THEODORE
570
THEODORE
even though there is no evidence that it is based on
objective facts. This latter view would open the
door wide to religious extravagance. It is not,
therefore, an excess of intellectuahsm to demand that
the truths which serve as the rational basis of faith
shall be strictly proved.
Even in earlier times there were those who denied that the existence of God could be proved absolutely by the understanding alone, and took refuge in Revela- tion. In his "Sumnia contra Gentiles" (I, c. xii) St. Thomas refers to such reasoners. At a later date this opinion was championed by the Nominalists, William of Occam and Gabriel Biel, as well as by the Reformers; the Jansenists demanded the special aid of grace. In the nineteenth century the Tradi- tionalists (see Tr.^ditionalism) asserted that only when some vestiges of the original revelation reached man could he deduce with certainty the existence of God. Dr. J. Kulm, formerly professor at Tiibingen, declares that the clear recognition of the existence of God requires a pure soul unstained by sin. Ontolo- gism (q. V.) went to the other extreme and asserted the immediate cognition of God. St. Anselm offered an a priori proof of the existence of God. This, however, has been always and rightly rejected by the majority of Cathohc philosophers, notwithstanding the modifications by which Duns Scotus, Leibniz, and Descartes sought to save it (cf. Dr. Otto Paschen, "Der ontologische Gottesbeweis in der Scholastik", Aachen, 1903; M. Esser, "Der ontologische Gottesbe- weis und seine Geschichte", Bonn, 1905). In regard to the various a posteriori proofs for the existence of God, see the article God. A dispute has arisen of late as to whether there are a number of proofs of the existence of God or whether all are not merely parts of one and the same proof (cf. Dr. C. Braig, " Got t esbeweis oder Gott esbeweise? ", Stut tgart , 1 8S8) . It is certain that we always reach God as the cause, the last ground of all existence, and thus constantly foUow as a guide the principle of sufficient reason. But the starting-point of the individual proofs varies. St. Thomas calls them aptly (Summ. theol., I, Q. ii, a. 3) viie., i. e., roads to the apprehension of God which all open on the same highway.
After demonstrating the existence of God, theodicy investigates the question as to His nature and attri- butes. The latter are in part absolute (qniescenlia) in part relative (operativa) . In the first class belong the infinity, unity, immutability, omnipresence, and eternity; to the second class the knowledge, vohtion, and action of God. The action of God includes the creation, maintenance, and government of the world, the co-operation of God with the activity of the crea- ture, and the working of miracles. The understand- ing affords us abundant knowledge concerning God, although it allows us but faint glimpses of His essen- tial greatness and beauty. For one thing should not be forgotten, namely, that all our cognition of God is incomplete and analogous, that is, is formed from notions that we have deduced from created things. Hence it is that much remains obscure to us, as for instance, how God's immutabihty harmonizes with His freedom, and how He knows the future. But the inadequacy of our knowledge does not justify the assertion of the .\gnostic that God is unknowable and that consequently any attenipl such as theodicy makes to reason about His attributes and our rela- tions to Him is foredoomed to failure (sec Agnos- ticism).
An historical survey of the developmpnt of thn proofs from Plato to I.cibniz for the existence of God mav be found in the work of Gratby, De la connaissance de Dieu. 1 (Paris. 1853), 72- 434, II, 1-98. Of value are also: Grunwald, Oetch. der Golles- beweist im MiltelalleT bis rum Ausgang der Ilochncholaslik (Mun- ster, 1907); Daniels, Quellenbeitr&ge w. Vntersuchungcn rur Gesch. der GoUesbeweise %m XIII. Jahrhundert mil bcsonderer BerUcksichtigung dea Arguments xm Prostogion des hi. Anselm (Munster, 1909): Staad, Die Gottesbeweise in der katholischen deulschen Litteratur ton 1860-lUUO (Paderborn, 1910).
In addition to the bibliography under the article God, the fol-
lowing works may be mentioned: Lilly. The Great Enigma (Lon-
don, 1892); Lucas, Agnosticism and Religion (New York. 1895);
MoYES, The Existence of God (London, and Edinburgh, 1906);
Ward, Essay on the Philosophy oj Theism (London, 1884) ; Flint,
Antitheislic Theories (2nd ed., London and Edinburgh, 1880);
HoNTHEiM, Institutiones Theodicceos (Freiburg, 1893) ; UrrA-
BCRC, Theodicea (Vallodolid, 1899); Schiffini, Disputationes
metaphysica;, 2 vols, of Theologia naturalis (2nd ed., Turin. 1894);
BoEDDER, TAfofoffia 7ia(ura(is (3rd ed., Freiburg, 1911); Ziguara.
Theologia naturalis (Rome, 1886) ; Geyser, Das philosophische
Gollesproblem (Bonn, 1899); Gutbeblet, Die Theodicee (4th ed.,
Munster, 1909); Lehmen, Theodicee (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1906);
M.\YER, Der teleologische Gottesbeweis u. der Darwinismus (Mainz,
1901) ; ROLFES, Die Gottesbeweise bei Thomas ion Aquin und Aris-
toteles (Cologne, 1898) ; MoiSANT, Dieu, Vexperience en meta-
physique (Paris, 1907) ; de Broglie, Preure psychologique de
t'existence de Dieu (Paris, 1905). See also the bibliographies to
Agnosticism, Atheism, Evil, Modernism, Monism, and Pan-
theism.
CONSTANTIN KeMPF.
Theodore I, Pope, from 642 to 649; the date of his birth is unknown. He was a Greek of Jerusalem and the son of a bishop, Theodore. His election as pope was promptly confirmed by the Exarch of Ravenna, perhaps because he was a Greek, and he was conse- crated 24 Nov., 642. Engaged throughout aU his pontificate in the struggle against Monothelitism, he at once WTote to the Byzantine Emperor Constans II to inform him that he could not recognize Paul as Patriarch of Constantinople, because the deposition of his predecessor (Pyrrhus) had not been canonical. He then urged Constans to withdraw the Ecthesis. He also wrote to Paul and to the bishops who had consecrated him, to impress upon them the impor- tance of securing the legal deposition of PjTrhus, if the accession of Paul was to be recognized. If Theodore's vigorous action produced no result at Constanti- nople, it elsewhere excited strong opposition to Mono- thelitism. The Bishops of Cj'prus, Palestine, and Africa expressed their loyal submission to his teach- ing in very striking language. Even the deposed patriarch PjTrhus recanted his heresy before Theodore (64o), but soon relapsed into his old errors, and was excommunicated by the pope (648). Meanwhile, urged by the bishops of Africa, Theodore made an- other effort to reclaim Paul, but only succeeded in drawing from him an express declaration of his belief in the doctrine of one Will in our Lord. This brought upon him sentence of excommunication and deposi- tion from Rome (649). To this Paul replied by bar- barously ill-treating the papal apotyrisiarii (or nun- cios) at Constantinople. He also prevailed upon Constans to issue a new decree knowTi as the T^'pe (Typus). This document ordered the Ecthesis to be taken down, and enjoined that in future there was to be no more discussion on the doctrine of one or two Wills or Operations. The Type was promptly con- demned "by the whole West" in general, and spe- cifically by Theodore's successor (St. Martin I), but it is not certain whether Theodore lived long enough to anathematize it. This energetic pontiff, who was good to the poor of Rome, and a benefactor of its churches, was buried in St. Peter's, 14 May, 649.
Liber Pontificalis, I, 330 sqq., ed. Duchesne (Paris. 1886); Jaff£, Regesta, I. 228 sqq. (Leipzig, 1888) ; Maximi, Dispulatio. ciVa.etcinLABBE, Condi.. V. pp. 1813 sqq.; or P. L.. CXXIX; or CoMBEFis (2 vols., Paris, 1675) ; Acts of the Laleran Council un- der .Martin I; Mann, Lives of the Popes in the early Middle Ages, I (London, 1902), ,369 sqq.
Horace K. Mann.
Theodore 11, Pope, son of Photius. His pontifi- cate lasted only twenty d.ays; neither the date of his birth nor of his accession to the p:i.p:vcy is known; it is probable that he w:is p()p<' during December S97. He reinst;ited in synod tlie clerics who had been degraded by Stephen (VI) \"1I, ordered the burning of the acts of resignation which they had been forced to tender, and formally recognized the valiiiity of the orders con- ferred by Pojie Formosus. He caused the body of the last-named pope, which had been thrown into the ■Tiber and cast ashore by a flood, to be reburied in St
