[Image]  [Hi-Res Image]

Page 324

order, sought to bring Theodoret to submission by entrenching upon his eparchy. Theodoret was determined to preserve the peace of the Church by seeking the adoption of a formula avoiding the unconditional condemnation of Nestorius, and, toward the close of 434, strove earnestly for the reconciliation of the East. But Cyril refused to compromise and when he opened his attack (437) upon Diodorus and Theodoret, John sided with them and Theodoret assumed the defense of the Antiochian party (c. 439). Domnus, the successor of John, took him as his counselor. After the death of Cyril, adherents of the Antiochian theology were appointed to bishoprics. Irenaeus the friend of Nestorius, with the cooperation of Theodoret, became metropolitan of Tyre, in spite of the protests of Dioscurus, Cyril's successor, who now turned specially against Theodoret; and, by preferring the charge that he taught two sons in Christ, he secured the order from the court confining Theodoret to Cyrrhus. Theodoret now composed the Eronistes (see below). In vain were his efforts at court at self-justification against the charges of Dioscurus, as well as the countercharge of Domnus against Eutyches of Apollinarianism (see APOLLINARIS OF LAODICEA). The court excluded Theodoret from the council at Ephesus (449) because of his antagonism to Cyril. Here, because of Epist. cli. against Cyril and his defense of Diodorus and Theodore, he was condemned without a hearing and excommunicated and his writings were directed to be burned. Even Domnus gave his assent. Theodoret was compelled to leave Cyrrhus and retire to the monastery of Apamea. He made an appeal to Leo the Great, but not until the death of Theodosius II. (450) was his appeal for a revocation of the judgments against him granted by imperial edict. He was ordered to participate in the Council of Chalcedon (451), which created violent opposition. He was first to take part only as accuser, yet among the bishops. Then he was constrained (Oct. 26, 451) by the friends of Dioscurus to pronounce the anathema over Nestorius. His conduct shows (though hindered from a statement to that effect) that he performed this with his previous reservation; namely, without application beyond the teaching of two sons in Christ and the denial of the theotokos. Upon this he was declared orthodox and rehabilitated. The only thing known concerning him subsequent to the Council of Chalcedon is the letter of Leo charging him to guard the Chalcedonian victory (MPG, lxxxiii. 1319 aqq.). With Diodorus and Theodore he was no less hated by the Monophysites (q.v.) than Nestorius himself, and held by them and their friends as a heretic. The Three Chapter Controversy (q.v.) led to the condemnation of his writings against Cyril in the second Council of Constantinople (553).

In literature Theodoret devoted himself first of all to exegesis. The Scripture was his only authority, and his representation of orthodox doctrine consists of a collocation of Scripture passages. The genuineness and relative chronology of his commentaries is proven by references in the later to the earlier. The commentary on Canticles, written while he was a young bishop, though not before 430,

precedes Psalms; the commentaries on the prophets were begun with Daniel, followed by Ezekiel, and then the Minor Prophets. Next that on Works: the Psalms was completed before 436;

Exegetical. and those on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews), before 448. Theodoret's last exegetical works were the interpretations of difficult passages in the Octateuch and Qucestiones dealing with the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, written about. 452-453. Excepting the commentary on Isaiah (fragments preserved in the catene) and on Gal. ii. 6-13, the exegetical writings of Theodoret are extant. Exegetical material on the Gospels under his name in the catenae may have come from his other works, and foreign interpolations occur in his comments on the Octateueh. The Biblical authors are, for Theodoret, merely the mouthpieces of the Holy Spirit, though they do not lose their individual peculiarities. By the unavoidable imperfection of the translations he states, the understanding is encumbered. Not familiar with Hebrew, Theodoret uses the Syrian translation, the Greek versions, and the Septuagint. In principle his exegesis is grammatical-historical; and he criticizes the intrusion of the author's own ideas. His aim is to avoid a onesidedness of literalness as well as of allegory. Hence he protests against the attributing of Canticles to Solomon and the like as degrading the Holy Spirit. Rather is it to be said that the Scripture speaks often " figuratively " and " in riddles." In the Old Testament everything has typical significance and prophetically it embodies already the Christian doctrine. The divine illumination affords the right understanding after the apostolic suggestion and the New Testament fulfilment. Valuable though not binding is the exegetical tradition of the ecclesiastical teachers. Theodoret likes to choose the. best among various interpretations before him, preferably Theodore's, and supplements from his own. He is clear and simple in thought and statement; and his merit is to have rescued the exegetical heritage of the school of Antioch as a whole for the Christian Church.

Among apologetic writings was the Ad qucestiones magorum (429-436), now lost, in which he justified the Old Testament sacrifices as alternatives in opposition to the Egyptian Works: idolatry (question 1, Lev., MPG, LYxx. Apologetic, 297 sqq.), and exposed the fables of