THEODORETUS. but he was assisted by a devoted band of monks, among whom one named Jacob was conspicuous ; and his zeal was intiamed by the belief that super- natural powers took part both for and against him. He tells us of devils appearing to him in the night, and demanding why he persecuted Marcion, with other marvels in the spirit of his age. In these useful labours and clerical duties, and in the composition of his exegetical and other works, Theodoret would, in happier times, have spent a peaceful life. But in that age it was im- possible for a man of any eminence to be neutral in the internecine war of the religious parties ; and there were various influences at work to draw Theodoret into the vortex of the Nestorian con- troversy. To understand what follows, the reader not acquainted v/ith the details of the history may read the article Nestorius. This part of the life of Theodoret has been grossly misrepresented by Gamier, and the writers who have followed him. If we are to believe them, he first adopted a heresy to gratify a private friendship : and after- Avards, from selfish motives, recanted his heresy, and anathematized his friend. It is true that Theodoret had formed an acquaintance with Nes- torius in the convent of Euprepius, where they were fellow students ; but there is no proof of any great intimacy between them, and none that Theo- doret ever adopted the tenets of Nestorius, His share in the contest is more that of an impartial mediator than that of a devoted friend and ad- herent : he acts, not with Nestorms, but with Joha of Antioch and the Oriental party ; not in order to favour Nestorianism, but to resist the overbearing intolerance of Cyril, and to combat the errors, opposite to those of Nestorius, into Avhich he conceived Cyril, and afterwards Eutyches, to have fallen. The proof of these statements is con- tained in the numerous writings in which Theo- doret explains his views respecting the dispute, in all of which he appears as the champion of re- ligious freedom, and the opponent of those authori- tative statements of doctrine, which fetter private opinion without settling any controversy, or en- suring any permanent peace. To enter into the details of this subject would be inconsistent with the nature of this work, as well as impossible Avithin the limits of the present article. We must l)e content to give a brief sketch of the external liistory of Theodoret's share in the dispute. At an early stage of the controversy (a. d. 430), he wrote a letter to the monks of Syria and the neighbouring countries, in reply to the twelve ca- pilula of Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, in whose representations he detects, of course by in- ference only, Apollinarianism, Arianism, and other errors at the opposite extreme to those of Nestorius, especially the confusion of the two natures in the person of Christ, by so representing the hypostatical union as to make them only one. At the council of Ephesus (a. D. 431) he arrived earlier than the great body of the Eastern bishops, for Avhose pre- sence he, with others, in vain urged the assembly to wait before condemning Nestorius ; and, upon their arrival, he took part with them in the sepa- rate synod which condemned the proceedings of the council, and decreed the deposition of Cyril. The council of Ephesus having thus only widened the breach, it remained for the feeble emperor, 'I iieodosius II., to decide which party he would ■ pport At first he warmly espoused the cause THEODORETUS. 1039 of Nestorius, but soon afterwards, falling under the influence of certain monks of Cyril's party, he summoned the African and Oriental bishops to send seven representatives each, to explain to him the proceedings of the council of Ephesus. Theo- doret was one of the seven delegates of the Oriental party. On their arrival at Chalcedon, they were ordered to wait there for an audience with the emperor ; and meanwhile Theodoret, being excluded from the Church by the influence of Cyril's party, preached to immense audiences, and celebrated the sacraments, in a large court sur- rounded by porticoes. On the emperor's arrival, Theodoret pleaded the cause of the Oriental bishops before him with great eloquence and courage ; but the mind of Theodosius was already surrendered to the other party, and the ambassadors of the Eastern churches were dismissed to their homes. On his return to Cyrus, Theodoret composed an elaborate work on the Incarnation, in five books (irevTaXoyiov iifavOpcoirctxrews), in order fully to explain his own views upon the question, to guard himself against the accusation of sharing in the opinions of Nestorius, and to expose the heretical tendencies of Cyril's tenets, and the unjust conduct of his party at the council of Ephesus. Of this work we only possess a few fragments, and those chiefly from the Latin translation of Marius Mer- cator, a bigotted adherent of the Cyrillian party, who declares his belief that Theodoret wrote the book at the instigation of the devil. About the same time, also, Theodoret came forward in de- fence of the memory of his master, Theodore of Mopsuestia, whose works had been denounced by Cyril and his friend Proclus of Constantinople, as the poisonous source of the Nestorian heresy. In a work which is now lost, Theodoret replied in detail to all the arguments advanced by Cyril against the works of Theodore ; and attacked Cyril with considerable bitterness, as we see from some fragments of the book, which are preserved in the acts of the fifth oecumenical council. (Har- douin. Act Concil. vol. iii. pp. 106, &c.) Of the transactions of the following years, until the death of Cyril, it must suffice to say that Theodoret acquiesced in the peace efi^ected by the intercession of the emperor between the parties of Cyril and of John, in so far as its doctrinal basis was concerned ; and he even submitted, and urged the friends of Nestorius to submit, to the deposition of Nestorius. But he always protested against that deposition ; and, when it became evident that no limits were assigned to the severity with which the Nestorians were to be treated (a. d. 435), he threw aside all pretence of peace, and stood forth as the decided opponent of Cyril, who, on his part, displayed the bitterest enmity against Theodoret. It is alleged that, when Cyril died (a. d. 444), Theodoret so far forgot himself as to express his exultation at the event. Such conduct might be excused on the plea, that his joy was for the de- liverance of the Church from a source of bitterness ; but the truth is, that the charge rests on passages in two works which it is probable that Theodoret never wrote, while, in other works, which ai'e un- doubtedly genuine, he refers to Cyril's death in quite a different spirit. JJioscorus, the successor of Cyril in the see of Alexandria, pursued his predecessor's lineof conduct, with even greater bitterness, and Theodoret soon found himself forced into a more prominent and
