Padres Nicenos y Post-Nicenos, Ser. II, Vol. III, Teodoreto, Jerónimo, Genadio, y Rufino: Escritos históricos, texto completo

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. III: Title Page.: Title Page.

p. i

A SELECT LIBRARY

OF THE

NICENE AND

POST-NICENE FATHERS

OF

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

SECOND SERIES

TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.

VOLUMES I–VII.

UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF

PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,

PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.

AND

HENRY WACE, D.D.,

PRINCIPAL OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON.

VOLUME III

THEODORET, JEROME, GENNADIUS, AND RUFINUS:

HISTORICAL WRITINGS

T&T CLARK

EDINBURGH

__________________________________________________

WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. III: Preface.: Preface.

p. iii p. v

Preface.

————————————

This volume contains the following works:

I. Theodoret: Church History, Dialogues, and Letters. Translated, with ample Prolegomena and explanatory notes, by the Rev. Blomfield Jackson, M.A., Rector of St. Bartholomew’s, Cripplegate, London.

II. Jerome and Gennadius: Lives of Illustrious Men. Translated, with introduction and notes, by Ernest Cushing Richardson, Ph.D., Librarian of Princeton College.

III. Rufinus: Apology against Jerome, and Jerome: Apology in reply to Rufinus; Rufinus: Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, and Prefaces to his translations of the Clementine Recognitions, the Sayings of Xystus, Eusebius’s Church History, and several of Origen’s works; translated, with notes, and an introduction on the Life and Works of Rufinus by the Hon. and Rev. Wm. Henry Fremantle, M.A., Canon of Canterbury.

The English reader has now, in the first three volumes of this Library, a complete collection of the historical writings of the Fathers, whose permanent value, as sources, is universally acknowledged. Several of them have never before appeared in English.

The unavoidable delay in the publication of the third volume has been very annoying to the general editors and publishers, but the subscribers will be amply compensated by the addition of the writings of Rufinus, which were not promised in the prospectus.

It is encouraging that this difficult and costly enterprise is beginning to be duly appreciated by competent judges on both sides of the Atlantic. It is especially gratifying to read from a thorough patristic scholar of the Anglican Church such a hearty commendation of the first volume (the work of two young American divines), as appeared in “The Church Quarterly Review” for April, 1892. We share in his hope (p. 125) that the labors of Dr. McGiffert and Dr. Richardson will stimulate a new and critical edition of all the historical works of Eusebius, after the model set by Bishop Lightfoot in his Apostolic Fathers, and that one of the English University Presses will consider it an honor to undertake the expense of publication.

Philip Schaff.

New York, July 12, 1892.

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. III: The Ecclesiastical History, Dialogues, and Letters of Theodoret.: Title Page.

p. vii

The ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, Dialogues, and Letters

OF

theodoret.

Translated with Notes

by

The rev. Blomfield Jackson, M.A.

Vicar of St. Bartholomew’s, Moor Lane, and Fellow of King’s College, London.

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. III: The Ecclesiastical History, Dialogues, and Letters of Theodoret.: Translator's Preface.

p. viii Translator’s Preface.

————————————

The following translation has been made from the edition published in Migne’s Patrologia. The plan originally proposed was, in the case of the History, to make a revision of an existing translation. This was, however, after a brief trial, abandoned, and the translation has throughout been made entirely fresh. The Letters, so far as the translator is aware, have never been published in English before. The notes indicate with sufficient clearness to whom he is indebted for such elucidation of the text as he may have been enabled to furnish. Conscious of its imperfections, and not confident that revision can have removed all blemishes and errors, he yet puts forth this English version of the History, Dialogues, and Letters of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, in the hope that he may not have done great injustice to their holy and learned author.

London, July, 1892.

Πρὸς τῶν χρατούντων ἐσμέν

— Æschylus.

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. III: The Ecclesiastical History, Dialogues, and Letters of Theodoret.: Chronological Tables to accompany the History and Life of Theodoret.

p. xi

Chronological Tables to accompany the History and Life of Theodoret.

————————————

323.

Defeat and relegation of Licinius.

Theod. i. 1; Soc. i. 4; Soz. i. 8; Eus. x. 9.

324.

Execution of Licinius. Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, Silvester of Rome, and Alexander of Alexandria.

Theod. i. 2; Soc. i. 9; Soz. i. 2.

Colluthus condemned at Alexandria.

Theod. i. 3

325.

20th year of Constantine I. COUNCIL OF NICÆA (May 20–Aug. 25).

Theod. i. 6; Soc. i. 8; Soz. i. 17.

Birth of Gallus (Cæsar).

Theod. iii. 1

Birth of Gregory of Nazianzus.

Eustathius of Berœa elected bishop of Antioch.

Theod. i. 3; Soz. i. 2.

Constantine writes a letter ordering the building and reparation of churches.

Theod. i. 14

Also a letter to Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Theod. i. 16; Soc. i. 9.

326.

Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, died in January (perhaps April), and Athanasius succeeds, probably on June 8th. The Festal Index gives 328.

Theod. i. 25; Soc. i. 15; Soz. ii. 17.

327.

? Consecration of Frumentius to the Abyssinian bishopric.

Theod. i. 22; Soc. i. 19; Soz. ii. 24.

328.

Arian Council of Antioch, and deposition of Eustathius: but the date is much controverted. Possibly 330 or 331.

Theod. i. 20; Soc. i. 24; Soz. ii. 19.

329.

Incident of Ischyras and Macarius.

Theod. ii. 6; Soc. i. 27.

Birth of Basil of Cæsarea, “the Great.”

330.

Byzantium dedicated as Constantinople, May 11th.

cf. Theod. i. 18; Soc. i. 16; Soz. i. 3.

331.

Birth of Julian.

Perhaps the deposition of Eustathius.

333.

Constantine’s letter to Sapor II.

Theod. i. 24

335.

Division of the empire between Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, sons, and Dalmatius and Hannibalianus, nephews, of the emperor.

Dedication of the Great Church at Jerusalem.

Theod. i. 29; Soc. i. 28; Soz. ii. 26.

Anthony summoned to Alexandria.

Theod. iv. 24

Councils of Tyre and Jerusalem; first exile of Athanasius.

Theod. i. 28–29; Soc. i. 28; Soz. ii. 25.

336.

Athanasius at Treves.

Theod. i. 29; Soc. i. 35; Soz. ii. 28.

Death of Arius.

Theod. i. 13; Soc. i. 38; Soz. ii. 29.

Death (? Clinton gives 340) of Alexander of Constantinople.

Theod. i. 19.

337.

Death of Constantine I. Whitsunday.

Theod. i. 30; Soc. i. 39; Soz. ii. 34.

338.

Athanasius’ restoration recommended by Constantine II.

Theod. ii. 1; Soc. ii. 3; Soz. iii. 2.

340.

Constantine II. defeated and slain near Aquileia.

Theod. ii. 3; Soc. ii. 5; Soz. iii. 2.

Constantius at war with Persia.

Death of Eusebius of Cæsarea, the historian.

Paul and Eusebius of Nicomedia rivals at Constantinople.

Theod. i. 19; Soc. ii. 7; Soz. iii. 4.

Athanasius withdraws to Rome.

Gregory at Alexandria.

Theod. ii. 3; Soc. ii. 11; Soz. iii. 6.

Arian Synod of the Dedication of the Great Church at Antioch, commonly dated 341.

Theod. ii. 3; Soc. ii. 10; Soz. iii. 5.

342.

Constantius orders expulsion of Paul from Constantinople.

Theod. ii. 4; Soc. ii. 7; Soz. iii. 4.

343.

Persecution in Persia.

343–4 or 347.

(See note on p. 67.) Council of Sardica.

Theod. ii. 6; Soc. ii. 14; Soz. iii. 11.

Athanasius received at Milan by Constans.

345.

Murder of Gregory.

Theod. ii. 9.

345 or 346.

Deposition of Stephen of Antioch.

Theod. ii. 8; Soc. ii. 26; Soz. iii. 20.

Return of Athanasius, October 21.

Theod. ii. 3; Soc. ii. 33; Soz. iii. 70.

p. xii 347.

Birth of John Chrysostom.

349.

Council at Jerusalem (Mansi. ii. 171 u.), under bp. Maximus, in favour of Athanasius. 1st Council of Sirmium.

350.

Revolt of Magnentius.

Theod. ii. 12; Soc. ii. 25.

Constans killed February 27.

Theod. ii. 9; Soc. ii. 25; Soz. iv. 1.

351.

Constantius, sole emperor, defeats Magnentius at Mursa.

2nd Council of Sirmium.

352.

Liberius succeeds Julius in the See of Rome

Theod. ii. 12.

Paul of Constantinople strangled.

Theod. ii. 4; Soc. ii. 26; Soz. iv. 2.

353.

Suicide of Magnentius.

355.

Council of Milan.

Theod. ii. 12; Soc. ii. 36; Soz. iv. 9.

356.

Intrusion of George at Alexandria.

Theod. ii. 10; Soc. ii. 14; Soz. iv. 30.

357.

Deposition of Cyril of Jerusalem by Acacius.

Theod. ii. 22; Soc. ii. 42; Soz. iv. 25.

3rd Council of Sirmium.

358.

Return of Liberius.

Theod. ii. 14; Soc. ii. 42; Soz. iv. 15.

359.

Synod of the Isaurian Seleucia.

Theod. ii. 22; Soc. ii. 39; Soz. iv. 22.

Birth of Gratianus.

Council of Ariminum.

Theod. ii. 15; Soc. ii. 37; Soz. iv. 17.

360.

Synod of Nica.

Theod. ii. 16.

3rd Council of Constantinople. (Semi Arian.)

361.

Nov. 3 Death of Constantius.

Accession of Julian.

Theod. iii. 1; Soc. ii. 47; Soz. v. 1.

362.

Murder of George of Alexandria.

Athanasius returns Feb. 22, but goes into 4th exile in October.

Theod. iii. 5; Soc. iii. 4; Soz. vi. 6.

363.

Julian’s baffled attempt to rebuild the Temple

Theod. iii. 15; Soc. iii. 70; Soz. v. 22.

Julian’s Persian expedition and death, June 26.

Theod. iii. 20; Soc. iii. 17; Soz. vi. 1.

Accession of Jovian, June 27

364.

Death of Jovian.

Theod. iv. 4; Soc. iii. 26; Soz. vi. 3.

Accession of Valentinian. Valens Augustus.

366.

Liberius, bp. of Rome, dies and is succeeded by Damasus.

Theod. ii. 17; Soc. iv. 29; Soz. vi. 23.

367.

Gratianus, son of Valentinian, declared Augustus. æt. s.8.

Theod. v. 1.

5th exile of Athanasius.

370.

Basil becomes bishop of Cæsarea.

Theod. iv. 16; Soc. iv. 26; Soz. vi. 16.

372.

Gregory of Nazianzus becomes bishop of Sasima.

Theod. v. 7; Soc. iv. 26; Soz. vi. 17.

373.

Death of Athanasius, May 2.

Theod. iv. 17; Soc. iv. 20; Soz. vi. 19.

Death of Ephraim Syrus, June 19.

Theod. iv. 26; Soc. iii. 16.

374.

Auxentius of Milan dies.

Theod. iv. 5; Soc. iv. 30; Soz. i. 24.

Ambrose archbishop of Milan.

Theod. iv. 6.

375.

Gratian emperor of the West.

Theod. v. 1; Soc. iv. 31; Soz. vi. 36.

378.

Death of Valens.

Theod. iv. 32; Soc. iv. 37; Soz. vi. 40.

379.

Theodosius named Augustus, Jan. 19.

Theod. v. 5; Soc. v. 2; Soz. vii. 2.

Gregory of Nazianzus at Constantinople.

Theod. v. 8; Soc. v. 6; Soz. vii. 7.

381.

Council of Constantinople

Theod. v. 8; Soc. v. 8; Soz. vii. 7.

383.

Death of Gratian. Rebellion of Maximus.

Theod. v. 12; Soc. v. 11; Soz. vii. 13.

386.

Birth of Theodoret, according to the less probable date of Garnerius.

387.

Sedition at Antioch.

Theod. v. 19; Soc. v. 15; Soz. vii. 23.

388.

Defeat and death of Maximus.

Death of Cyril of Jerusalem.

390.

Destruction of the Serapeum.

Theod. v. 22; Soc. v. 16; Soz. vii. 15.

Massacre at Thessalonica.

Theod. v. 17.

Death of Gregory of Nazianzus.

392.

Death of Valentinian II. Eugenius set up as Emperor.

Theod. v. 24.

393.

Birth of Theodoret, according to the more probable date of Tillemont.

394.

Theodosius defeats Eugenius.

Theod. v. 24; Soc. v. 25; Soz. vii. 24.

395.

Death of Theodosius. Accession of Honorius and Arcadius.

Theod. v. 25; Soc. v. 26; Soz. vii. 25.

398.

John Chrysostom becomes bishop of Constantinople.

Theod. v. 27; Soc. vi. 2; Soz. viii. 2.

400.

Revolt of Gainas.

cf. Theod. v. 33; Soc. vi. 6; Soz. viii. 4.

401.

Roman legions withdrawn from Britain.

403.

Synod of the “the Oak.”

Theod. v. 34; Soc. vi. 15; Soz. viii. 19.

404.

Death of the empress Eudoxia.

Chrysostom ordered to quit Constantinople.

Theod. v. 34; Soc. vi. 18; Soz. viii. 24.

407.

Death of Chrysostom.

Theod. v. 34.

408.

Death of Arcadius. Accession of Theodosius II.

Theod. v. 36.

410.

Sack of Rome by Alaric.

p. xiii 412.

Cyril becomes patriarch of Alexandria.

Theod. v. 35.

415.

Murder of Hypatia at Alexandria.

Theodoret loses his parents and retires to Nicerte.

Theod. Epp. CXIII, CXIX.

418.

Council of Carthage.

423.

Death of Honorius.

Theodoret becomes bishop of Cyrus.

425.

Accession of Valentinian III.

428.

Nestorius becomes bishop of Constantinople.

Vandals in Africa.

Theod. Epp. XXIX–XXXVI.

429.

Death of Theodotus, patriarch of Antioch, fixed by Theodoretus as the term of his History.

Theod. v. 39.

430.

Letters of Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch on the Western condemnation of Nestorius.

Death of St. Augustine.

431.

Council of Ephesus. (3rd general.)

432.

Council of Orientals at Berœa. (St. Patrick’s mission.)

433.

Peace between Cyril and the Orientals.

434 (c).

Friendly correspondence between Theod. and Cyril.

Theod. Ep. LXXXIII.

438.

Translation of the relics of Chrysostom to Constantinople.

Theod. v. 36; Soc. vii. 45.

Cyril denounces Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia: renewal of hostilities with Theodoret.

440.

Accession of Isdigerdes II., the last event referred to in the Ecc. History.

Theod. v. 38.

444.

Death of Cyril of Alexandria.

Theod. Ep. CLXXX.

Accession of Dioscorus.

446 (c).

Composition of the “Dialogues.”

448.

Dioscorus deposes Irenæus of Tyre.

449.

(March 30.) Edict confining Theodoret within the limits of his diocese.

(Aug.) Assembly of the “Latrocinium” at Ephesus.

450.

(July 29.) Death of Theodosius II.

Accession of Pulcheria and Marcian.

451.

Council of Chalcedon. (4th general.)

453.

Death of Theodoret, according to Tillemont.

458.

Probable date of the death, according to Garnerius.

Footnotes

p. 1

Prolegomena.

————————————

The Life and Writings of the Blessed Theodoretus,

Bishop of Cyrus.

————————————

I.—Parentage, Birth, and Education.

At Antioch at the close of the fourth century there were living a husband and wife, opulent and happy in the enjoyment of all the good things of this life, one thing only excepted. They were childless. Married at seventeen, the young bride lived for several years in the enjoyment of such pleasures as wealth and society could give. At the age of twenty-three she was attacked by a painful disease in one of her eyes, for which neither the books of older authorities nor later physiological discoveries could suggest a remedy. One of her domestic servants, compassionating her distress, informed her that the wife of Pergamius, at that time in authority in the East, had been healed of a similar ailment by Petrus, a famous Galatian solitary who was then living in the upper story of a tomb in the neighbourhood, to which access could only be obtained by climbing a ladder. The afflicted lady, says the story which her son himself repeats, 1 hastened to climb to the recluse’s latticed cell, arrayed in all her customary elaborate costume, with earrings, necklaces, and the rest of her ornaments of gold, her silk robe blazing with embroidery, her face smeared with red and white cosmetics, and her eyebrows and eyelids artificially darkened. “Tell me,” said the hermit, on beholding his brilliant visitor, “tell me, my child, if some skilful painter were to paint a portrait according to his art’s strict rules and offer it for exhibition, and then up were to come some dauber dashing off his pictures on the spur of the moment, who should find fault with the artistic picture, lengthen the lines of brows and lids, make the face whiter and heighten the red of the cheeks, what would you say? Do you not think the original painter would be hurt at this insult to his art and these needless additions of an unskilled hand.” These arguments, we learn, led eventually to the improvement of the young Antiochene gentlewoman both in piety and good taste and her eye is said to have been restored to health by the imposition of the sign of the cross. Not impossibly the discontinuance of the use of cosmetics may have helped, if not caused, the cure.

Six years longer the husband and wife lived together a more religious life, but still unblessed with children. Among the ascetic solitaries whom the disappointed husband begged to aid him in his prayers was one Macedonius, distinguished, from the simplicity of his diet, as “the barley eater.” In answer to his prayers, it was believed, a son was at last granted to the pious pair. 2 The condition of the boon being that the boy should be devoted to the divine service, he was appropriately named at his birth “Theodoretus,” or “Given by God.” 3 Of the exact date of this birth, productive of such important consequences to the history and literature of the Church, no precise knowledge is attainable. The less probable year is 386 as given by Garnerius, 4 the more probable and now generally accepted year 393 follows the computation of Tillemont. 5

p. 2 While yet in his swaddling bands the little Theodoret began to receive training appropriate to his high career, 6 and, as he himself tells us, with the pardonable exaggeration of enthusiasm, was no sooner weaned than he began to learn the apostolic teaching. Among his earliest impressions were the lessons and exhortations of Peter of Galatia, to whom his mother owed so much, and of Macedonius “the barley eater,” who had helped to save the Antiochenes in the troubles that arose about the statues. 7 Of the latter 8 Theodoret quotes the earnest charges to a holy life, and in his modesty expresses his sorrow that he had not profited better by the solitary’s solemn entreaties. If however Macedonius was indeed quite ignorant of the Scriptures, 9 it may have been well for the boy’s education to have been not wholly in his hands. It is not impossible that he may have had a childish recollection of Chrysostom, who left Antioch in 398. To Peter he used to pay a weekly visit, and records 10 how the holy man would take him on his knees and feed him with bread and raisins. A treasure long preserved in the household of Theodoret’s parents was half Peter’s girdle, woven of coarse linen, which the old man had one day wound round the loins of the boy. Frequently proved an unfailing remedy in various cases of family ailment, its very reputation led to its loss, for all the neighbours used to borrow it to cure their own complaints, and at last an unkind or careless friend omitted to return it. 11

When a stripling Theodoret was blessed by the right hand of Aphraates the monk, of whom he relates an anecdote in his Ecclesiastical History, 12 and when his beard was just beginning to grow was also blessed by the ascetic Zeno. 13 At this period he was already a lector 14 and was therefore probably past the age of eighteen. By this time his general education would be regarded as more or less complete, and to these earlier years may be traced the acquaintance which he shows with the writings of Homer, Thucydides, Plato, Euripides, and other Greek classics. Lighter literature, too, will not have been excluded from his reading, if we accept the genuineness of the famous letter on the death of Cyril, 15 and may infer that the dialogues of Lucian are more likely to have amused the leisure hours of a lad at school and college than have intruded on the genuine piety and marvellous industry of the Bishop of Cyrus.

Theodoret was familiar with Greek, Syriac, and Hebrew, but is said to have been unacquainted with Latin. 16 Such I presume to be an inference from a passage in one of his works 17 in which he tells us “The Romans indeed had poets, orators, and historians, and we are informed by those who are skilled in both languages that their reasonings are closer than the Greeks‘ and their sentences more concise. In saying this I have not the least intention of disparaging the Greek language which is in a sense mine, 18 or of making an ungrateful return to it for my education, but I speak that I may to some extent close the lips and lower the brows of those who make too big a boasting about it, and may teach them not to ridicule a language which is illuminated by the truth.’ But it is not clear from these words that Theodoret had no acquaintance with Latin. His admiration for orthodox Western theology as well as his natural literary and social curiosity would lead him to learn it. In the Ecclesiastical History (III. 16) there is a possible reference to Horace.

Theodoret’s chief instructor in Theology was the great light of the school of Antioch, Theodorus, known from the name of the see to which he was appointed in 392, “Mopsuestia,” or “the hearth of Mopsus,” in Cilicia Secunda. He also refers to his obligations p. 3 to Diodorus of Tarsus. 19 Accepting 393 as the date of his birth and 392 as that of Theodore’s appointment to his see, it would seem that the younger theologian must have been rather a reader than a hearer as well of Theodore as of Diodore. But Theodore expounded Scripture in many churches of the East. 20 The friendship of Theodoret for Nestorius may have begun when the latter was a monk in the convent of St. Euprepius at the gates of Antioch. It is recorded 21 that on one occasion Theodore gave offence while preaching at Antioch by refusing to give to the blessed Virgin the title θεοτόκος. He afterwards retracted this refusal for the sake of peace. The original objection and subsequent consent have a curious significance in view of the subsequent careers of his two famous pupils. Of the school of Antioch as distinguished from that of Alexandria it may be said broadly that while the latter shewed a tendency to syntheticism and to unity of conception, the former, under the influence of the Aristotelian philosophy, favoured analytic processes. 22 And while the general bent of the school of thinkers among whom Theodoret was brought up inclined to a recognition of a distinction between the two natures in the Person of Christ, there was much in the special teaching of its great living authority which was not unlikely to lead to such division of the Person as was afterwards attributed to Nestorius. 23 Such were the influences under which Theodoret grew up.

On the death of his parents he at once distributed all the property that he inherited from them, and embraced a life of poverty, 24 retiring, at about the age of three and twenty, to Nicerte, a village three miles from Apamea, and seventy-five from Antioch, in the monastery of which he passed seven calm and happy years, occasionally visiting neighbouring monasteries and perhaps during this period paying the visit to Jerusalem which left an indelible impression on his memory. “With my own eyes,” he writes, 25 “I have seen that desolation. The prediction rang in my ears when I saw the fulfillment before my eyes and I lauded and worshipped the truth.” Of the peace of Theodoret’s earlier manhood Dr. Newman 26 says in a sentence less open to criticism than another which shall be quoted further on, “There he laid deep within him that foundation of faith and devotion, and obtained that vivid apprehension of the world unseen and future which lasted him as a secret spring of spiritual strength all through the conflict and sufferings of the years that followed.”

Footnotes

1:1

Relig. Hist. 1188 et seq.

1:2

Relig. Hist. 1214.

1:3

The Hebrew equivalents of this very general designation are Nathaniel and Matthew. Modern English custom has travelled back to the Greek for its Theodore, Theodora, but Dieudonné and Diodati are familiar in French and Italian.

1:4

Garnier the French Jesuit Father, was born in Paris in 1612, and died in 1681. His “Auctarium Theodoreti Episcopi Cyrensis,” with dissertations, was published in 1684.

1:5

According to this reckoning Theodoret would be fifty-six at the time of the letter to Leo, written 449, in which he speaks of his old age, and about thirty at his consecration as bishop in 423.

W. Möller in Herzog’s Encyclopedia of Prot. Theol. (Ed. 1885. xv. 402) gives 390.

2:6

Ep. LXXXI.

2:7

Ecc. Hist. v. 19. p. 146.

2:8

Relig. Hist. 1215.

2:9

cf. Ecc. Hist. p. 146.

2:10

Relig. Hist. 1188.

2:11

The confidence of Theodoret in the wonder working powers of half Peter’s girdle may be taken as a crucial instance of what detractors of the individual and of the age would call his foolish credulity. But an unsound process of reasoning from post hoc to propter hoc is not confined to any particular period, and it is not impossible that the scientists of the thirty-fourth century may smile benevolently at some of the cherished remedies of the nineteenth.

2:12

Cf. p. 127.

2:13

Relig. Hist. 1203.

2:14

Vide n. p. 34.

2:15

Vide p. 346. To what is said there may be added the following remarks from Dr. Salmon’s “Infallibility of the Church,” p. 303, n. “The letter from which these passages are taken was read as Theodoret’s at the fifth General Council (fifth Session) and there accepted as his. But on questions of this kind Councils are not infallible; and the letter contains a note of spuriousness in purporting to be addressed to John, bishop of Antioch, who died before Cyril. I own that the suggestion that for ‘John’ we ought to read ‘Domnus’ does not suffice to remove suspicion from my mind. But it is solely for the reason just stated that I feel no confidence in accepting the letter as Theodoret’s. Newman’s opinion that it is incredible Theodoret could have written so ‘atrocious’ a letter is one which it is amazing should be held by any one familiar with the controversial amenities of the time. Our modern urbanity is willing to bury party animosities in the grave; but in the fifth century Swift’s translation would be thought the only proper one of the maxim ‘De mortuis nil nisi bonum,’ ‘when scoundrels die let all bemoan them.’ Certainly the man who half a dozen years after Chrysostom’s death spoke of him as Judas Iscariot had no right to expect to be politely treated after his own death by one whom he had relentlessly persecuted.”

Glubowski, whose great work on Theodoret now in progress is unfortunately a sealed volume to the majority of the readers on account of its being written in the author’s native Russian, is of opinion that the letter is spurious. See also Schröckh Kircheges. xviii. 370. I am myself unable to see the force of the internal evidence of spuriousness. It may have been half playful, and never meant for publication.

2:16

Cf. Can. Venables Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 906.

2:17

Græcarum affectionum curatio 843.

2:18

To a Syrian it would not be literally the mother tongue but was possibly acquired in infancy.

3:19

Ep. xvi.

3:20

John of Antioch Fac. ii. 2.

3:21

Cyril. Alex. Ep. LXIX.

3:22

Glubokowski p. 63.

3:23

e.g. Theodorus, Migne 776.

3:24

Ep. CXIII.

3:25

Græc. Affect. Cur. 1099.

3:26

Historical Sketches iii. 319.

Footnotes

II.—Episcopate at Cyrus.

Cyrus or Cyrrhus was a town of the district of Syria called after it Cyrestica. The capital of Cyrestica was Gindarus, which Strabo describes 27 as being in his time a natural nest of robbers. Cyrus lies on a branch of the river Œnoparas, now Aphreen, and the site is still known as Koros. A tradition has long obtained that it received the name of Cyrus from the Jews in honour of their great benefactor, but this is more than doubtful. The form Cyrus may have arisen from a confusion with a Cyrus in Susiana. 28 The Cyrestica is a fertile plain lying between the spurs of the Alma Dagh and the Euphrates, irrigated by three streams and blessed with a rich soil. The diocese, which was subject to the Metropolitan of Hierapolis, contained some sixteen hundred square miles 29 and eight hundred distinct parishes each with its church. 30 But Cyrus itself was a wretched little place 31 scantily inhabited. Before it was beautified by the munificence of Theodoret it contained no buildings of any dignity or grace. The people of the town as well as of the diocese seem to have been poor in orthodoxy as well as in pocket, and the rich soil of the district grew a plentiful crop of the tares of Arianism, Marcionism, Eunomianism and Judaism. 32

Such was the diocese to which Theodoret, in spite of his honest nolo episcopari, 33 was consecrated at about the age of thirty, a.d. 423. Of the circumstances of this consecration we have no evidence. Garnerius conjectures that he must have been ordained deacon by Alexander who succeeded Porphyrius at Antioch. He was probably appointed, if not consecrated, to succeed Isidorus at Cyrus, by Theodotus the successor of Alexander on the patriarchal throne of Antioch. In this diocese certainly for five and twenty years, perhaps for five and thirty, with occasional intervals he worked night and day with unflagging patience and perseverance for the good of the people committed to his care, and in the cause of his Master and of the truth. The ecclesiastic of these early p. 4 times is sometimes imagined to have been a morose and ungenial ascetic, wasting his energies in unprofitable hair-splitting, and taking little or no interest in the every day needs of his contemporaries. In marked contrast with this imaginary bishop stands out the kindly figure of the real bishop of Cyrus, as the modest statements and hints supplied by his own letters enable us to recall him.

As an administrator and man of business he was munificent and efficient. Stripped, as we have already learnt, of his family property by his own act and will, he must have been dependent in his diocese on the revenues of his see. From these, which cannot have been small, he was able to spend large sums on public works. Cyrus was adorned with porticoes, with two great bridges, with baths, and with an aqueduct, all at Theodoret’s expense. 34 On assuming the administration of his diocese he took measures, he tells us, 35 to secure for Cyrus “the necessary arts,” and from these three words we need not hesitate to infer that architects, engineers, masons, sculptors, and carpenters, would be attracted “from all quarters” to the bishop’s important works. And for this increased population it is interesting to note that Theodoret provided competent practitioners in medicine and surgery, in which it would seem he was not himself unskilled. 36 His keen interest in the temporal needs of his people is shown by the efforts he made to obtain relief for them from the cruel pressure of exorbitant taxation. 37 So unendurable was the tale of imposts under which they groaned that in many cases they were deserting their farms and the country, and he earnestly appeals to the empress Pulcheria and to his friend Anatolius to help them. 38 The tender sympathy felt by him for all those afflicted in body and estate, as well as in mind, is shown in his letters on behalf of Celestinianus, or Celestiacus, a gentleman of position at Carthage, who had suffered cruelly during the attack of the Vandals, 39 and in the admirable and touching letters of consolation addressed to survivors on the deaths of relatives. That these should have been religiously preserved need excite no surprise. 40 Of the terms on which he lived with his neighbours we can form some idea from the justifiable boast contained in his letter to Nomus. In the quarter of a century of his episcopate, he writes, he never appeared in court either as prosecutor or defendant; his clergy followed his admirable example; he never took an obol or a garment from any one; not one of his household ever received so much as a loaf or an egg; he could not bear to think that he had any property beyond his few poor clothes. 41 Yet he was always ready to give where he would not receive, and in addition to all the diocesan and literary work which he conscientiously performed, he spent more time than he could well afford in all sorts of extra diocesan business which his position thrust in his way.

As a shepherd of souls he was unceasing in his efforts to win heathen, heretics and Jews to the true faith. His diocese, when he assumed its government, was a very hotbed of heresy. 42 Nevertheless in the famous letter to Leo 43 he could boast that not a tare was left to spoil the crop. His fame as a preacher was great and wide, and makes us the more regret that of the discourses which in turn roused, cheered, and blamed, so little should survive. The eloquence, so to say, of his extant writings, gives indications of the force of spoken utterances not less marked by learning and literary skill. Two of his letters give vivid pictures of the enthusiasm of oriental auditories in Antioch, once so populous and so keen in theological interest, where now, amid a people numbering only about a fiftieth part of their predecessors of the fifth century, there is not a single church. We see the patriarch John in a frenzy of gladness at Theodoret’s sermons, clapping his hands and springing again and again from his chair; 44 we see the heads of the congregation receiving the bishop of Cyrus with frantic delight as he came down from the pulpit, flinging their arms round him, kissing now his head, now his breast, now his hands, now his knees, and hear them exclaiming, “This is the Voice of the Apostle!” 45 But Theodoret had to encounter sometimes the fury of opposition. Again and again in his campaign against heretics and unbelievers he was stoned, wounded, and brought nigh unto death. 46 “He from whom no secrets are hid knows all the bruises my body has received, aimed at me by ill-named heretics, and what fights I have fought in most of the cities of the East against Jews, heretics, and heathen.” 47

Footnotes

3:27

Strabo xvi. c. 751.

3:28

Glubokowski p. 31. Tillemont v. 217.

3:29

Ep. XLII.

3:30

Ep. CXIII.

3:31

Ep. CXXXVIII.

3:32

Epp. LXXXI, CXIII.

3:33

Ep. LXXXI.

4:34

Epp. LXXIX. LXXXI.

4:35

Ep. CXV.

4:36

Epp. CXIV, CXV, and Dial. p. 217 cf. also de Prov. 518 et seqq.

4:37

Epp. XLII, XLIII, XLV.

4:38

Epp. XLIII. and XLV.

4:39

Epp. XXIX.–XXXVI.

4:40

cf. Epp. VII. VIII. XIV. XV. XVII. XVIII. LXV. LXIX.

4:41

Ep. LXXXI.

4:42

“In a diocese such as his, lying as it were in a corner of the world, not reached by the public posts, isolated by the great river to the east and the mountain chains to the west, peopled by half-leavened heathen, Christianity assumed many strange forms, sometimes hardly recognisable caricatures of the truth.” Canon Venables. Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 906.

4:43

Epp. CXIII.

4:44

Ep. LXXXIII.

4:45

Ep. CXLVII.

4:46

Epp. LXXXI and CXIII.

4:47

Ep. CXIII.

Footnotes

p. 5 III.—Relations with Nestorius and to Nestorianism.

Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, was bound by ties of close friendship both to Theodoret and to John, patriarch of Antioch. In August, 430, the western bishops, under the presidency of the Pope Celestine, assembled in council at Rome, condemned Nestorius, and threatened him with excommunication. Shortly afterwards a council of Orientals at Alexandria, summoned by Cyril, endorsed this condemnation and despatched it to Constantinople. Then John received from Celestine and Cyril letters announcing their common action. When the couriers conveying these communications reached Antioch they found John surrounded by Theodoret and other bishops who were assembled possibly for the ordination of Macarius, the new bishop of Laodicea. John took counsel with his brother bishops, and a letter was despatched in their common name to Nestorius, exhorting him to accept the term θεοτόκος, round which the whole war waged; pointing out the sense in which it could not but be accepted by every loyal Christian, and imploring him not to embroil Christendom for a word. This letter has been generally attributed to Theodoret. But while the conciliatory sage of Cyrus was endeavouring to formulate an Eirenicon, the ardent Egyptian made peace almost impossible by the publication of his famous anathematisms. John and his friends were distressed at the apparent unorthodoxy of Cyril’s condemnation of Nestorius, and asked Theodoret to refute Cyril. 48 The strong language employed in Letter CL. conveys an idea of the heat of the enthusiasm with which Theodoret entered on the task, and his profound conviction that Cyril, in blind zeal against imaginary error on the part of Nestorius, was himself falling headlong into the Apollinarian pit. An eager war of words now waged over Nestorius between Cyril and Theodoret, each denouncing the other for supposed heresy on the subject of the incarnation; and, with deep respect for the learning and motives of Theodoret, we may probably find a solution of much that he said and did in the fact that he misunderstood Nestorius as completely as he did Cyril. 49 Cyril, nursed in the synthetic principles of the Alexandrian school, could see only the unity of the two natures in the one Person. To him, to distinguish, as the analysis of Theodoret distinguished, between God the Word and Christ the Man, was to come perilously near a recognition of two Christs, keeping up as it were a mutual dialogue of speech and action. But Cyril’s unqualified assertion that there is one Christ, and that Christ is God, really gave no ground for the accusation that to him the manhood was an unreality. Yet he and Theodoret were substantially at one. Theodoret’s failure to apprehend Cyril’s drift was no doubt due less to any want of intelligence on the part of the Syrian than to the overbearing bitterness of the fierce Egyptian.

On the other hand Theodoret’s loyal love for Nestorius led him to give his friend credit for meaning what he himself meant. While he was driven to contemplate the doctrines of Cyril in their most dangerous exaggeration, he shrank from seeing how the Nestorian counter statement might be dangerously exaggerated. Theodoret, as Dr. Bright remarks, 50 “uses a good deal of language which is prima facie Nestorian; his objections are pervaded by an ignoratio elenchi, and his language is repeatedly illogical and inconsistent; but he and Cyril were essentially nearer to each other in belief than at the time they would have admitted, for Theodoret virtually owns the personal oneness and explains the phrase ‘God assumed man’ by ‘He assumed manhood.’” Cyril “in his letter to Euoptius earnestly disclaims both forms of Apollinarianism—the notion of a mindless manhood in Christ and the notion of a body formed out of Godhead. In his reply (on Art iv.) he admits the language appropriate to each nature.”

Probably both the Egyptian and the Syrian would have found no difficulty in subscribing the language of our own judicious divine; “a kind of mutual commutation there is whereby those concrete names, God and Man, when we speak of Christ, do take interchangeably one another’s room, so that for truth of speech it skilleth not whether we say that the Son of God hath created the world and the Son of Man by his death hath saved it or else that the Son of Man did create, and the Son of God died to save the world. Howbeit, as oft as we attribute to God what the manhood of Christ claimeth, or to man what his Deity hath right unto, we understand by the name of God and the name of Man neither the one nor the other nature, but the whole person of Christ, in whom both natures are. When the Apostle saith of the Jews that they crucified the Lord of Glory, and when the Son of Man being on earth affirmeth that the Son of Man was in heaven at p. 6 the same instant, there is in these two speeches that mutual circulation before mentioned. In the one there is attributed to God or the Lord of Glory death, whereof divine nature is not capable; in the other ubiquity unto man, which human nature admitteth not. Therefore by the Lord of Glory we must needs understand the whole person of Christ, who being Lord of Glory, was indeed crucified, but not in that nature for which he is termed the Lord of Glory. In like manner by the Son of Man the whole person of Christ must necessarily be meant, who being man upon earth, filled heaven with his glorious presence, but not according to that nature for which the title of Man is given him. Without this caution the Fathers whose belief was divine and their meaning most sound, shall seem in their writing one to deny what another constantly doth affirm. Theodoret disputeth with great earnestness that God cannot be said to suffer. But he thereby meaneth Christ’s divine nature against Apollinarius, which held even Deity itself passible. Cyril on the other side against Nestorius as much contendeth that whosoever will deny very God to have suffered death doth forsake the faith. Which notwithstanding to hold were heresy, if the name of God in this assertion did not import as it doth the person of Christ, who being verily God suffered death, but in the flesh, and not in that substance for which the name of God is given him.” 51