of the fabulous character of the story is derived from the non-existence, at that time, of any Greek version of the Old Testament. Theodectes had a son of the same name (see below), and a domestic slave, who was also his amanuensis (ἀναγνώστης καὶ οἰκέτης), named Sibyrtius, who is said to have been the first of his condition who devoted himself to the study of rhetoric. He wrote a treatise on the art, Téxva pnTopikal, according to Suidas, who, however, is just as likely as not to have confounded the master and the slave. (Suid. s. v. ZíbúρTIOS.) 2. A son of the former, who followed his father's profession as a rhetorician, and, according to Suidas (s. v.), wrote an Encomium on Alexander the Epeirot, historical memoirs (iσTopikà nouvhuaтa), a work on the customs of barbarian nations (vóuua Bapsapiká), a treatise on rhetoric in seven books (TÉXVN PηTOPIKŃ), and many other works. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ii. pp. 323, 324, vol. vi. p. 138; Welcker, die Griech. Tragöd. pp. 1069, foll.; Kayser, Hist. Crit. Trag. Graec. p. 108, foll.; Wagner, Fragm. Trag. Graec. pp. 113, foll., in Didot's Bibliotheca.) [P. S.] and her sisters earned their living as pantomimic actresses; and Theodora, by the charms of her person and her skill in acting, soon became one of the greatest favourites of the stage. She earned the reputation of being the most beautiful and most licentious courtezan of the city, and Procopius, in his Secret History, has related the most scandalous tales of her amours. After practising her profession in public and in private at Constantinople for some time, she accompanied Ecebolus, who had been appointed to the government of the African Pentapolis. But she was soon deserted by her lover, and returned in indigence to the imperial city. On her arrival at the scene of her former glory and infamy, she assumed a virtuous character, retired from the world, and appeared to support herself by spinning. While living in this retirement she attracted the notice of Justinian, who then governed the empire under his uncle Justin, and she gained such a mastery over the affections and the passions of the youthful prince, that he married the fair courtezan in 525, in spite of the vehement remonstrances of his mother and other relatives. On the death of Justin, and the elevation of Justinian in 527, Theodora was publicly proclaimed empress; and not content with conferring upon her this honour, her uxorious husband declared her to be an equal and independent colleague in the empire, and required all public functionaries to take the oath of allegiance in the joint names of himself and of Theodora. The part which she took in public affairs is related in the life of Justinian. [JUSTINIANUS I.] She died in hold on the affections of Justinian. She is repre548 of a cancer, having retained to the last her Tálúk (though with some slight variations in sented by the historians as proud and tyrannical different MSS.), which Reiske (Opusc. Med. ex in the exercise of power; but as none of her Monim. Arab. p. 46) renders Theotychus, but enemies have brought any charge against her Theodocus is probably nearer the truth. He is chastity after her marriage with Justinian, we may said to have had numerous eminent pupils; and is safely conclude that she never proved unfaithful to probably the person called Traducus in the Latin her husband. She bore Justinian only one child, Version of Rhazes (Cont. iii. 2, p. 53 ed. 1506,) a daughter, whom she buried in her life-time. and Tiaduk in Sontheimer's German trans-(Procopius, Historia Arcana; the graphic sketch lation of Ibn Baitár (vol. i. pp. 14, 137, &c.). There is rather a long life of Theodocus in Ibn Abí Osaibi'ah (vii. 5, Arab. MS. in the Bodleian Library), which is chiefly filled with anecdotes of his sayings. [W. A. G.] THEODEMIR, king of the Ostrogoths, and father of THEODORIC the GREAT. [THEODORICUS the GREAT.] THEO'DOCUS (℗eódoкos), the name given by Pococke (in his Latin Version of Abú-l-Faraj, Hist. Dynast. p. 128), and Wüstenfeld (Gesch. der Arab. Aerzte, p. 9) to a Greek physician in the service of Hajaj Ibn Yusuf, the general of the chalíf 'Abdu-l-Malek Ibn Merwán, in the seventh cen tury after Christ. He is called in Arabic THEODO'RA, FLAVIA MAXIMIA'NA, the daughter of Galeria Valeria Eutropia [EuTROPIA] by her first husband, whose name and station are alike unknown. After the second marriage of Eutropia with Maximianus Herculius, Constantius Chlorus having been elevated (A. D. 292) to the rank of Caesar was required to repudiate his wife Helena [HELENA] and to wed the stepdaughter of his Augustus. By Constantius Theodora had six children, three daughters and three sons. The daughters were, 1. Flavia Valeria Constantia, united to the emperor Licinius. 2. Anastasia, wife of Bassianus [BASSIANUS]. 3. Eutropia, mother of Nepotianus who assumed the purple in A.D. 350 [NEPOTIANUS]; with regard to the names of the sons, see the article HANNIBALLIANUS. (Aurel. Vict. de Cacs. 39, Epit. 39; Eutrop. x. 14; Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, vol. iv. Dioclet. Art. iii.) [W. R.] THEODO'RA, the wife of the emperor Justinian, was the daughter of Acacius, who had the care of the wild beasts of the Green faction of Constantinople. After the death of her father, she of Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. xl.; and the authorities quoted in the life of Justinian.) THEODORE TUS (Oeudúpntos) is mentioned by Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. vol. xiii. p. 432, ed. vet.) as a physician quoted by Paulus Aegineta (iii. 46, 50, vii. 11. pp. 470, 475, 659), but in these passages the word is the name of a medicine, not of a [W. A. G.] man. -- THEODORE TUS (Oeodúpnтos), or, as the name is sometimes written, both in ancient MSS. and in modern works, THEODORITUS, though the former is undoubtedly the more correct orthography,,—was one of the most eminent ecclesiastics of the fifth century; confessedly surpassing all his contemporaries in learning, and inferior to none of them in piety; while, in his public conduct, he stands conspicuous and almost alone, as a calm and moderate champion of freedom of opinion in religious matters, in an age when the orthodox and the heretics vied with one another in the bitterest intolerance and rancour. The one blot of moral weakness on the character of Theodoret is by no means so dark as some have represented, and, at all events, may be greatly extenuated, without unfairness. And yet, but for that one fault, his name would have come down to us consigned to the list of heretics, by men, such as Cyril and Dioscorus, to whose spirit, it is no small praise to Theodoret to say, his conduct displays the most marked contrast. Theodoret was born at Antioch towards the end of the fourth century of our era. The exact year of his birth is uncertain: from a minute examination of the fragments of evidence, which are supplied chiefly by his own works, Garnier has fixed it at A. D. 386; and Tillemont, with greater probability, at A. D. 393. (See their works, quoted at the end of this article.) Theodoret himself, who was naturally infected with the credulity, which was universal in his age,-for even the sceptics of the time were grossly credulous in some matters,-has related various marvels which attended his birth, as well as subsequent passages of his life. His parents were persons of good condition in life, and of distinguished piety; and his mother, especially, had the most profound respect for the hermits or ascetics, one of whom had healed her of a disease of the eyes by means of the sign of the cross, and had also convinced her of the sinfulness of worldly pomp and luxury. After thirteen years of sterile wedlock, during which the prayers of several of these pious men had been offered on her behalf in vain, one of them named Macedonius at length announced that a son should be granted to her, but upon the condition that he should be consecrated to the service of God. It was not, however, till three years afterwards that the child was born, and named cooúpnτos, as being a special gift of God. As the period of his birth approached, the holy man who had predicted it kept continually in his mother's recollection the condition attached to the gift, of which too he frequently reminded Theodoret himself in after years. The record of these circumstances, which are only a specimen of the wonders he relates, is important, on account of the influence which the belief of them exercised on the mind of Theodoret. He was brought up, and instructed in religion, by his mother, with a care suited to his peculiar position, and which he often mentions with gratitude. At a very early age (scarcely seven years, according to an inference drawn from his 81st epistle) he was sent for his education to a celebrated monastery near Antioch, presided over by Euprepius; and there he remained for twenty years (Ep. 81), until he left it to take charge of his dio cese. obtained considerable reputation by his sermons against the Arians, Macedonians, and especially the Apollinarists, who were the most formidable, by their numbers, among the heretics in the diocese. This matter is not very certain; but it is clear that he must in some way have obtained a public reputation, to account for his appointment to the episcopate by Theodotus, the successor of Alexander in the see of Antioch. It was in A. D. 420 or 423, according to different computations from his own writings (Epist. 81, 113, 116), that he left his monastery to suc ceed Isidorus as bishop of Cyrus, or Cyrrhus, a small and poor city near the Euphrates, about two days' journey from Antioch; which was, however, the capital of a district of Syria, called Cyrrhestice, and the diocese of which contained eight hundred parishes (Epist. 32, 113). We learn from his own testimony, which there is every reason to believe, that he carried into his new office the quiet spirit of the monastery, and that ecclesiastical domination was never an object of his ambition. He still practised also the greatest moderation in his own mode of life; while he improved the opportunities, presented by his office, of exercising the utmost generosity towards others. The fortune, which he had inherited on the death of his parents, he had at once divided among the poor; and his bishopric brought him no property, neither house, nor even a tomb (Epist. 113), and its annual revenues could not have been large. Yet out of these, in addition to his alms to the poor, he expended a large sum in the decoration of the city, in which he built covered porticoes, two large bridges, public baths, and an aqueduct (Epist. 79, 81, 138). He also attracted to the city artists and professional men, who were much wanted there, especially physicians; and he interceded, both with the imperial procurator, and with the empress Pulcheria, for an alleviation of the taxes with which the people of his diocese were burthened. In the midst of these acts of his public munificence we see an instance of his generosity to individuals, in the zeal with which he pleads in several letters to his friends, on behalf of Celestiacus of Carthage, who had been stript of his all by the Vandals (Epist. 29-36). After an episcopate of five and twenty years he could declare that he had never had anything to do with a court of justice, and had never received the smallest present; and afterwards, in his adversity, he suffered extreme want rather than accept presents which would have enabled him to live in luxury. Not only did he thus conduct himself, but he succeeded, by his example and authority, in inducing his clergy to follow a similar mode of life. (Epist. 81.) He had for his instructors some of the most eminent ministers of the Eastern Church. He himself names Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodorus of Mopsuestia as his teachers; but, as the former died before the end of the fourth century, he can scarcely have instructed Theodoret, except through his writings. Still less can we take literally the statement of Nicephorus (H. E. xiv. 54), that Theodoret was a disciple of Chrysostom, which can At the same time he administered the spiritual only mean (and in this sense it deserves notice) affairs of his diocese with great vigour. At that that the writings of Chrysostom were studied by wretched period in the history of the Church, one Theodoret as a model for his own exegetical works. of the chief occupations of an orthodox bishop Of his actual teachers, it appears that the chief was was to maintain the contest with the so-called Theodore of Mopsuestia, whose memory and works heretics. The diocese of Theodoret was overrun he constantly defended from the charge of hetero- with Arians, Macedonians, and especially Mardoxy. The use which Theodoret made of those cionites; but such was his success in converting twenty-five years of study and retirement appears them, that he speaks of them, in the year 449, as in the fruit which they bore at a later period, in being all reconciled to the Catholic Church, and he his profoundly learned writings. During his resi- declares that he had baptized ten thousand Mardence in the monastery he was appointed, first a cionites. In this contest he ran great personal reader, and then a deacon, in the Church of risks, having been more than once in danger of Antioch, by the patriarchs Porphyry and Alex-being stoned to death. Still he never, like many ander; and, in the latter office, he seems to have bishops, called in the aid of the temporal power; but he was assisted by a devoted band of monks, among whom one named Jacob was conspicuous; and his zeal was inflamed by the belief that supernatural 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. 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. Theodoret was one of the seven delegates of the Oriental party. On their arrival at Chalcedon, In these useful labours and clerical duties, and they were ordered to wait there for an audience in the composition of his exegetical and other with the emperor; and meanwhile Theodoret, works, Theodoret would, in happier times, have being excluded from the Church by the influence of spent a peaceful life. But in that age it was im- Cyril's party, preached to immense audiences, and possible for a man of any eminence to be neutral in celebrated the sacraments, in a large court surthe internecine war of the religious parties; and rounded by porticoes. On the emperor's arrival, there were various influences at work to draw Theodoret pleaded the cause of the Oriental bishops Theodoret into the vortex of the Nestorian con- before him with great eloquence and courage; but troversy. To understand what follows, the reader the mind of Theodosius was already surrendered not acquainted with the details of the history may to the other party, and the ambassadors of the read the article NESTORIUS. This part of the life Eastern churches were dismissed to their homes. of Theodoret has been grossly misrepresented by On his return to Cyrus, Theodoret composed an Garnier, and the writers who have followed him. elaborate work on the Incarnation, in five books If we are to believe them, he first adopted a (TEVтaλóуiov évav@рwnwσews), in order fully to heresy to gratify a private friendship; and after- explain his own views upon the question, to guard wards, from selfish motives, recanted his heresy, himself against the accusation of sharing in the and anathematized his friend. It is true that opinions of Nestorius, and to expose the heretical Theodoret had formed an acquaintance with Nes- tendencies of Cyril's tenets, and the unjust conduct torius in the convent of Euprepius, where they of his party at the council of Ephesus. Of this were fellow students; but there is no proof of any work we only possess a few fragments, and those great intimacy between them, and none that Theo-chiefly from the Latin translation of Marius Merdoret 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 adherent he acts, not with Nestorius, but with John 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 which he conceived Cyril, and afterwards Eutyches, to have fallen. The proof of these statements is contained in the numerous writings in which Theodoret explains his views respecting the dispute, in all of which he appears as the champion of religious freedom, and the opponent of those authoritative statements of doctrine, which fetter private opinion without settling any controversy, or ensuring any permanent peace. To enter into the details of this subject would be inconsistent with the nature of this work, as well as impossible within the limits of the present article. We must be content to give a brief sketch of the external history of Theodoret's share in the dispute. 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 defence 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. (Hardouin, 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 effected 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 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 capitula of Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, in whose representations he detects, of course by inference 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 whose pre-liverance of the Church from a source of bitterness; 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 separate 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, Theodosius II., to decide which party he would support. At first he warmly espoused the cause 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 are undoubtedly genuine, he refers to Cyril's death in quite a different spirit. Dioscorus, the successor of Cyril in the see of Alexandria, pursued his predecessor's line of conduct, with even greater bitterness, and Theodoret soon found himself forced into a more prominent and disastrous position in the controversy. through vised whether he should submit to his deposition. the necessity of resisting the renewed diffusion of Leo, who had already pronounced against the Euthe opinions of Cyril by the efforts of a party of tychians, accepted Theodoret's confession of faith as Syrian monks, and still more by those of the cele- satisfactory, and declared him absolved from all ecclebrated Eutyches of Constantinople, with whose siastical censure: but the proposal for an oecumeniname the Cyrillian doctrine became identified. cal council in Italy was negatived by the emperor. [EUTYCHES.] Dioscorus supported the party of At this precise juncture, however, the whole Eutyches with all his might; and, besides this state of affairs was suddenly changed by the death ground of opposition, he had a personal motive of of Theodosius II., A. D. 450, and the accession of dislike to Theodoret, because the latter had signed Pulcheria and Marcianus, who were unfavourable a synodical epistle of Proclus, the bishop of Con- to the Eutychians. Theodoret and the other deposed stantinople, implying thereby, as Dioscorus main- bishops were recalled from retirement, on the contained, the superiority of that patriarch to those of dition that they should be reinstated in their sees Alexandria and Antioch. In fact, the conduct of by the decision of an oecumenical council; and Dioscorus throughout the whole Eutychian con- Theodoret himself joined in the demand for such a troversy betrays at least as much care for the council, as necessary to restore peace to the Church. aggrandizement of his own see as for the cause of It assembled, first at Nicaea, and afterwards at truth. Through the influence of this prelate at the Chalcedon, in a. D. 451. At its eighth session imperial court, Theodosius, who made no secret of the petition of Theodoret for restoration to his the dislike he bore to Theodoret for his opposition bishopric was discussed, and he himself appeared to Cyril, was induced to issue a command to the to plead his cause. He was most enthusiastically bishop of Cyrus to confine himself within the limits received by his friends, but the party of his eneof his own diocese, A. D. 448. At the same time mies was still powerful, at least in clamour. When that he obeyed the mandate, Theodoret addressed he attempted to give an account of his opinions, he letters to some of the principal men of the empire, was interrupted by the cry," Curse Nestorius, his in vindication of his conduct; and in these letters doctrines, and his adherents!" In vain did he we find some of the most interesting particulars of represent that he cared far less for restoration to his previous life (Epist. 79-82). He had already his see than for permission to clear himself from done his best to appease the enmity of Dioscorus the misrepresentations to which he had been subby a letter, explaining his opinions, and adducing, jected: the generous answer to his appeal was the as a proof of his orthodoxy, his acceptance of the renewed cry, "He is a heretic himself: he is a statement of doctrine agreed upon by John and Nestorian: thrust out the heretic!" Yielding at Cyril. Dioscorus, however, replied in the most last to the clamour, he exclaimed, "Anathema on violent language, plainly calling Theodoret a Nes- Nestorius, and on every one who denies that Mary torian. As a last attempt to pacify the proud is the mother of God, and who divides the Onlypatriarch, Theodoret went so far, in a second letter, begotten into two Sons. I have subscribed the as to declare those accursed who said that the confession of faith, and the letter of the bishop Virgin was not the mother of God, or that Christ Leo; and this is my faith.-Farewell." This dewas a mere man, or who would represent the Only-claration was received with the applause of the begotten as if in his person there were two Sons of God; Dioscorus cut short the correspondence, by pronouncing a public anathema upon Theodoret in the church of Alexandria; and soon afterwards, Whatever weakness Theodoret displayed on this in A. D. 449, he assembled under his own pre- occasion consisted, not in the sacrifice of any relisidency the second Council of Ephesus, justly called gious conviction, but in suffering himself to be the robber-synod, which pronounced the deposition deprived of the opportunity of explaining his real both of Theodoret, and of Flavian, patriarch of opinions. He was no Nestorian; and, though his Constantinople, Domnus, patriarch of Antioch, and whole character forbids us to suppose that he was the other bishops who had condemned Eutyches at a believer in anathemas, yet he had the misfortune the synod of Constantinople in the preceding year. to live in an age when the anathema was esteemed Theodoret had been excluded from the synod the natural and proper form for a declaration of which deposed him by the express wish of the religious belief, and when no man was deemed emperor, who now commanded him to retire to a sincere in the faith which he professed, until he monastery at Apamea; his enemies even threatened was also prepared to declare the doctrines from him with banishment. He bore his fall with dig- which he differed accursed. Theodoret himself, as nity and cheerfulness, and preferred rather to suffer we have seen, had already condemned the tenets want than to accept the presents which were of Nestorius in nearly the very words which he offered to him on every hand. Still neither he nor uttered at the council; and if he hesitated to repeat Flavian felt themselves bound to leave their enemies them then, it was only as a protest against the to enjoy their triumph and to domineer over the spirit in which the declaration was sought to be Church. They turned to the only remaining extorted from him; a protest which, we think, is quarter in which there was any power to help implied in the" farewell," by which he appears to them, the Roman bishop, Leo the Great, to whom utter his resolution never more to mix in such Theodoret wrote a letter (Epist. 113), celebrating scenes of strife. That resolution he kept. After the renown of the apostolic see, praising the virtues sharing in the subsequent proceedings of the counand religious zeal of Leo, defending his own ortho- cil, which compensated to some degree for its doxy by quotations from his writings, and request- conduct towards him by pronouncing the condeming permission to come to Rome, provided that the nation of Eutyches, Theodoret returned to his emperor should give his consent, to submit the home at Cyrus, where he devoted the rest of his whole case to the judgment of Leo and the Western life to literary labours, committing the charge of bishops; at the same time he requested to be ad- | his diocese to Hypatius. He appears to have died whole assembly, and their unanimous vote restored Theodoret to his bishopric. (Harduin. Concil, vol. ii. pp. 496, foll.) THEODORETUS: in A. D. 457 or 458. (Gennad. de Vir. Illustr. 89.) His remains were deposited in the same urn with those of his stedfast supporter, the monk Jacobus Thaumaturgus, who died shortly after him. Since his death his memory has met with the same varied fortune that he himself suffered during life. The emperor Justin honoured his statue with a solemn installation in his episcopal throne; but the various Monophysite sects continued their opposition to his writings, and twice procured the condemnation of them by ecclesiastical synods during the reign of Anastasius, in A. D. 499, and 512. Marius Mercator, the bitter opponent of every thing connected with Nestorianism, represents Theodoret as one of the worst of heretics; and he is followed by Garnier, the completer of Sirmond's edition of Theodoret, the value of whose very learned and elaborate treatise on the life of Theodoret is seriously diminished by the recklessness with which he not only adopts the calumnies of Mercator, but even falsifies facts in order to support them. Cave has been to some degree misled by these writers; but yet he gives us so warm and just a eulogy of the character of Theodoret as to make | one smile at the words with which he introduces it: Meliori quidem fato, et molliori censura Tillemont has redignus erat Theodoritus." futed many of Garnier's misrepresentations; but he sometimes defends the orthodoxy of Theodoret by arguments which the bishop of Cyrus himself would scarcely have adopted. For the complete | vindication of Theodoret's character we are indebted to the German church historians, Schröckh and Neander. A strong encomium upon his learning and his style will be found in Photius (Bibl. Cod. 46), who describes his language as pure and wellchosen, and his composition as clear, rhythmical, and altogether pleasing. In other passages Photius notices several of the works of Theodoret (Cod. 31, 56, 203-205, 273); and an incomplete list of them is given by Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. xiv. 54). Many of them are mentioned by Theodoret himself, in his letters (Epist. 82, 113, 116, 145). The fullest account of them is contained in Garnier's second Dissertation, de Libris Theodoreti. I. The most important of Theodoret's works are those of an exegetical character, in several of which he adopts the method, not of a continuous commentary, but of proposing and solving those difficulties which he thinks likely to occur to a thoughtful reader; so that these works are essentially apologetic as well as exegetical. This method is pursued, especially in the first of his commentaries, which is upon the first eight books of the Old Testament, that is, the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, and is entitled εἰς τὰ ἄπορα τῆς θείας γραφῆς κατ ̓ ἐκλογήν, or, Quaestiones in Octateuchum; and also in the second of them, upon the books of Kings (i. e. Samuel and Kings) and Chronicles, entitled Els Tà ŠTOúμενα τῶν βασιλειῶν καὶ τῶν παραλειπομένων. As a specimen of his method, we give two or three of the first questions which he proposes on the book of Genesis. First, "Why did not the writer preface his account of the creation with the doctrine of God" (eoλoyía); to which he replies, that Moses was sent to a people infected with Egyptian pantheism, and that therefore the very first thing that he had to teach them was the distinction VOL. III. between the creature and the Creator; and in so | II. Theodoret has also left two works of an historical character, but of very different value. (1) His Ecclesiastical History, in five books ('Еkкλŋσιαστικῆς ἱστορίας λόγοι πέντε), is a very valuable work, on account of its learning and general impartiality, though it is occasionally one-sided, and often runs into a theological treatise. It was intended, as he himself tells us in the preface, as a continuation of the History of Eusebius. It begins with the history of Arianism, under Constantine the Great, and ends with the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia in A. D. 429, although it contains an allusion to an isolated fact which occurred as late as A. D. 444. (2) The work entitled Þiλóleos 'loropía, or Religiosa Historia, contains the lives of thirty celebrated hermits, and displays that weak side of the character of Theodoret, which has already been mentioned as the necessary result of the earliest impressions he received. It is rather the work of a credulous ascetic than of a learned theologian. III. Of his works against Cyril, the Eutychians, and the heretics in general, the chief are, (1) His censure (avaτрonn) of the twelve heads of anathematization (avaleuatioμol) of Cyril: (2) The great work against the Eutychians, in A. D. 447, the year before the condemnation of Eutyches at Constantinople, entitled 'Epavíorns τ Поλúμoppos (the Mendicant or Many-shaped), which, as he explains in the preface, was intended to imply that the Eutychians endeavoured to pass off their doctrines, like beggars with their tales of imposture, under many guises, derived from many previous heresies. The work is in the form of a discussion between the Mendicant and the Orthodox ('Epaνίστης and 'Ορθόδοξος), and it is divided into three dialogues; the first, entitled "ATрETTоs, to prove that the Son of God is unchangeable; the second, "AovYXUTOS, that his divine nature is incapable of being mixt or confounded with the nature of man; the third, 'Amaons, that the divine nature is insusceptible of suffering; and to these dialogues are appended syllogistic demonstrations (amodeíceis dià ovλλoyioμwv) of the three propo |