Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/630

 THEODORE

572

THEODORE

and as a prominent eclesiastical author, and was even consulted by distant bishops on theological questions.

II. Writings. — The most complete list of the writings of Theodore is given by Ebedjesu (d. 1318; see Assemani, "Bibl. orient.", Ill, 30-36). Accord- ing to this the following works existed in a SjTian translation. A. Exegelical Commenlaries: (a) On the Old Testament: (1) on Genesis, 3 books (Greek frag- ments in the Nicephoruscatene, Leipzig, 1772; Syrian in Sachau, 1-21); (2) on the Psalms, 5 books (Greek fragments in P. G., LXVI, 648; Latin translation dis- covered by Mercati, see bibliography; Greek text dis- covered by Lietzmann, but not yet edited, cf. ibid.); (3) on the twelve Minor Prophets (extant in its en- tirety; edited by Mai in P. G., LXVI, 124-632); (4) on the First and Second Books of Kings, 1 book (lost) ; (5) on Job, 2 books, dedicated to St. Cyril of Alex- andria (only four fragments preserved in P. G., loc. cit., 697 sq.); (6) on Ecclesiastes, 1 book (lo.st); (7) to the four Great Prophets, 4 books (lost). Asse- mani adds "Qusesticnes et Responsiones in Sacram Scripturam"; the fragments mentioned by the Fifth (Ecumenical Council (Mansi, IX, 225) on the Canticle of Canticles are perhaps taken from a letter, (b) On the New Testament: (1) on Matthew, 1 book (frag- ments in P. G., LXVI, 705 sqq.); (2) on Luke, 1 book (fragments, ibid., 716 sqq.); (3) on John, 1 book (frag- ments, ibid., 728; Syrian, discovered and edited by Chabot, Paris, 1897) ; (4) on the Acts, 1 book (frag- ments in P. G., LXVI, 785 .sq.); (5) on all the Epistles of St. Paul (Greek fragments in P. G., LXVI, 188- 968; the Ejjistles to the Galatians, Colo.ssians, Thessa- lonians, Philemon, Latin edition by H. B. Swete, Cambridge, 1880-82). B. Opuscula: (1) "De sac- ramentis", 1 book (lost); (2) "De fide", 1 book ("Liber ad baptizatos", according to Facundus, op. cit., IX, 3; fragments in Swete, II, 323-27); (3) "De sacerdotio", 1 book (lost); (4) "De Spiritu Sancto", 2 books, against the Macedonians (lost) ; (5) " De In- carnatione", 15 books (cf. Facundus, IX, 3; Genna- dius, 12; written at Antioch about 382-92 against the Apollinarians and Eunomians; Greek fragm. in P. G., LXVI, 969 sqq., and Swete, II, 290-312) ; (6) "Contra Eunomium", 2 books (one fragment in Facundus, IX, 3); (7) "Contra dicentes: peccatum natura; inesse", 2 books (cf. Photius, "Bibl.", 177); (8) "Contra magi- cam artem", 2 books (cf. Photius, 81); (9) "Ad mon- achos", 1 book (lost); (10) "De obscura locutione", 1 book (lost); (11) "De perfectione operum", 1 book (lost); (12) " Contra allegoristas", 5 books (cf. Facun- dus, III, 6:"Deallegoriaethistoria"); (13) "De Assu- mente et Assumpto", 1 book (lost); (14) "De legis- latione", 1 book (lost). Many unidentified frag- ments are perhaps taken from lost works. The fifteen books "De mysteriis" or "Opus mysticum", men- tioned by Assemani (III, 1, 563), are probably identi- cal with the "Codex mysticus" cited by Facundus (III, 2). Concerning the "Symbolum fidei" (Fa- cundus, III, 2; Leontius, P. G., LXXXVI, 1367), cf. Fritzsche in P. G., LXVI, 73 sqq. Leontius Byzant. ("Advers. Incorr.", xx, in P. G., LXXXVI, 1368) says, perhaps with reference to the so-called Nestorian Liturgy, that Theodore had also introduced a new Liturgy. C. Lellers: These were collected in one volume which is now lost.

III. Theodore's Doctrine. — A. Hermeneutics and Canon. — As regards the Old Testament, Theo- dore seems to have accepted Flavins Josejihus's idea of inspiration and his canon. He rejected a.s uncanoni- cal the Book of Job, the Canticle of Canticles, the Book of Esdras, and the deutcro-canonical books. From the New Testament he excised the Catholic Epi.stlcs (except I Peter and I John) and the Apoc- alyjisc (cf. Leontius, loc. cit.. Ill, 13-17, in P. G., LXXX\'l, l:it)5~r.S). In his (•xT)lanati(>n of the Holy Writ Tlu'oddrc cniploys primarily the jircvailiiig his- torical and grununatical method of the Antiochcne

school. Of all the Psalms he recognized only ii, viii, xlv, and ex as containing direct prophetic reference to the Messias; the Canticle of Canticles was pro- nounced by him a vulgar nuptial poem. B. Anthro- pology and Doctrine of Justification. — Theodore's doc- trine concerning justification gave vise to very grave misgivings, even if we reject the accusations of Leon- tius (loc. cit., 20-37) as exaggerated. According to Theodore, the sin of Adam rendered himself and man- kindsubjecttodeath, because he was then mutable. But that which was the consequence of sin in the case of Adam is in his descendants its cause, so that in conse- quence of mutability all men in some manner or other sin personally. The object of the Redemption was to transfer mankind from this condition of mutability and mortahty to the state of immutabiUty and im- mortality. This happened first in the case of Christ, fundamentally by the union with the Logos, to a greater extent at His baptism, and completely at His Resurrection. In mankind this change is effected by union with Christ. The union begins in baptism, through which (1) all (personal) sins are remitted, (2) the grace of Christ is granted, which leads us to immutability (sinlessness) and immortality. At the baptism of children only this second effect occurs. That these ideas show a certain resemblance to the fundamental thoughts of Pelagianism is not to be de- nied; whether, however, Theodore influenced Pela- gius and Ca?lestius (according to Marius Mercator, through the medium of the Syrian Rufinus; P. L., XLVIII, 110), or whether these influenced Theodore, is very difficult to determine. C. Christology .■ — Theodore's Christology exercised a more direct and eventful influence on the doctrine of his (mediate) dis- ciple Nestorius (q. v.). The contemporarj^ polemics against Arianism and Apollinarianism led the Anti- ochenes (Diodon:s, Theodore, and Nestorius) to em- phasize energetically the perfect Divinity and the un- impaired Humanity of Christ, and to separate as sharply as possible the two natures. Thus, in a ser- mon which he delivered at Antioch (perhaps the first as bishop), Theodore vehemently attacked the use of the term ScotAkos, long employed in ecclesiastical terminology, because Mary was strictly speaking i.vdpuiTOTbKoi, and only indirectly SeotAkos. It was only by recalling his words and correcting himself that Theodore could appease the excitement resulting from this view (see John of Antioch, "Epist. ad Theodo- sium imper. " in Facundus Herm., "Pro defensione trium capp.", X, 2; P. L., LXXXVII, 771). It can- not indeed be denied that the Antiochene separation of the natures must result in an improper weakening of the union in Christ. Like Nestorius, Theodore ex- pressly declares that he wished to uphold the unity of person in Christ; perhaps they recognized some dis- tinction between nature and pereon, but did not know exactly what was the distinguishing factor, and there- fore used faulty paraphrases and comparisons, and spoke of the two natures in a way which, taken strictly, presupposed two persons. Thus, according to Theodore, the human nature of Christ was not only passibilis, but also really (fn/ofci7/s, since otherwise His actual freedom from sin would be the result of His physical vmion with God, not a merit of His free will. . The union of the human and Divine nature happens not Kar oi(rtaf nor kot ivipyaav^ l>ut Kar evdoKiav (at will), and indeed a ev5oKla is iv w(? it is a trvfdipeia, which ofTocts a fpuo-ii ei's fv TrpAo-uiroi'. The two na- tures form a unity, "like man and wife" or "body and soul". Consequently, according to Theodore, the communicdtio idioinatum, fiuidamentally speaking, is also lawful.

IV. The Condemnation of the Doctrine of Theodore. — While during his lifetime (apart from the episode at Aniioch) Theodore was regarded a.s or- thodox (cf. TlK'odoret, "Hist, eccl.", V, xxxix; John of Antioch, in Facundus, II, 2), a loud outcry was