse cælibem uterum aperire, et efficere, ut effeta natura, postquam exacta est ætas, pariat. Quid enim tam difficile, quod Deo non sit facillimum?

^A Thus that noble pair, even in those things which do not appear to be matters of prayer, did not cease to give thanks to God, upon whom they hung their hope, and whose will alone they followed. It was therefore altogether necessary that those to whom all other things were illustrious and distinguished should have a birth of offspring that was unusual, so that they might possess it not from nature, but entirely from grace.

^B I will say something greater: since the Virgin was about to bring forth a Son, a One such as no other has been or will be, and the uterus was about to encompass the Lord of the universe, from whom is salvation to all, it was fitting that the present birth, which was not to take place in the manner of others, should precede it and herald the coming of that future One. It was fitting that this good should exist as a harbinger of that greater Good, so that this event, which was beyond nature, might build up faith in that other event which far more transcended nature. Hence, it was permitted to those who wished, through the secret account, to attain to that which was more secret. But it is necessary to explain how that admirable birth came about, and how many portents occurred concerning it, which made what came to pass, and the very gift of celestial grace, more admirable.

^C Zacharias, therefore, being, as we have said, distinguished by the priesthood, and offering prayers for the people, as was commanded by the law for priests, when the time of the Feast of Tabernacles was present—during which it was permitted only to the high priest to enter into the inmost sanctuary—he, having entered the temple according to custom and being in petition to God, was earnestly praying for pardon for the people. To him, as he offered prayers, a visible angel stood by, terrible to behold, terrible also in presence, and, as is credible, terrible in [the very manner of his] meeting. "Zacharias," he says, "you have been heard by God, and that indeed beyond your prayer; your wife shall bear a son, and the name of the infant shall be John"; and he added other things which are related according to the divine Gospel. By these things Zacharias was vehemently stricken and astonished at the wondrous event, not because such an apparition was new (for he was indeed accustomed to seeing such things of old), but because while his prayer was for other things, the angel who appeared announced other things. Nor did he immediately have faith in the words, lest he might appear to have easily accepted an opinion only to cast it aside more easily; for things which are above measure excellent are wont to render men somewhat slower to a prompt assent.

^D Whence Zacharias, by no means yielding to these words, but rather pronouncing them impenetrable to the force of his understanding, replies to the angel: "I do not understand your oracle; for I am an old man, as you see, and the wife with whom I live has ceased to bear; for both of us the age for conceiving children is passed, unless perchance this outcome might come to pass by the gift of God, to whom we have entrusted all our affairs, and concerning which nothing pleases us except what pleases Him." It was fitting for him, being a prophet of God and obeying divine words, to say and ponder these things in his mind.

^A But to what purpose, one might ask, does Zacharias enter in to ask for pardon for the people, and the angel who appeared predict to him the pledge of his prayer, the birth from a barren woman? Was it not manifest to those spouses that there would be no other room for pardon, unless he were born who would point out the author of salvation, and announce Him openly to all, being called His friend, and messenger, and voice, and forerunner? For which reason it seems to me that what was said by the angel was both opportune and most aptly corresponds to the requests of the high priest.

^B But it is necessary to add to this discourse whatever else the angel who appeared said to Zacharias. For since, as we have said, his reason did not immediately assent to the things spoken, but he sought a more perfect comprehension of this mystery, so that he might hold fast this great thing inside in the more recondite inner chambers of his mind and store it away, the angel prescribes nothing else to him but silence, and renders his tongue devoid of speech, showing, as I believe, by all means that the matter is full of mystery, and that it is greater than can be expressed at that time by speech and tongue.

Zacharias therefore from that time remained with compressed lips, speaking with no one, nor emitting a voice, even if he had wished; for what was common at that time between him and the people? Between him, I say, who had prohibited for himself the use of the senses, who had withdrawn his soul from earthly and perishable things, and who was conversing with those exempt from bodily contagion? What with those who are turned toward the body and coarser senses, for whom it was in a way superfluous, or perhaps even impossible, to hear a divine voice not consonant with human voices, and to utter arcane and ineffable words, which are made neither by struck air, nor by organs instituted for forming voice, but by an interior silence and another better language, known only to those who withdraw from the senses and with a pure mind perceive the likenesses of divine things? Which things, even to Zacharias himself, being certainly conscious of what magnitude of munificence he had become a partaker, were unaccustomed when he would speak to others; but not so when he would hear God, to whom all things are known, even those which lie hidden.

^{C D} To me, however, the stupendous silence of Zacharias brings another thing to mind: nor do I consider it less than the former mystery, nor full of mediocre grace. And so, to speak in a few words, the matter stands thus: since that priest had lived under the old law, and had been adorned with the priesthood of Aaron, and both (namely, the law and the priesthood) had to cease and yield to future grace, his voicelessness represents the cessation of both, and the voice, restored at the proper time, represents the dawning grace and the grace arriving with the birth of John; by which grace the true priesthood is demonstrated, not through shadows and figures, but openly and plainly, with those things which were wrapped in silence; and when Zacharias foresaw the end of these,

^A he spoke of wonders with a clear and eloquent tongue when the time came, declaring thereby that one should not be silent, nor hide in the recesses of the mind the presence of God and His visiting and descent to men. But these things were for later, when he casts off his speechless state and speaks these supernatural things; yet the end of that silence, which he knew to be most timely for himself and clearly advantageous for the circumstances, is established. There were some other matters to be said regarding his silence, but let those who are spectators and initiates of the greater mysteries, and those whose minds are more penetrating, look into them; for my part, let the discourse proceed further.

From that time on, Elizabeth, as is clear to all, conceived John; she saw her womb swelling, and she never ceased to marvel at the miracle of how she who was barren and altogether sterile had suddenly grown young for childbearing, and how her breasts, which had been completely withered, gave milk for the nipple—things that appeared not only as a grace, but as the supreme delight to a woman advanced in age, for which she also magnified God, who alone is able to work such great wonders.

When she had reached the sixth month from her conception, the Mother of the Lord, as was necessary towards one who was her kinswoman and earnestly entreating her, visited her at her home; this was just after she had herself been greeted by the angel and had conceived in her womb the Immeasurable God, whose presence the infant—perceiving while in the womb of Elizabeth—leaps inside the maternal chambers, and declaring thence something sweet and ineffable, he immediately grants his mother the power to speak, though not with a common voice, such as is wont to be used. ^B Nor indeed is this a light matter, since in a marvelous way he bestows a voice altogether new, heavenly, and one that only he deserves to utter, who was capable of understanding sublime and divine things even before his mother's labor.

For Elizabeth openly declares the Mother of the Lord to be coming to her—when the wonderful event was not yet known to anyone—proclaims her blessed with praises (for she was truly blessed), and extols her with other more excellent commendations; she considers her arrival superior to her own merits, inasmuch as she had triumphed, so to speak, over the whole of nature. The tongue indeed was Elizabeth's, but the demonstration and prediction of the one shut up in the womb, and the manifestation of the incomprehensible mysteries, was truly his.

I, for my part, having hitherto held this conception to be beyond thought and unable to find anything greater than it, now consider what has been said about it to be lowly and unequal, because of what is present, which perhaps any other person might also turn over in his mind. ^D For what could be compared in excellence to such a miracle? An infant in the womb, an infant yet unperfected, an infant altogether unformed, not yet having attained a complete cohesion, not yet having senses instructed for cognition, still in

^A its mother’s womb, and which, because of chance miscarriages of nature, is not even considered to be anything—that which is nothing at all, and shows no sign of what it shall be, this was seen as a miracle, suddenly, and one surpassing logic, mind, and senses. And furthermore, it received such grace, which became for it the cause of that paradoxical leap, and the herald of those supernatural events. For this reason, this miracle seems to me a miracle above miracles, and the most admirable of all that have ever occurred; for this it is that has seized in astonishment all creation, whether material or immaterial, whether heavenly or earthly, so that there is nothing, however illustrious and excellent, that can be compared to it.

^B But indeed, when the appointed time for the birth of such a one had arrived, and that sweet burden was miraculously released from the pains of labor—pains which bring not so much grief as joy, and which provide an unspeakable pleasure—it was possible to see everyone rejoicing with the newborn child, and loosing their tongues in praise of the infant coming forth into the light.

Wherefore, Zacharias also, being filled more abundantly with joy, is inspired yet more by the divine power; he looses the bond of his tongue, and in a clear and more-than-human voice, proclaims the coming forth of the child, and makes the grace of this one manifest to all: for he calls him the prophet of the Most High, ^C and forerunner of the Lord, and voice of the Word, and hails him with other titles in his joy; and he assigns to him with distinct and plainly eminent manner the name John, which title signifies salvation for the peoples, and a prediction of future goods.

Zacharias foretold and heralded these things, and this served as the outcome of his mysterious silence, as was fitting; for it was necessary that his timely speechlessness should be exchanged for a more opportune utterance, and that it should be made known to all that the law, indeed, and the priesthood, and all the ancient ceremonies were to have their transformation and end, and that the arrival and manifestation of grace had come.

These things Zacharias ^D foretold with a clear voice, at the time when it was necessary; these things John, his son, both saw and handled with his hands, according to the prophecy of his namesake, announcing to all the divine presence, and becoming the true minister of the Word. For no one has ever been seen who either pointed out the way of salvation, or turned the rough path into a smooth one, like that most great and admirable forerunner, whose life and speech were held in such veneration by all that it seemed a great thing to each person if he could approach him more closely and be allowed to hear him speak; whence they were led to think that he might perhaps be the Christ, whom they supposed to have come to men. Wherefore, so many and such great signs, both before and after

his birth, were divinely shown, so that he might have all things new and unusual, who, by the inspiration of the Spirit, before he was even released from the swaddling clothes in which he was wrapped, immediately inhabited the desert without shelter, without a hearth, without food, and without any commerce with men. For as if he were without flesh, or rather as if he were an angel come down from heaven, he lived and maintained a purely immaterial life, so that he might not appear a man subject to matter and corruption, whose whole being was above man.

And it occurred to my mind, as I went forward with this discourse, ^B to wish to relate these things one by one, detail by detail: how he, being altogether an infant and needing maternal arms, chose that ungrateful and harsh mode of living—a life void of human society and communion, and utterly solitary; how much time he spent in this way, separated from all human affairs, both in his earliest age and in his youth; how he later came to the Jordan according to the divine oracle, where he was first seen by men; what those things were which he preached to the people while baptizing; and, what exceeds all belief, how he baptized the Lord himself in the waters, and touched His head; and, finally, how for the sake of the Lord he was himself deprived of his own head, for which a petulant girl had danced.

These and other things, even greater and more sublime, ^C if it were permitted, this discourse of mine would seek to recount, and it would become sweeter by the commemoration of such great things, nor would it be less pleasing to religious ears; but these things demand another discourse and another time, as I said at the beginning of this speech. I shall touch upon none of them, being mindful only of those things which pertain to the nativity, and of the wonders and miracles which happened then; not that I wish to retract those things which, as you know, the first part of this discourse has occupied, but so I shall show my love and signify my joy concerning this day.

For now, most truly, every heart ^D blooms and rejoices with the birthday of the divinely-inspired one; now laughter and ineffable joy have taken hold of each person’s soul; now all the nature of immaterial beings rejoices, both those who inhabit the upper region, and those who inhabit the lower and subterranean regions, for the sake of the salvation that is to redound to all; now the mystery hidden from the ages is revealed; now the only-begotten Son of God becomes, in an ineffable manner, the Son of man.

Now angels are joined to men, and those things which were before separated come together into one; for all the best things concur with the birth of the Forerunner, and with his advent, all most excellent things flow together; and not without merit, surely, are all things that pertain to him new—his conception, his birth, his training, his manner of life, and other things which were accomplished in him in a miraculous manner.

Therefore, let no one be austere, no one dejected, no one weighed down by sadness, participate in this present assembly. But let one who has cast off the sorrow of soul and body, approach

^A and let him celebrate the birthday of the herald, and proclaim this day as most auspicious. For what greater thing could one bring to his pleasure, when he beholds all the most beautiful, most sweet, and most profitable things gathered into one, and having the God-inspired one as messenger and herald?

But since, O most blessed Forerunner, we have thus honored you as leader and prince in greater things, and from you we have obtained all pleasure, hope, and help, be present, and yourself return the love of those who yearn for you, and being moved with kindly compassion toward us, do not take into account our faults, nor the iniquities with which we are daily entangled, but show your sympathy to those who stumble. ^B For you have the Lord willing to yield to you, and forgiving us if we might seem to have acted wrongly; for you are His friend, Baptist, forerunner, and prophet; and you address Him more freely and more confidently than the rest: your intercession is heard, and your prayers reach the ears of God immediately without any mediation. Do not, therefore, cease to intercede for your servants, and to beg for what is profitable for us, so that we may have a merciful God, and attain to Christ Himself in the world to come, who provides for us the promised kingdom, in Christ Jesus our Lord, together with the life-giving Spirit, now and always, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

From the Five Sermons of Theodoret on Saint John Chrysostom. From the Bibliotheca of Photius, cod. 275.

^C Sermons were read which blessed Theodoret composed on Saint John Chrysostom: of these we have seen only five until now, from which we have transcribed the following selections.

The first of the five sermons seems to follow another preceding one, or certainly to be a part of one. Yet, it treats how (John) came to Constantinople having been summoned, and how he was constituted its archbishop: how he strove with all zeal to restore the presbyterate and the supreme priesthood to the ancient norm: and what that noble John accomplished against Gainas, now stopping the mouth of the ferocious one, now acting as legate for the common business of the public affairs; and how at last envy brought forth the sentence of exile against him. ^D Narrating these and other things which the holy man accomplished right to the end, (Theodoret) nevertheless passes over many things, indeed most things.

The one that follows completes some brief praises, being itself brief, beginning thus: "Again the memory of John is recalled to us."

The third one surpasses the laws of panegyrics. It performs—

^A a transition from the preceding ^B examples in the beauty of its words and thoughts. It begins thus: "I see that a panegyric which would require a trumpet is being put at risk by a childish tongue, just as the glory of an athlete, described with a thousand arts, is now set before me, a weak craftsman, for description." Such is the proem; then follow these words: "One man, being seized, drags him to his aid; another, summoning him to a trial, implores him as a patron; another, starving, begs for food; another, naked, for clothing; another—[he] strips him; another, grieving, seeks consolation; another prays to be released from bonds; another drags him off to examine his sickness; a stranger begs for hospitality; another, standing by, laments his debt; another calls for an arbiter and peacemaker for domestic troubles, nor does a slave flee to another when weeping over the bitter anger of his master. A widow cries out, 'Have mercy'; another laments her bereavement." A thousand and various are the transformations for the father, for each person, for each thing. "One is seized, and the father becomes the advocate; hunger harasses, and he who was the advocate becomes the provider; one falls ill, and the provider is transformed into a physician; one has fallen into grief, and the caretaker is found to be a comfort; the care of strangers arises, and he who had become all things shows himself to be a host. What does it avail to pursue in speech the individual parts of the time that measured his life, if I cannot speak of his priesthood alone? So great a variety of saving works did not entirely leave men. O leader, even after the end of life, most formidable! O soldier, terrible to enemies even from the tomb! O lyre capable of all harmony, now broken by death! O tribunals bereft of so great an orator! O saving net of men, caught up into heaven! O tree divided between heaven and earth, bestowing its body upon the latter, but its soul upon the former! The mouth of the Church has been closed in the tomb! What a great eye of piety has been snatched from the sight of men! You have not died, most blessed Father, but you have set like the sun. We mourn you, not as one dead, but as one hidden from us; we seek you, not as one who has finished his life, but as one elevated into heaven." So much, then, for the third (or fourth) discourse.

The fourth discourse also preserves the form of a panegyric,

"John was one of these shepherds, a will without malice, a most clear-sighted mind, a book of evangelical experience, more easily molded than wax into every form, an ocean of graces, unbroken against the wiles of enemies, the rampart of the Church: no serpent of hypocrisy escaped him. From whence do you wish me to demonstrate to you that John is worthy of singular honor? From hospitality? Who was more fond of guests than John? From constancy in defenses? ^D

And who else drew the power of his spirit to himself? From his zeal for the Church? And whose is the harmony of the psalmody of the popular choirs until now? But such is this discourse. ^B The one that follows weaves the same crowns of praise, but in a somewhat more luminous way it announces the force of its thoughts.

It seems that all these five discourses were composed after the return from exile. The following fragments are a part of the present discourse.

Lend us, O Father, your lyre; lend your plectrum for your own praises. For although your hands have been dissolved by the law of nature, yet by the gift of grace your lyre sounds throughout the whole earth. Grant us that immortal tongue, which alone is equal to recounting your deeds. For this reason John has overtaken John—he who possessed a bold spirit has overtaken the zealot; he who even after death reproves him who preaches after death; he who established the desert as a city, [acting as] the corrector of the whole city. You have another relationship with the apostles; you were the first to erect altars among the Hamaxobian Scythians; and the barbarian, who would scarcely leap down from his horse, learned to bend the knee and to stretch himself out upon the ground; and he who is not moved by the tears of captives learned to weep for his own sins. And furthermore, you also engaged the Persian archer with the dart of preaching; and they who think of nothing but iron learned to worship the Crucified. ^C Your tongue overcame the sorceries of the Chaldeans and magi, and the barren and smooth land of the Persians brought forth houses of prayer as if they were sprouts. No longer is Babylon a stranger to pious worship, and these things have joined you to the apostles.

Among us, moreover, the seeds of your tongue even now flourish, so that if ever anyone names John, a great sound is immediately echoed back; for the ecclesiastical lyre recognizes the ancient plectrum, and in place of fingers, the syllables of your name suffice. The royal city saw the fabrics of the Syrians, and spat upon them; it beheld the stones of the Indians, and despised them; nor did the purple flower of Tyre delight it. It ardently longed for your mortal tongue, which would distill the immortal streams of doctrine. ^D Ancient Ephesus also saw you, and called you a new John; it saw, and was reminded of the evangelical thunder.

From this point, O beloved, the course of the discourse is driven into rough and jagged paths; yet let us not, terrified by the ruggedness, fly

^A from the path as peace prepares the way for the course. For if you are indignant, O Father, concerning those who steer the ship, if you are troubled at those who were sailing with you in the same vessel, consider how, because of the tempest, the storm, and the surging sea, they were compelled, even against their will, to cast Jonah into the waves. It was not their hatred, but your training that caused what happened; it was not their war, but your struggle that brought about these events. Those men were not led astray from the brotherly resolve, but it was necessary for you also to run the race of the martyrs. By some mysterious dispensation, God prepared for you the ground in which you should fight and run. Assuredly, it was said even concerning you to the common adversary of humanity: "Have you considered my servant John?" and so forth.

An illustrious life required an illustrious death. The devil fought against Job, and even his friends seemed to be of an antagonistic and hostile mind toward the sufferer. For this reason, God later applied medicine to them, and gave Job back to his friends, and his friends back to Job. This also has now, as I perceive, come to pass in your case, O Father, and I imagine the right hands of the Fathers ^B clasped to one another. Job received back his wealth multiplied; you also have received back, with an increase, the honor from everyone.

The inscription says that this final sermon was spoken in the apostolic temple. The prologue, however, indicates that it was delivered by the author after others had spoken. For thus it runs: "Since the order summons me to rise to speak, and the signal rouses me to the common dance, and since I must needs provide a prelude for the praise of the Father, and strike up the melody, and many demand the inevitable debt from one who has nothing equal to celebrate the paternal virtue: lend us, O Father John, your lyre." ^C

104 From the address of Theodoret, spoken against Saint Cyril at Chalcedon, when he had come up from Ephesus to Constantinople along with the Eastern bishops, on behalf of Nestorius, as though he had been unjustly condemned.

You see how I know both the distinction of the natures, and do not dissolve the unity, and am no new assailant of Christ, or rather, assailant of God. Him, handed over by the preordained counsel and foreknowledge of God, you took, and by the hand of lawless men you cruelly put to death, whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of hell. ^D

GARNIER'S NOTES. I. Two things prove that this address belongs to Theodoret: the authority of the Fifth Synod, into whose acts it is inserted, and the consistency of the doctrine with that which Theodoret teaches in undisputed passages. II. The inscription demonstrates where, at what time, and against whom it was delivered. Namely, Theodoret declaimed at Chalcedon, in the month of September, in the year 431, against St. Cyril, whom he accuses everywhere of the confusion of the natures in Christ, and ridicules the unity asserted by him. III. What we have said receives great light from the letter which Theodoret gave at Chalcedon to Alexander of Hierapolis, who was staying at Ephesus; for from this it is understood that Theodoret had five discourses at Chalcedon, four before he wrote to Alexander: "We celebrated the greatest synaxes, and in the fourth it was explained to them concerning the faith," and one when, on the Eastern bishops being ordered to return to their Churches, he was bidding farewell to the people of Constantinople. IV. Of these, two have perished entirely; of the other two, scant fragments remain: one was preserved almost in its entirety in the acts of the Ephesian conventicle of the Easterns, which are inserted into the second part of the Ephesian council. And "I know the distinction of the natures," etc. As the parties debated on this side and that regarding the union of the natures.

and ^A in subsistence, which the Nestorians rejected, but which the Catholics asserted. The Catholics objected to the Nestorians that they destroyed the unity; the Nestorians, in turn, objected to the Catholics that they confounded the natures. The whole point, it appears, in Theodoret’s preaching was to show that he was competent to admit unity while maintaining the difference of the natures, even though he spoke of it only as a relative unity.

New impugner of Christ. He refutes the charge brought by Cyril, that the Nestorians fought against God and Christ, in a homily which begins, *Holding the holy mysteries*, delivered at Ephesus. He calls him a new enemy of Christ: 1° Because of the hypostatic union, a term which no one before Cyril had explicitly used; 2° To refute what Cyril frequently brought against Nestorius, namely, that he was teaching a new heresy; 3° To show that he was rightly deposed as a heresiarch, that is, without hope of restoration.

*According to the prescribed plan, etc.* Nestorius and his followers repeatedly abuse this testimony, as if one were the person who raises and another the person raised. Theodoret ^B in a lecture, in which he insults Cyril after his death: *It is a man who died, Jesus Christ. God the Word raised up His own temple.*

105 *From another address delivered at Chalcedon, against the holy memory of Cyril.*

Do I destroy the unity, O new heretic, or do you confound the natures? Proclaim an unconfused unity, and I accept the statement. But what is this you say, that out of one nature two natures have been made? What prophet instructed you in these things? Which of the apostles was it—the first, the second, the middle, or the last? Who came after the twelve—Paul, Barnabas? What teacher is later than those? Learn from your own teacher. Asterius the Arian gave birth to this, and Apollinarius is your father. For you have constituted yourself his son: you have become the heir of his dogmas, and you are also, deservedly, the heir of his name, etc.

GARNIER’S NOTES. *From another address.* The same opinion must be held regarding this as the previous one, as to place, time, and argument. Again, he reproaches Cyril with the novelty of his doctrine; again, with the confusion of the natures; again, he attempts to defend himself against the objection of dissolving the unity.

*Do I destroy, etc.* In the same sense, Nestorius [says, in] Sermon 1: *Let us reverence the unconfused connection of the natures.* The Nestorians could not grasp how, without confusion or conversion, two whole ^C natures could come together into one *ousiodes* (substantial) and *physikon* (physical) entity. Whence Theodoret, when criticizing Cyril’s anathematism, supposed that by the name "hypostatic union" confusion was signified; "a superfluous union—he says—according to subsistence, which they put forward to us instead of a blending." See his *Letter to the Monasteries*.

*One nature, etc.* This is the sentiment of Athanasius and Cyril: *After the union, there is one nature of the incarnate Word*, a statement so often harassed by the Nestorians, and so often ^D objected to by the Catholics themselves. By Catholics, I say, whether Orientals or Asiatics, among whom the notion of the word *physis* was different from that of the Alexandrians. Among the latter, it signified everything that is called a "physical entity" in the schools; among the former, it meant only "nature." Therefore, the Alexandrians, in order to show that there is one nature in Christ, and that it is of the divine Word, said that there is one *physis* (nature), and not merely one *prosopon* (person): to teach that Christ is not some moral union, like a man and wife, but one substantial thing, like soul and body.

*Asterius the Arian gave birth to this.* To my knowledge, only Theodoret, and in this one place, said that the heresy of Apollinarius originated with Asterius the Arian; but which one? Two Asterii Ariani are mentioned; one, who was not even a presbyter; the other, the Bishop of Cyrus. Athanasius mentions the former in *De synodis*, as do Socrates and Sozomen in their *Histories*; Theodoret mentions the latter in *Philotheus* ch. 2, where he presents an eulogy of Julian. Baronius, at the year 370, no. 81, confounded both into one. It is not certain which Jerome understands in his book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*. It seems Theodoret spoke of the former, for the latter could not easily have become known at Constantinople. It also seems he spoke thus to stir up envy against Cyril, for that Cappadocian layman is called by writers the champion of Arian impiety, and it is said that he stretched the nets of sophistry over books consonant with the Arian opinion, so as to ensnare the faithful; that he thought wickedly about Christ and truly denied Him, although he proclaimed Him with his mouth, etc. These were the things Theodoret objected to Cyril.

*Apollinarius is your father.* He objects to this everywhere against Cyril in his *Refutations of the Anathematisms*, in his *Letter to the Monasteries*, in the preface to the *Pentalogion*, etc.

106 *Homily by Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, delivered at Chalcedon.*

May Christ be the guide of our discourse, through whom you yourselves are eager for discourses, and we are ministers of His divine utterances. Christ, *who is set for the fall of many, and for the resurrection, and for a sign which shall be spoken against*; formerly, indeed, by the carnal Israel, but now by the spiritual. To the unfaithful, Christ is a stone of stumbling and a rock of scandal; but to those who believe, He is not a source of confusion, but a precious stone and a foundation, according to the voice of Isaiah. Christ is the stone which the builders rejected, and He has become the head of the corner. Christ is the foundation of the Church. Christ is the stone which was cut without hands and became a great mountain and covered the world, according to the prophecy of Daniel: for whom and with whom and because of whom we are attacked; because of whom we have been prohibited from the royal city; but we are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven. For we have an inheritance in the heavenly Jerusalem, whose architect and maker is God, as Paul said. Christ, through whom terrible matters...

have dared to cross the floods, that you might hear our voice, which you judge to be an image of your shepherd's voice. For you desire to hear the pleasant pipes ^A of your shepherd—the shepherd whom his fellow-shepherds have slain with reeds, as they suppose. To them God cries out through the prophet: "Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard, they have defiled my portion, they have made my desirable portion a pathless wilderness." He speaks of them also through another prophet: "According to the multitude of them, so have they sinned against me: I will change their glory into shame." And let Him speak again through another prophet: "Woe, apostate children! You have taken counsel, but not from me; and made agreements, but not through my spirit; so that you add sin to sin; you have turned aside, you who have taken counsel of a deep and unjust counsel." Let Isaiah also speak to them: "For your hands are polluted with blood, ^B and your fingers with sins; your tongue has spoken unrighteousness, and your mouth has meditated iniquity. No one speaks what is just, because they conceive labor, and bring forth iniquity. They have hatched the eggs of vipers, and have woven the spider's web."

Observe the accusation of malice, and the sign of the rottenness of malice: the eggs of vipers and the spider's webs. The offspring holds the malice, but the conception holds the infirmity. The eggs of vipers are a species of malice; the spider's web is a proof of infirmity. And he who eats of their broken egg finds a shell. Have you seen a weakening malice? Have you seen the offender who does not offend? Have you seen him who is assailed, yet crowned? And he who eats of their broken egg finds an [urio]. Now an [urio] is something sterile—that is, imperfect. Isaiah, proclaim to us also the species of malice. "And in it is a basilisk." But this is wondrous, that the basilisk is in it, and the [urio], that is, the sterile thing. For the basilisk signifies malice, since this little beast is the most ferocious of all reptiles; it brings forth the brood of malice; yet that same thing is an [urio], on account of the infirmity of malice, for malice is weak.

^C Truly the heaven is astonished at this, and the earth has shuddered more greatly, says the Lord, because this people has committed these two evils. "Me," He says, "they have forsaken, the fountain of living water, and they have dug for themselves broken cisterns, which cannot hold water." Let God speak to them through Jeremiah the prophet: "Pass over to the islands of Chetim, and see; and send into Cedar, and consider well if such things have been done, as these have been, if the nations have changed their gods." "Pass over to the islands of Chetim." You do not desire, He says, to bear my words; you do not bear the prophets; you do not accept the law; you do not believe the divine Scriptures? Take the children of the Gentiles as your teachers; go to the nations, and learn how putative gods are worshiped by them, though they are not gods: "Pass over to the islands of Chetim, and send into Cedar, and consider well, if such things have been done, as these have been, whether the nations have changed their gods? And what of them? And they are not gods." And why do you say these things? "My people have changed their glory, from whence it will receive no profit."

These things are also fitting to be said of them. Pagans, worshiping woods and stones, greet them as immortal things. But you, preaching to them that these things ought not to be venerated, but only the true God, who "established the mountains in a scale, and the forests in a balance, and measures the water with His hand, and the heaven with a span, and the whole earth with a fist"; who "established the heaven as a canopy," and "who contains the roundness of the whole earth, and those who inhabit it as locusts,"—and this One, who made all things by a word, and by the single inclination of a moment exhibits those things which are not, that they might be; and gave to those which were not, that they might be, by His will alone—you, as if forgetting all these things, make Him subject to passions, and lay down a law that a passible God should be worshipped.

And the pagans, indeed, as was said before, captured by the word of greed, even call heaven impassible, and call the sun impassible, and appoint the stars as immortal, and count the earth which they tread underfoot among the gods. But shall we believe the invisible, the Only-Begotten, the incomprehensible, the unsearchable, to be passible? God forbid. Our Savior and benefactor; let us not be such apostates from your worship; let us not be so ignorant of your nature, let us not be so ungrateful for your gifts, let us not suspect that our deliverer is passible, who has translated us from passions to impassibility, and has bestowed upon us, who are subject to passions, impassibility. This petition we offer to God on your behalf: to Him be glory forever. Amen.

"The series of warnings follows: 'Their webs shall not be for a garment; for they are not clothed by the works of their own hands.' Why? 'Because their works are works of unrighteousness.' State the species of unrighteousness. 'Their feet run to evil.' Of course, so that something may be done. 'And they are swift to shed blood.' What of these? 'Hesitation and unhappiness are in their ways. For their ways are tortuous, which they walk, and they have not known the way of peace.'"

Truly these things are worthy of lamentation, that priests should say such things against priests. But we say this, not that we accuse them so much as that we have care for you. And after other things: ^D

Note of Garnier

^A in the former place, but mutilated in the latter, and in neither case in Greek. From this, however, three things of great moment for ecclesiastical history become known. First, how great was the bond of friendship that joined Theodoret with Nestorius. Second, how hostilely he was disposed toward the Fathers of the ecumenical council of Ephesus. Lastly, how certainly he adhered to the heresy of Nestorius, and taught it in his sermon.

*From the royal city, etc.* From this, both the place and the time of the sermon are evident. The place is Chalcedon, where they had been ordered to stay. The time is when, after Catholics had been admitted into the royal city to ordain a successor to Nestorius, the Orientals were ordered to return to their own Churches.

*Terrible Propontis, etc.* From this it is likewise evident to whom Theodoret was speaking, namely, to the Constantinopolitans who were addicted to Nestorius, at least for the most part.

*Your pastors, etc.* He appeared to the listeners as another Nestorius, nor was he very different: for he had had the same teacher, Theodore; he had been instructed in discipline in the same monastery, in the monastery of St. Euprepius; he had proposed to himself the same Chrysostom to imitate; he wrote and spoke in the same style. I omit the bond of relationship, the communion of cause, etc.

^B 109 *Pastors, associates, etc.* From these it is evident how hostile and iniquitous his mind was against the holy defenders of Christ, whom, having presumed upon the testimonies of the prophets through sacrilege, he calls murderers of the associate pastor. *Corruptors of the vineyard entrusted to them, defilers of the portion of the Lord, desolators of the Lord’s part, a tongue that has spoken injustice, a mouth that has meditated iniquity*. Where are those who defend a man who vomits forth such things? He was erring, they say, and thought that Nestorius held the right views, and imagined that the ecumenical council followed the faction of Apollinaris 81. What kind of defense is this, finally, for a man whom you would wish to be considered the most learned of the Oriental Church?

*Basiliscus.* He perhaps glancingly refers to Theodosius 83 the Younger, inasmuch as he accuses him in his letters to Alexander of neglected piety; he certainly reports there that he had disputed with him so immodestly that the patience of the good prince was marvelous: but he raged beyond measure when he was presenting the sermon, because of the received command to depart when the Catholic legates were being admitted into the city.

*Eggs of asps.* This passage of Isaiah is brought up in connection with the queens; so that it demonstrates the same person is the author of the sermon and the account.

*Urium.* See Aristotle, *de gen. anim.*, lib. 11, and Pliny, lib. x, cap. 58.

*In truth with lamentations.* He himself acknowledges what unworthy things he is uttering. Where, therefore, are those who praise his modesty and the temperance of his speech; and who strive to excuse his lack of restraint with his zeal for the faith? I say again: Theodoret was at that time either incredibly blind, or extremely Nestorian.

*God passible.* Against this very opinion of Proclus, and then of Acacius of Melitene, he raged in the Rufinian villa, when he was admitted with his party to the conversation of the prince. See the epistle to Alexander of Hierapolis.

^C *Fragment of the preceding homily.* From another version inserted in the acts of the fifth synod, collation 5.

Let Christ lead our discourse. Christ, for whose sake you despise the terrible waves of the Propontis, so that you might hear our voice, thinking it to be the voice of your pastor. For you desire to hear the pleasant whistlings of your pastor, whom his fellow-pastors have slain with reeds, as they think. But God cries out through the prophet: *Many pastors have corrupted my vineyards, they have defiled my portion, they have placed my pleasant portion into an untrodden desert* [*].

110 *Homily of John, bishop of Antioch, spoken at Chalcedon after the homily of Theodoret, to encourage his own* 84.

It is a holy law that those things which are of the children should be brought to the Fathers. *Gilead therefore is mine, and Manasseh is mine*; nay, they are not mine, but God's, who has gathered your Church with ours, and has granted this zeal for piety along with other gifts. Indeed, I have risen among you that by speaking I might at once greet you and say farewell. For we are with you, contending for our brothers. For charity travels wherever it wills without impediment by its nature.

I greet you, and I pray that you may have peace with God, formerly indeed as believers, but now as confessors. Whoever is considered to possess great resources, he fights strenuously and diligently in order to preserve what he possesses. Let no one, therefore, be lacking in the paternal faith, which we also, as a deposit, entrust to our children. Look to your forebears, whom neither torments, nor death, nor any other human thing could avail to pull away from the sincerity of the faith.

Furthermore, for you the threats are indeed small, but the reward great; the sufferings small, but the crowns great. Let no one plunder your deposit, namely, the certainty of the dogmas: let no one persuade you that God is passible, nor that the nature of the body and of the divinity is one. For the latter is divine substance by itself; the former, namely of the body, He assumed. Therefore we preach the connection, and not the confusion; the union, and not the blending. God through this, the Son through this, all these things through this; He is adored ^D with him, He is glorified with him, and He who is united with him inseparably is called the first-fruits of our nature. Keep these things, and the God of peace will be with you, helping you in a way which He Himself knows: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

NOTES OF GARNIER

After the homily of Theodoret. It was a custom of the Eastern Church for the presiding bishop to follow the sermon of the preacher with his own. Thus, at Constantinople, Nestorius followed the sermon of Proclus, and at Alexandria, Cyril followed the exposition of Paul of Emesa. See what we have observed on both instances in the latter part of the works of Marius Mercator.

*Holy law, etc.* John was governing the Church of Antioch, whose son was Nestorius, the father of the listeners, as will be said shortly.

*I would bid farewell.* From this, the time of the delivered sermon is evident. For by the emperor’s order, the Eastern legates were commanded to return to their Churches when the Catholics were admitted into the royal city to ordain Maximian in place of Nestorius. This ordination took place on the 24th of October, in the year 431.

*Confessors.* A term full of adulation, not to say impiety—to bestow the illustrious name of "confessors" upon the partisans of the impious Nestorius, as if they were suffering for the faith, when it was love for Nestorius that compelled them to brave the waves of the Propontis, and they were constrained to hold this opinion in the name of true piety. From this, judge either the faith or the blindness of John, who either thought the doctrine of Nestorius was true or did not know of what sort it was.

*From the ancestral faith.* Of Nestorius, or of his predecessors? If of Nestorius, what then was John's faith or blindness? If of his predecessors, how could they be confessors who were suffering for the cause of Nestorius?

^A God is not crucified, but the man Jesus Christ is crucified. God, however, raised up His own temple from David, just as the same David predicted beforehand. A man begets a man; but by nature the Son of God is God the Word. Christ, however, is the son of David, but the Son of God is not his temple. There is no longer contention; Egypt and the East have come together under one yoke. Envy is dead, and heresy is buried with it; they are now quiet who preach a God who has suffered, etc.

^B *That God is passible, etc.* He attacks Proclus and that Cyril because he had said in his sermon that God had suffered, which Nestorius disputes at once angrily and impiously—the latter, because he had taught the one nature of the incarnate Word, that is, he had taught the union according to hypostasis. And from this, what John’s blindness or faith was at that time can be estimated. Blindness, if he did not see what the nature and power of the hypostatic union is; faith, if, when he saw it, he did not wish for God to be said to have suffered for us. But later, with light shed from heaven, he changed his mind and emerged as an outstanding defender of the faith. Although it is better to think that Theodoret was speaking against Acacius of Melitene regarding the passible God. For in a letter of the Eastern legates to their people in Ephesus, he boasts that he had refuted Acacius, who in his commentaries [maintained] that the deity was passible, etc. The Latin interpreter translates these commentaries. They seem to differ in nothing from the homily that Acacius delivered at Ephesus after the condemnation of Nestorius. To this is joined a speech of Cyril of five or six lines, which itself caused trouble for the editors of the councils, failing to pay attention to the old custom and instead opining that it was the beginning and end of a longer sermon.

*We proclaim the connection.* A "vow" (*synapheian*), which was a term proper to Nestorius whenever he wished to explain the union of natures in Christ and to set forth his own heresy.

^D *From the sermon which Theodoret delivered at Antioch* after the death of Saint Cyril, insulting his death.

*Version of Marius Mercator.* Now no one forces anyone to blaspheme. Where are those who say that it is God who is crucified?

[alt-version omitted]

*From the version of the Acts of the Fifth Synod.* Now no one forces anyone to blaspheme. Where are those who say that it is God who is crucified? God is not crucified. The man Jesus Christ, who is from the seed of David, the son of Abraham, is crucified. 112 It is the man Jesus Christ who has died; but God the Word raised up His own temple, who is from David, just as David spoke. A man begets a man; but He who is by nature the Son of God, this is God the Word. Christ, however, is the son of David, but he is the temple of the Son of God. There is no longer contention: the East and Egypt are under one yoke; envy is dead, and with it contention is buried.

NOTES OF GARNIER

*From the sermon of Theodoret.* Two things prove invincibly that this sermon is by Theodoret: the authority of Marius Mercator, who lived in Theodoret’s time and curiously investigated everything concerning him, and the acts of the fifth synod, in which it is inserted. It seems, however, that the great agreement between Mercator and the acts indicates that he who brought forward the documents for Theodoret's case received his example from Marius Mercator.

Moreover, when Mercator introduces this fragment, he prefaces it with these words: "Item, from the records which were written against Domnus, bishop of Antioch, in which the same Domnus is accused because, in his presence, openly in the church, the same most wicked Theodoret dared, after the death of Cyril of holy memory, bishop of Alexandria, to speak thus, insulting his blessed departure."

From this preface, the place and time of the sermon given at Antioch are clear; namely, it was delivered in the church in the presence of the patriarch after the death of Cyril, who died on the 6th of June, 444. Likewise, the time when Mercator wrote is clear, namely, after the Robber Synod of Ephesus, in 449. For he remembers the deposition of this man in those records against Domnus... although no one would rashly believe that certain records were made against Domnus before the prefect of the East when, in the year 447, he came under suspicion of the renewed Nestorian heresy and was accused by the monks before the emperor. See what we have said about this matter in the Life of Theodoret.

*Where are those who say, "God is".* Nothing could be said more expressly to profess pure, unadulterated Nestorianism. For indeed, at least at the time when Proclus delivered that celebrated homily, Nestorius...

Nestorius was still contending with his own former arguments; and indeed, this was the solemn formula for proposing the controversy which shook the Church. Can it truthfully be said that God suffered; or, Is He who suffered, God?

His temple. By the name of temple the Catholics understood the body, the Nestorians the whole man. The opinion of the Catholics was supported by the saying of Christ and the evangelist: *Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up*; but he spoke this concerning the temple of his body [John 2:19-20]. The error of the Nestorians was conveniently explained by the example of a temple, in which God dwells and makes it holy by dwelling in it, and the object of his own religion, etc. Yet there is no one skilled in theology and history who does not know that the most explicit profession of Nestorianism is contained in the words of Theodoret, so that it is a wonder that the French translator of Theodoret’s *History* confidently wrote that Theodoret never preached the errors of Nestorius to the congregation.

Since, therefore, that translator admits that the most grave errors of Nestorius are contained in this sermon, he called the sermon into doubt—nay, he charged it with being a supposition. Concerning which evasion we shall speak presently.

Egypt and the East, etc. He alludes to the peace that was initiated between the Alexandrian and Antiochene churches in the year 433, with Theodoret refusing to accept it until, broken by evils, he attempted to assent. See the *Life of Theodoret*.

Envy is dead. Theodoret thought that Cyril had acted out of envy against Nestorius, both at the synod in Ephesus and elsewhere in his writings and sayings. Hence he called the Fathers of the synod the slaves of envy in the *Pentalogium*. Moreover, Socrates and Ibas wrote that Cyril had indulged in his own enmity; and so this opinion was spread by the art of the Nestorians, so that even Isidore of Pelusium himself—a most holy man, whom Cyril esteemed as a father—believing the report, wrote: "That I may not be condemned, nor you condemned by God yourself, rest from contention, and do not exact vengeance for your own injuries, which are owed to you by mortal men, from the living Church, and build up eternal discord for it under the pretext of piety" [Lib. I, epist. 370]. And in another place: "Many of those who were gathered at Ephesus mock him as if in a comedy, as one pursuing and avenging private injuries, and not seeking the things which are of Christ. He is, they say, the nephew of Theophilus by his sister, and he imitates his mind and opinion, etc." [Ejusdem lib. epist. 510].

The French translator of Theodoret’s *History* whom I mentioned, in order to accuse this sermon of being a supposition, brings forward five points. It is, he says, full of injurious contumely against the most holy Cyril; it contains the coarser errors of the Nestorian dogma; it reveals the author’s most serious enmities against the holy Cyril, and affections warring against the sincere reconciliation of grace, which was made with the peace of the Churches and signified by mutual letters. Finally, ^B even if Theodoret still cherished in his bosom some remnants of his former grievance, he would not have displayed them so abjectly and contumeliously against Cyril.

But these things are trivial in the face of the authority of Marius Mercator, writing at that time while Theodoret was still alive, and of the acts of the fifth general synod, in which judgment was rendered concerning the writings and sayings of Theodoret. The sermon is indeed contumelious, yet not more so than the preface to the *Reprehension of the Anathematisms*, where Cyril is said to tear apart the flock of Christ more ferociously than wild beasts, to introduce heresy, etc. The errors which it contains are the very ones Theodoret teaches in his *Reprehension of the Anathematisms*, when he denies the union "according to substance" (*kath' hypostasin*) and that God can be said to have suffered.

It shows an affection fighting against a sincere reconciliation of grace, etc. But Cyril, in the letters he sent to John of Antioch, complains that the hatred from Theodoret was never put aside, and that he abused him with mutual letters. Finally, that abject and contumelious manner of declaiming 114 does not differ from the custom of men who vomit up the hatred conceived for a long time, and suppressed by fear, at that moment when they seem able to do so with impunity. Add that in other places he inveighed far more contumeliously against the holy condemnors of Nestorius.

*From another address.* He touched him who rose again, and he adored him who raised him up.

NOTES OF GARNERIUS

It is clear from this in what sense Theodoret spoke, namely that of the two parents of the heresy, whom he pursued with singular love, and whose doctrine he declared to be sound and pious—nay, even piety itself in a certain way.

115 ADMONITION CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING FRAGMENTS

AUCTARIUM. — AD TOM. IV.

Latine tantum. It is a charming opinion of Marius Mercator that Theodoret wrote these five books at the devil’s instigation, an opinion Garnier was not ashamed to defend, although he supposed—without any proof—that Theodoret intended in these books to cast a stain upon Cyril of Alexandria and the Ephesine Fathers. But anyone who reads these fragments with a mind free from preconceived opinions will easily understand that the intent of our writer was far different. Garnier is not very consistent in this matter either, for in another place (Auctarium, p. 256, Paris edition) he maintained that the books *On Theology* and *On the Incarnation*, which Theodoret mentions in his letter to Leo, were the same as the dialogues improperly attributed by others to Athanasius. He changed his mind, however, when he fell into the conjecture that these fragments constitute a part of the forty-sixth codex, which Photius read and described. The subject matter of the first six books of said codex seems indeed similar, but I fear that Garnier, or rather Marius Mercator, whom he took for his guide, followed these traces with more boldness than is just. For both of them assigned a place to this or that fragment without any hesitation, and inscribed the number of the book to which it ought to be referred. Nor did Garnier hesitate to add the title *Pentalogium* to these fragments, even though there were six books of this subject matter, as Photius testifies he read in his own codex. If any error has been made, he transfers the entire blame to Photius, whom he claims dissolved one of these books into two. If it were permissible to judge thus without inspecting the codex, it truly would be all over for the reliability of Photius. But Montfaucon, most correctly, in order to argue against the levity of mind so conspicuous in Garnier, warned on a similar occasion that it can scarcely be believed that Photius, who was as well-versed as any man who ever lived in the study of codices, fell into error.

THEODORET'S PENTALOGY ON THE INCARNATION.

THEODORET'S PENTALOGIUM ON THE INCARNATION.

^AEnimvero miseratus Creator imaginem suam ab hoste afflictam mortique addictam: Inclinavit cælos, et descendit (Ps. XVII, 10); non quidem locum mutans, cum impleat omnia, sed condescendens. Descensum quippe intelligimus condescensum. Et electo virginali utero puellæ sanctæ pietatique innutritæ, voce angelica partum prænuntiante, modumque conceptionis ineffabilem interpretante, atque hac explicatione metum virginis solvente, ingreditur, ac sibimet præparat templum, fingitque tabernaculum, neque satum, neque aratum.

^BQuoniam vero prior homo, qui primus peccato servivit, sine patre exstitit, solamque terram habuit pro matre: Accepit enim Deus lutum de terra, et formavit hominem (Gen. II, 7); unde et beatus Paulus ait: Primus homo de terra terrenus (I Cor. xv, 47); ideò unigenitum Dei Verbum, assumptis ex Virgine sola naturæ principiis, postquam templum non manu factum perfecit, sibique copulavit, prodiit ex Virgine, zonam virginalem neque conceptione solvens, neque generatione diffringens, sed incorruptam servans,