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
