Life of Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus

Blessed Theodoret came from a pious Christian family in Antioch. His mother, having renounced worldly pleasures in her youth, began to lead a strict, Christian life, and she owed this to the pious instructions of one ascetic, Peter. Her eye hurt: all human aids were used, but without success. Then she turned for help to the wondrous old man, who healed illnesses with his prayer. Peter lived in the vicinity of Antioch, in the same tomb. Having received the sick woman, he first of all drew attention to her passion for ostentation, and then to her illness. “The physician of ailments, always ready to fulfill the requests of believers, is God,” said the ascetic. Even now He will fulfill your request, not by bestowing grace on me, but by seeing your faith. If you have sincere and firm faith, alien to any doubt, then leave doctors and medicines, and accept this God-given medicine.” With these words, Peter laid his hand on his sore eye, depicting the sign of St. cross - and drove away the disease. 1 Theodorit's parents were married for thirteen years and had no children. The father especially lamented the infertility of his wife; He walked everywhere and asked the prayers of holy men for God to grant him children. The desert dweller Macedonius, who lived for forty-five years in a cave near Antioch, consoled him, promising his childless father that he would have one son. But three years passed, and there was still no son. The pious wife, who had already lost hope of being a mother, thought only about the salvation of her soul. Then Macedonius called her to him; He repeated the promise to her again and demanded only that the given child be given to the Lord, who would give it. The barren woman conceived: but in the fifth month she was in danger of premature birth. Macedonius visited Theodoret's parents in their home, encouraged the sick woman, and reminded her of the condition of dedicating the son who was about to be born to the service of God. “In this only thought,” answered the suffering woman, I wish and ask God for the mercy to be matter. Otherwise, I prefer an unhappy birth to raising my son not for the Lord.” Then Macedonius gave her water to drink, and the danger passed. And in memory of these circumstances, the pious parents named their newborn son Theodorite, i.e. God-given 2. His birth time can be assumed to be around 386. The birth of Theodoret almost cost the life of his mother: but the prayers of the ascetic Peter restored her from her sickbed 3 . Retelling all these events, the son, grateful to God, dwells on them with love, and reverently pronouncing the names Peter and Macedonius, conveys to us from the memories of his childhood about his relations with them, which, apparently, had a deep influence on his tender soul. “I was often rewarded,” says Bl. Theodoret about Macedonia - blessings and instructions from this man. Exhorting me, he said repeatedly: you were born, child, with great difficulty. I spent many nights in prayer to God so that your parents would receive what your name reminds you of. Live worthy of those labors. Before birth, you are dedicated to God by promise. And what is dedicated to God must be respected by everyone and inviolable by no one. So you should not follow the vicious movements of the soul; but you must do, say and think only what pleases God, the Lawgiver of virtue” 4 . Similarly, Bl. Theodoret also remembers Peter: he often sat me on his lap and fed me grapes and bread. Mother, who saw the experience of his spiritual gifts, sent me once every week to receive a blessing from him 5. In the house of Theodoret’s parents, a belt was kept for a long time, with which Peter tied the boy he loved, and which the mother usually placed on him, or on her husband, when they fell ill 6 . But, knowing the love of his parents for their first and only son, Peter did not dare to take him in to raise him under his supervision. There were other elders in the vicinity of Antioch whom Theodoret visited along with his mother. Speaking about Aphraates, he notes: “I myself saw him and received a blessing from his right hand when, while still a youth, I went with my mother to this man. He, as usual, talked to her, opening the door a little, and finally honored her with a blessing, but he took me inside the cell and gifted me with the treasure of his prayer” 7 . Thus, introducing her son to the desert dwellers and telling him about their wondrous exploits, 8 the mother herself gradually prepared him for monastic life. There is no doubt that the high examples of monastic life, with which the environs of Antioch were then rich, which St. then instructed to admire and imitate. John Chrysostom, who himself lived for quite some time among these ascetics, left a deep impression on the sensitive soul of young Theodoret. It was impossible not to feel the greatness of the spirit of that man who, with his daring intercession, stopped the formidable punishment for the entire city of Antioch, guilty of indignation before the Emperor, but humbled himself. This man was the same Macedonius, to whose prayers Theodoret owed his life. Is it surprising if in the life of blessed Theodoret we encounter such impulses to sacrifice everything to the duty he recognized, although this consciousness was not always infallible. Another ascetic, Aphraates, known to him from a young age, one of the most zealous defenders of Orthodoxy in Antioch against the Arians, could be for him a model of undaunted zeal for the purity of the teachings of the faith. “What are you for,” Valens asked him, “leaving solitude and hurrying to the square (where Orthodox worshipers of St. Trinity)? “Tell me, Sovereign,” answered Aphraat, “if I were a girl, and hiding in some secret chamber I saw that fire had engulfed my father’s house: what would you advise me to do, seeing the spilling flames and the burning house?” 10 Having such examples before his eyes, the lively, impressionable young man himself was preparing to be a fearless defender of the truth. Theodoret was raised for more than one monastic life. Without a doubt, his spiritual gifts pointed to another type of service in which he could devote himself to God. His extensive acquaintance with ancient Greek literature, with the works of poets, orators, historians and Greek philosophers, his skill in eloquence, which adorned the abundant gift of speech received from nature, is the merit of his numerous and varied scientific works: all this testifies to his thorough and multifaceted education in his young years. And his life and work show that both the development of spiritual powers and the acquisition of useful knowledge were directed in advance towards one goal - to serve the Lord in his Holy Church. At the same time, we must keep in mind the turbulent circumstances of Theodoret’s life, which were not conducive to scientific work during his pastoral ministry. Only an ingrained disposition and the skill acquired from a young age for work of this kind could indicate both the time and the way to continue activities that required calm. We do not know who the bl.'s mentors were. Theodorit. The beginning of the fifth century, the time when he, due to his years, could devote himself to education, was not favorable to enlightenment in Antioch. The pagan schools in which some of the great shepherds of the Church began their education in their young years fell into decay. In the Christian school of Antioch there were no such glorious teachers as Diodorus, the mentor of St. John Chrysostom. Diodorus's disciple, Theodore, presbyter of Antioch, famous for his exposition on St. Scripture, although in many ways deviating from the church's understanding of it, was elevated to the cathedra of the Mopsuestian church back in 397 11 . But this gave Theodoret all the more freedom to deviate from those extremes to which Theodore’s method of interpretation led him; using the good one, he could conveniently avoid his errors. The similarity of Theodoret in the explanation of Scripture with St. John Chrysostom can lead to the conclusion that not only the writings of this Ecumenical Saint, but also the instructions of his disciples served as a guide for Theodoret in understanding the word of God. In the Church of Antioch, despite the unfavorable relations of its bishop Porphyry towards Saint Chrysostom during his disasters, many clergy had a sincere commitment to the Archpastor of Constantinople 12 . And blessed Theodore was one of the most sincere admirers of his merits and talents 13. Be that as it may, it is reliably known that from his youth he was engaged in the study of Scripture and the interpretation of pious writers 14. The labors of teaching did not distract Theodoret from monastic life. The ascetics themselves divided their time between prayer and reading the word of God 15, reasoning that by reading the word of God, they hear the divine voice, and by offering prayers to the Lord, they themselves talk with Him 16. In accordance with the vow of the parents to dedicate their son to the Lord, Theodoret, following the example of other young people who destined themselves for the clergy, was numbered among the clergy of the Church of Antioch and made a reader. Visiting the solitary cells of ascetics and crowded monasteries, for his own edification, was now one of the consolations for Theodoret. He himself tells how he was surprised by the humility of Zinon, who left military service after the death of Valens, and moved to Cappadocia, where he was a listener of Basil the Great, chose a mountain adjacent to Antioch as his place of residence. For forty years he labored in one of the tombs, not having any property. Every Sunday he came with the people to the Antioch church for prayer and communion of St. Tyne. When Theodoret visited him for the first time and spent quite a bit of time with him in conversation about spiritual philosophy, at parting he began to ask him, like a young man from an elder, for prayerful guidance. The elder refused, imagining that it was more fitting for him, as a member of the church clergy, to pray for a simple monk: and as soon as Theodoret’s intensified prayer and incantations were inclined to fulfill his request 17. In his history of the Syrian ascetics, Bl. Theodoret also mentions his journey to the monasteries that lay between Antioch and Veria, and his personal acquaintance with their abbots David and Iliodor. He stayed with the first for a whole week, and was edified by his conversations about the gospel life 18 . From other writings of Theodoret it is known that he also traveled to Jerusalem, probably at that time in his life when the highest church ministry was not entrusted to him 19. Of course, he was drawn here by the same feeling that he saw in the desert dweller Peter, whom he knew from his youth, about whom he says: “he went to Palestine to see the places where saving sufferings had taken place, and there to worship the Savior God, in order to satiate his eyes with the contemplation of desired objects, and so that more than one spiritual eye, separate from the sight of the body, would, by faith, enjoy spiritual sweetness. Being embraced by a similar love for the Lord, like the bride represented in the Song of Songs, this blessed husband added to himself the words: wounded by the love I am (Song. 5:8), and, as if wanting to see even the shadow of the Bridegroom, he turned to the places that exuded so many sweets for everyone 20. After the death of his parents, Bl. Theodoret, remaining their only heir, did not keep anything of their acquisitions for himself 21, and, choosing arbitrary poverty, retired to a monastery 22. There is reason to think that he chose a monastery for his monastic exploits not in Antioch, or near it, but in the vicinity of Apamea, a city located 75 miles (Roman) from Antioch 23. What attracted Theodoret here? Probably his spiritual or scientific connections with some people who lived here. In Apamea, monasticism was planted by the disciples of St. Marcian, whom Blessed. Theodoret calls the great, Agapit and Simeon. The first of them, after long-term exploits in monasticism, was elected bishop of Apamea 24. After Agapit, Polychronius, brother of Theodore of Mopsuestia, also known for his interpretive works, was elevated to the Apamean throne. Marvelous were the exploits of the monks and desert dwellers of Syria. And Theodorit’s fiery spirit was easily aroused by stories about their extraordinary labors and the divine signs that manifested themselves in them. But he knew how to appreciate the dignity of the modest rules that great ascetics prescribed for themselves. Describing the life of St. Marcian in his History of the God-Lovers, he presents several experiences of his humble reasoning and deeds 26 . Marcian led a strict life, ate only bread and, moreover, in small measure, a quarter of a pound a day, but he strengthened himself with food every day so as to never be weak for exploits. To the elder, who came to visit him and, when a meager meal was offered at the ninth hour, refused to share it, for the reason that he keeps the rule of eating in the evening, he said: “And we value fasting above food, and usually take it at nightfall; but together we know that the work of love is more valuable than fasting. The former is commanded by divine law, and the latter by our will.” Marcian loved to read the word of God and during the night indulge in thoughts of God with a book of Scripture in his hands; a wondrous light surrounded his head at a time when his soul was enjoying the contemplation of spiritual objects: but when the shepherds of the most famous cities came to him and asked for his instructions, he modestly answered: “The Lord speaks to us every day in the deeds of His creation, and speaks through the divine Scripture; inspires us with what we should do, shows us what is useful, frightens us with threats, encourages us with exhortations - and we do not derive any benefit from this. How will Marcian benefit with his word, who, along with others, neglects such good deeds and does not want to make any fruit out of them? – Marcian also possessed the gift of miracles: but the intense insistence of the one in need of help was necessary for the great elder to bring the required gift from the treasury of grace: fear of pride forced him to keep secret what was extremely gifted. In these examples and instructions conveyed to Theodoret, of course, by the disciples of St. Markkian, there was a lot of edification for the young ascetic, whose soul, in its impulses towards higher exploits, required reliable guidance. - On the other hand, in Marcian he could find excitement for his zeal against the heretics who were attacking the Church from different sides. Theodoret's strict monastic life, his extensive education and fiery zeal for the good of the Church soon prepared him for the highest service. While still a young man, he was called to occupy the episcopal throne in the city of Cyrus, the homeland of St. Marcian. According to the order that existed at that time, probably the residents of the city of Cyrus themselves expressed a desire to have Theodoret as their bishop; The council of bishops approved this election, although Theodoret himself did not express any disposition to leave his modest life in the monastery (423) 27 . The city of Cyrus belonged to the district of the Hierapolis metropolitanate, which since the time of Constantine the Great called the region Euphrates. It is 70 miles (Roman) north of Antioch. Remote from the main routes of communication 28, it was sparsely populated and poor: residents, burdened with taxes, moved to other places 29. But Christianity flourished here. The diocese of Kir was rich in churches: it had up to 800 parishes (παροικιας) 30. It also had its own martyrs: during the time of Julian the apostate, St. Dometius and two of his disciples suffered here. When the Emperor set out from Antioch on a campaign against the Persians, on the way, in the region of Cyrus, he found this desert dweller living in a cave. Annoyed by the fact that many people flocked to the ascetic from everywhere for help, he ordered to throw stones at the cave and thus took the life of the pious monk and his disciples. 31 – In the vicinity of the city of Cyrus there were many other ascetics who became famous for the holiness of their lives and miracles. Some were no longer found alive by the new Archpastor of Kyrgyzstan, - he personally knew others, and was in close communication with some, and he provided information both about the deceased and about his contemporaries in his History of God-Lovers 32. Among those close to him were: St. Eusebius from the village of Hesykha 33, Maris 34, Jacob, whom he calls the great 35, Thalassius and Limnaeus 36, Polychronius 37, James the disciple of Asclepius 38. A zealot of monastic deeds visited them with love: and the solitary ascetics, who did not allow anyone to approach them, willingly opened the door of their cell for him, talked with him about spiritual subjects, told him the secrets of the future, and accepted benefits from him to alleviate their infirmities. But there were plenty of heretics in the Cyrus flock. It still retained the remains of some Gnostic sects. Bl. Theodoret used all measures to destroy these tares. He selected up to two hundred copies of the Four Gospels, distorted by Tatian, where, in accordance with the teachings of this heretic, all the places that directly spoke of the flesh of the son of man were omitted - and replaced them with complete and intact copies of the Gospel 39. Up to eight villages were infected with Marcion's heresy 40. He had already converted some to Orthodoxy. But one night I heard threats; someone in the Syrian dialect said to him: “Why are you arming yourself against Marcion? What did he do to you that was offensive? I would have struck you long ago if I had not seen the faces of the martyrs with Jacob guarding you.” Then Theodoret realized that this was the voice of the spirit of darkness, that a vessel with oil collected from the tombs of various saints served as a martyr’s barrier. martyrs, that Jacob, to whom the unknown voice pointed, is a great ascetic, whose old clothes, donated to Theodoret, lay at his head. Indeed, Jacob did not leave him with spiritual help. When it remained for Theodoret to conquer one of the most populous villages to Orthodoxy, he came to this ascetic for advice. He, reinforcing his undertaking, informed him of a vision in which the defeat of the fire-like serpent was revealed in the country where the Marcionite village lay. Success crowned the matter. In total, more than ten thousand Marcionites were baptized by Theodorite. 41 Subsequently, St. James also informed his bishop that he did not need any earthly help, that the Forerunner of the Lord, whose remains, along with the relics of other saints, had recently been brought from Phenicia to the church of Cyrus, was a constant prayer book for him. – There were other heretics in the diocese of Cyrus, such as two villages filled with Arians and Eunomians, whom the Saint of Cyrus also managed to lead to the Orthodox faith with the help of the Divine. – The fight against heretics cost him many efforts and dangers: many times, he writes, I shed my blood, many times I was stoned by them 43 . Caring for the spiritual well-being of his flock, Blessed Theodoret also tried to ensure their external improvement. The disinterested, non-covetous shepherd was content for himself with the rags that he wore, and did not solicit money or clothes from anyone; Those serving under him did not use anything from others: no one took a single piece of bread or eggs from strangers, says Theodoret himself. Meanwhile, he built porticos for the city at the expense of the church, and made two large bridges; ran a water supply system from the river to the city and built other buildings useful for the city 44. He himself did not enter into hostility with anyone and kept his clergy from judicial disputes: meanwhile, as circumstances required, he had to deal with civil affairs, sort out disputes between urban and rural residents, and even get involved in military affairs, probably on the occasion of hostile relations between the Empire and Persia 45 . – The inhabitants of the city were subject to taxes, and this was all the more regrettable because it happened due to the enmity of one bishop with the person who was entrusted with overseeing the correct distribution of taxes: Theodoret wrote to the Empress Pulcheria, who at that time took part in the affairs of government, and to Patriarch Proclus, and to other significant persons about easing the fate of the city 46 . From the very moment he assumed control of the Cyrus throne, he took care of acquiring for the city people knowledgeable in the necessary arts, and among other things, he invited a priest from Alexandria who knew the art of medicine 47 . Trying to satisfy the needs of his flock, spiritual and physical, the Archpastor of Kir, out of a sense of Christian love, took an active part in the disasters of other churches. The Christians of Armenia, which belonged to Persia, suffered severe persecution under Izdegerd and Vararan. With two letters to the bishops of Armenia, Eulalius and Eusebius, Theodoret encouraged them to maintain courage in their flock by his example, reminding them of the duty of pastoral service, and at the same time instilled measures of prudent leniency towards the weak in order to regain their churches 48. – After the Vandal invasion of the northern shores of Africa, many Christians sought refuge in other countries. One bishop there, Cyprian, senator Celestian and other persons arrived in Cyrus. Having provided them with the necessary benefits, Theodoret wrote about the favorable reception of the distressed exiles by other bishops and various significant persons 49 . The duty of the shepherd to edify his flock with the word of truth, to protect them from heretical errors and to convert the lost, the rich gifts received from the Lord and the knowledge acquired by long-term teaching, the feeling of Christian love, prompting him to share with his fellow men everything that can serve the good of another, and finally the requests of his friends - called Theodoret to work that could bring benefit beyond the borders of his flock and remain a monument to his service Churches for later times. He did not begin work of this kind early, although without a doubt his teaching activity began with his entry into pastoral ministry. He himself, in a letter to Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria (letter 448), says that he studied for six years under Patriarch Theodotus of Antioch, thirteen under John, and for the seventh year now he has been doing the same under Domna 50. But in a letter to Pope St. Leo the Great (written by in 449), pointing to his written works as proof of his Orthodoxy, the oldest of them learned no more than 20 years; others, he says, were written in 18 years, others in 15 and 12 years 51. -His church teachings, which, as he himself testifies, were listened to by the people with zeal 52, were probably not written down, and therefore were not preserved, with the exception of a few, prepared with deliberate care. Often dealing with the enemies of the Church, Theodoret wrote against the pagans, Jews, Arians, and Eunomians, Macedonians, Apollinarians and Marcianites, and answers to questions from the Persian magicians 53. But his constant occupation was the explanation of the Holy Scriptures. Of the aforementioned polemical works, only twelve words against the pagans have survived to us under the title: “healing against the ailments of paganism, or knowledge of the truth of the Gospel from pagan philosophy.” – The practice of pagan rituals was already prohibited in the empire by laws: Emperor Theodosius the Younger threatened with exile and deprivation of property for sacrifices 54, and even ordered the destruction of pagan temples 55. But the pagans did not cease to spread their slander against Christianity and tried by all means to darken the divine dignity of triumphant Christianity. Theodoret, in conversations with pagans, heard reproaches from them that Christian mentors demand from those being taught only faith in the teaching they teach; that the first preachers of the Gospel had no education; that their writings are devoid of all the ornaments of eloquence. The pagans mocked the honors that Christians gave to their martyrs who suffered during the persecution 56 . The triumph of Christianity over rival religions was attributed to the favor of the kings 57 . Judging the merits of religion according to their earthly calculations and not seeing the satisfaction of their inclinations in the Christian teaching, they called it useless 58 . The disapproving lives of some Christians were blamed on the teaching itself 59 . The enlightened shepherd of Cyrus recognized that most of the attacks on Christianity depended both on insufficient knowledge of its truths and on a false prejudice in favor of paganism. Most, he says about modern opponents of Christianity, most of them do not even know what “the wrath of Achilles” is - the first words of the Iliad, with which children begin to learn the liberal sciences; and others, having become a little acquainted with poets, a little with orators, and not even knowing the philosophers by name, except for two or three of the most famous, call the Divine Scripture barbaric and consider it a shame to learn the truth from it 60 . Therefore, Theodoret undertook to depict in concise but detailed sketches what was known to the pagans from their religious teachings, from their philosophers, orators and poets, and what St. Scripture about the most important objects of human knowledge; - as the teaching of Scripture about the first beginning of everything, about created spirits, about matter and the world, about human nature, about providence, about the end of the world, about virtue and about other subjects, surpasses in its sublimity, purity and clarity everything that the ancient sages and religious teachers could say. Possessing extensive information in pagan literature 61, he presents in the clearest light the instability, confusion of their opinions, constant contradictions with each other, the confusion of truth with error in the highest thinkers, the humiliation of everything divine by crude sensuality, the contradiction between life and teaching. At the same time, he also refutes all private reproaches made to Christianity by those who do not understand its power and spirit; reveals the dignity of faith, recognized even by the most pagan sages; exposes the injustice of the proud conceit of educated Hellenes; proves that the truth, accessible to everyone, has no need for empty decorations; presents in a bright light the merits of the defenders of the faith who laid down their lives for its confession; proves the triumph of faith in the very recognition of its divinity by the kings, who from persecutors became its patrons and points to the example of the Persian Church, where the struggle of Christianity with paganism has not yet ended and the most intense persecution cannot do anything against it; exposes the myopia of judgment, which is limited to worldly benefits; inspires not to humiliate the dignity of the divine teaching because of human weaknesses and not to spread the vices of a few to all. Ten words of Theodoret “about Providence” have a similar apologetic character, in which clear traces of their preparation for the church pulpit are seen. In accordance with this purpose, the preacher here does not address any outside witnesses, but the living, visual experience of everyone, and reveals in beautiful pictures traces of the wisdom and goodness of the Creator and Provider in the structure of the world and man. In terms of liveliness and warmth of reverent feeling, in terms of oratory art, this is one of the excellent creations left to us by antiquity. – From the church teachings of Theodoret, five more words are known in honor of St. John Chrysostom, after bringing his relics to Constantinople: but only fragments of these words have survived to us 62. Also, his books on the Holy Trinity and on the Incarnation 63 have not survived. The first of the interpretive works of Bl. Theodoret had an explanation on the book of Song of Songs. It was written at the request of Patras. John of Antioch. Theodoret was not carried away by the false concepts about this book, widespread in the interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia 64, but, in accordance with the judgment of the fathers and teachers of the Church closest to the apostolic times and those who followed them: St. Cyprian of Carthage, Origen, Eusebius Pamphilus, Basil the Great, both Gregori, Diodorus of Tarsus and John Chrysostom, recognizing his divinely inspired dignity, rejected the opinion of Theodore as impious, although he did not directly point out his name. He does not hide the fact that he used the works of previous interpreters, sometimes shortening them, sometimes supplementing them 65 . The Bride, glorified in the Song of Songs, according to Theodoret’s interpretation, is the Church, the Bridegroom-Christ; in other faces talking either with the Groom or with the Bride, he sees Angels. The explanation of the Song of Songs was followed by an interpretation of the book of Daniel, Ezekiel and all the other Prophets, then the Psalter. In his explanation of the Prophets, Theodoret also evades the false direction of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who, looking for the fulfillment of prophecies in the times closest to them, gave the prophecies about the Messiah themselves an adaptation to the times of the New Testament, and not their own meaning. Theodoret repeatedly condemns this interpretation of Scripture in his explanations. Eg. explaining the words of the Prophet. Micah IV, 1-3 about the appearance in recent times of the Mount of the Lord, to which all nations flock, - about the new law, which from Zion has to spread among all nations, - Theodoret notes: “this is the law of the Gospel and the word of the apostles; starting from Jerusalem, as if from some source, it flowed throughout the entire universe, feeding those who approached with faith. And you can see the houses of God among cities and villages and fields, in the most distant countries; they are distinguished by such greatness and beauty that they have become more famous and glorious than the highest mountains. “But the Jews do not want to understand this; they say that this prophecy refers to the return from Babylonian captivity. And it is not surprising that they are so unreasonable as to understand this. But, it seems to me, one cannot bear with indifference, one cannot forgive the fact that some of the teachers of piety introduced such an interpretation into their books. What peoples, near and far, flocked to the church of Judah after the Jews returned from captivity - what peoples accepted their law and loved the word that came from them? 66 Rejected by Theodoret, the Jewish understanding of the words of the Prophet belongs to Theodore of Mopsuestia 67 . – Similar remarks are even more common in Theodorit’s explanations of the psalms; because Theodore, out of the entire Psalter, found a direct prophecy about Christ the Savior in only three psalms. The Bishop of Cyrus, rejecting such a view of the inspired songs of David, sometimes enters into a detailed consideration of the reasons why Theodore of Mopsuestia gave a different meaning to the psalms relating to the Messiah, and refutes them. So eg. Psalm. 21 Theodore did not want to attribute it to the Messiah, among other things, because here the Suffering One says: Far from my salvation is the word of my sins (v. 2.) 69 . Theodoret notices this, firstly, that in other translations (Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion), the word for the fall is replaced by others: sobbing, crying, crying. “But so that they don’t think that we are deliberately using a different translation just to expose those who interpret this psalm differently, let’s use the translation of the Seventy. They say: how could one say about someone who has not sinned: the words of my sins are far from saving me. Let them listen to John, who loudly proclaims: Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29-36), or the glorious Paul, who says: Make him sin for us who knows no sin, that we may be the righteousness of God concerning him (2 Cor. 5:21), and in another place: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse against us (Gal. 3:13). Therefore, as being the source of righteousness, He accepted our sin, being an ocean of blessing, He accepted the oath that lay upon us, and endured the cross for shame without mercy: so He spoke these words for us” 70. From the above examples it is clear that the glory of the Antiochian mentor did not blind Theodoret to the point of unquestioningly following him in his interpretive works: he used Theodore’s interpretation 71, but with strict analysis, and tried, first of all, to remain faithful to the church’s understanding. He also used other interpreters of the books of the prophets: but, believing some over others, he gave preference to those in which he found an older church tradition, however, never revealing the name of the interpreter with whom he disagreed 72 . - Thus, in explaining the great visions of the Prophet Daniel, it is noticeable that he used the interpretation of Polychronius, the Apamean bishop: but where this interpreter, following the principles of his brother Theodore of Mopsuestia, deviates from the church explanation, he adheres to St. Hippolytus of Rome. Eg. in the fourth monarchy, chapters II and VII. Daniel, he sees the Roman power, and not the successors of Alexander the Great in Syria and Egypt 73. Theodoret does not exclude the Song of the Three Youths from his explanation, despite the fact that Polychronius omits it. To myself and my interpretation of bl. Theodorite generally attaches modest importance. At the beginning of his interpretation of the books of the lesser Prophets, he notes: “Will anyone say that we follow the thoughts of others: but in the same way that he learned this, he will see that on our own we have made an offering within our power. The law commanded the rich to bring gold, silver, and precious stones to build the tabernacle; but the poor were not deprived of blessed participation; they were commanded to bring skins and wool; and women, who did not have even that, were given the opportunity to dedicate to God, instead, their strength and art: spinning and weaving wool (Exodus 25:4). So we, too, imitating those women who spun and weaved what others brought, and prepared skins for the tabernacle, having collected good things from here and there, decided to weave from everything, with God’s help, one whole. - However, Theodoret adds, how the Apostles Peter, James, John and Andrew, Barnabas and Paul not only worked in preaching the Gospel, but also their disciples: Silas, Titus, Timothy and Apollos, and how the grace of the teaching did not stop with just the disciples, but illuminated their successors, and even to this day in the churches of God the source of the Most Holy Spirit flows and distributes God-given gifts to people: then it will not be strange to the right-minded if we, like certain hairs (Exodus 25:4), bring with illness the fruits of our thoughts born with illness, to the construction of the tabernacle, which the Lord, and not man, erected.” (Heb. 8:2). Theodoret's creations made his name famous throughout the east. Each new work of his caused lovers of the word of God to ask him to take up the explanation of yet another book of St. Scriptures. Patriarch Theodotus of Antioch and his successor John often invited him to Antioch 74 and always listened with pleasure to his eloquent and enlightened conversation 75 . Repeatedly he had to pronounce a word in Beria 76: the elderly bishop of this city, Acacius, who enjoyed general respect among his brothers, had long been close to him 77. Theodoret might have spent his entire life in such peaceful pursuits, akin to pastoral service, if he had not been distracted by the unfortunate disputes generated in Constantinople by the false teaching of Hestorius. Hectorius in 428, having become the Patriarch of Constantinople from the presbyters of Antioch, openly rebelled against calling the Most Holy Virgin Mary the Mother of God, which the people were accustomed to hearing from the lips of pious shepherds and themselves using in church prayers. The reason for such condemnation of a name corresponding to the dignity of the mother of the God-Man was hidden in Hestorius’s incorrectness about the person of the God-Man Himself, taken from the Antiochian mentors. In disputes with Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who in the human nature of Jesus Christ did not allow the highest power of the soul - the mind, trying to reveal that he perceived human nature entirely, they represented human nature as an independent person, which is different from the Hypostatic Word, but is closely united with Him. Thus affirming that each nature in Christ exists together and in person, and not presenting them as united into a single Hypostasis, they did not assimilate the properties of one nature to another. Hence they rebelled against the expressions: God suffered, God was born. This resulted in the unfair denial of the name Presv. Virgin Mary the Mother of God. This is how Theodore of Pugsuestia philosophized. This is what Nestorius taught after him. Nestorius' error soon became known in Alexandria and Rome. By the general agreement of Pope Celestine and Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, it was necessary to demand from Nestorius that he renounce the newly introduced teaching. St. Cyril outlined his errors in 12 anathematisms, which Nestorius, as a sign of his agreement with the universal Church, had to sign. But Nestorius, thinking to see in the Orthodox teaching about the personal union of two natures in Jesus Christ the heresy of Apollinarius, forwarded Cyril’s anathematisms to Patriarch John of Antioch and asked to instruct one of the learned bishops to write a refutation of them. John, having learned about the beginning of the dispute even earlier from the letters of Pope Celestine and St. Cyril, wrote together with Theodoret and other bishops to Nestorius, so that he would not persist in accepting the name of the Mother of God, the true meaning of which he knew; pointed out that this word was used by many Church Fathers and was not rejected by anyone; that the rejection of this name leads to the conclusion that He who took upon Himself the economy of our salvation is not God, that it was not God the Word who exhausted himself to the point of a slave for the sake of our salvation 78 . But, having received anathematisms; John himself thought to see in them an illegitimate fusion of natures 79 and instructed two bishops, Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret of Cyrus, to examine them. The prejudice with which the Syrian bishops met the anathematism of St. Cyril, had an influence on Theodoret. It seemed to him that to affirm the union of the Word with the flesh according to Hypostasis means to admit a confusion of natures 80 . He does not reject the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and does not allow the division of the one Christ into two persons. He writes directly: “we do not call the Virgin the Mother of Man, but the Mother of God” 81. “Following the divine teaching of the Apostles, we confess one Christ, and one and the same, by union, we call God and man.” But allowing for the union of natures, he finds it “superfluous” to add according to hypostasis. It is enough, he says, to recognize such a union, which makes it possible to see the properties of nature and teaches us to worship the one Christ 82 . Moreover, it seemed unclear to him in the chapters of Cyril the name of the Holy Spirit “his own Son” (anatom. 9). “If this name is taken in the sense that the Holy Spirit is one-natural to the Son and comes from the Father; - then we agree on this and recognize the expression as pious; if in the sense that the Holy Spirit. has its existence from the Son and through the Son, then we reject it as blasphemous and impious. For we believe in the Lord who says: The Spirit proceeds from the Father.”83 A suspicious look at the Orthodoxy of the Patriarch of Alexandria did not allow Theodoret to judge impartially the proposed St. Cyril's chapters or anathematisms, nor correctly evaluate all his actions stemming from zeal for Orthodoxy. This dislike towards him was further strengthened by Theodoret’s personal relationships. Nestorius was well known to Theodoret during his stay in Antioch. Metropolitan Alexander of Hierapolis, on whom the diocese of Cyrus depended, deeply respected by Theodoret 84, was decisively prejudiced against St. Kirill and was extremely stubborn in his opinions. When an Ecumenical Council was appointed in Ephesus to resolve the disputes raised by Nestor, Theodoret went there together with his Metropolitan. They arrived earlier than their Patriarch John. And when St. Cyril, after the expiration of the period appointed for the opening of the Council, intended to begin considering the case, but John had not yet appeared: Alexander of Hierapolis, along with other Syrian bishops, including Theodoret, refused to attend the Council 85. Upon the arrival of John, they formed their own Council, although their number decreased significantly after the blasphemous opinions of Nestorius 86 were discovered before everyone. Theodoret constantly adhered to the side of the Syrians. And at the end of the Council, he was summoned by the Emperor to Chalcedon, among other deputies, instead of his Metropolitan 87. It is known in what straits the fathers of the Ecumenical Council in Ephesus were. Circumstances changed when Emperor Theodosius could have direct relations with the Orthodox bishops in Chalcedon. Theodoret personally appeared to him and to his supreme council, with a petition that the anathematism of Cyril be rejected, and that Nestorius be restored, as the Syrians had ordered. But all efforts to turn things around in their favor remained in vain. “About our friend,” he wrote to his Metropolitan from Chalcedon, meaning by the name of his friend Hectorius, “let your holiness know that no matter how many times I spoke about him, whether in the presence of the most pious sovereign, or in his council, we were charged with this for an insult” 88 . In place of the deposed Nestorius, St. was elevated to Patriarch of Constantinople. Maximian. The new Patriarch declared four stubborn adherents of Nestorius deposed: Ellarius Bishop of Tarsus, Evoerius of Fian, Imerius of Nicomedia and Dorotheus of Marcianopolis. The Syrian bishops returning from Ephesus and Chalcedon, indignant at the futility of all their efforts, at the Council of Tarsus and Antioch strengthened their alliance against the Orthodox, again condemning St. Cyril of Alexandria. – Under the influence of the same irritation, Theodoret took it upon himself to write a more extensive refutation of anatematisms in five books 89 . All of Syria was in turmoil. To restore peace in the Church, Emperor Theodosius sent a message to John of Antioch and St. Cyril to Nicomedia for a mutual agreement. But in Antioch they considered it best to establish a Council at home and at it establish the terms of reconciliation with the Patriarch of Alexandria (432). Theodoret also took an active part in this Council, together with his Metropolitan Alexander, Andrew of Samosata and other defenders of Nestorius. The council decided: to demand from St. Kirill, so that he renounces his anathematisms; instead of any other definitions of faith, adhere strictly to the Nicene symbol, and in explaining the dogma of the incarnation follow the message of St. Athanasius of Alexandria to Epictetus Bishop. Corinthian, which is directed against the Apollinarians 90. These conditions were communicated to St. Cyril in a letter from Acacius of Verria, the chosen mediator: but, as was to be expected, they were not received in Alexandria. In an extensive letter to Akakios, St. Cyril replied that he confirmed that he adhered to the definition of faith established by the 318 fathers at the Council of Nicaea by the council rule in Ephesus, but he could not give up his objections to Hectorius, and that Nestorius could not be restored. To confirm his Orthodoxy, he offered his confession in brief words: “by the grace of the Savior, I have always been Orthodox and raised under the guidance of the Father of the Orthodox. I never thought in the same way with Apollinaris, or with any other heretic; on the contrary, I curse them. I do not call the flesh of Christ soulless, but I recognize it as animated—a rational soul. I do not allow merging, mixing, or transfusion, as some say; I acknowledge that God the Word by nature remained immutable and unchangeable, and by His nature was not involved in any suffering. The Deity is impassive and is not subject to even a shadow of change. Finally, I confess that one and the same Christ our Lord suffered for us in the flesh, according to the scriptures” 91. Confession of St. Many were pleased with Cyril in Syria: but his defense of his anatematisms raised doubts; and the demand to condemn Hestorius seemed impossible to fulfill. Akaki Beppiysky, reporting the above letter to St. Cyril Theodorit, invited him to his place to discuss the Person 92. Theodoret answered: “Not only invited, but also uninvited, I would like to go to your shrine at any time: but I encounter so many obstacles in my intention that I cannot fulfill your letter. Again a severe illness befell me upon my return from the mountainous countries. Moreover, now there is a military leader (magister militum). Therefore, I apologize. I declare to your shrine that in a letter from Alexandria sent to me, I found the presentation of the dogma contrary to what was previously written by him (i.e., St. Cyril). And he rejoiced greatly and glorified the Lord Christ about the change that followed your admonitions.” This is how Theodoret understood the confession of St. Kirill, as if for a deviation from his previous teaching, although it was also expressed in anathematism, only in different words. Further mentioning the rejection of St. Kirill of the conditions offered to him, he notes that in vain he “left the shortest path to peace and demands the condemnation of a person whom we were not the judges” 93. The Metropolitan of Hierapolis greeted Kirillo's message even worse. He did not believe the sincerity of St.'s confession. Cyril, referred to his chapters, to the interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and to other writings in which St. Cyril defended the one nature of God and man in Christ. And suspecting him of Apollinarism, he did not want to enter into any communication with him, 94 and wrote to his subordinate bishops that he would rather allow himself to cut off his members than deviate from his opinion. “If they want, let them come and put someone else in my place” 95. With such a disposition of minds, John decided to act in the dispensation of the world alone with Acacius of Verria and a few other like-minded people. They took advantage of the confession 96 compiled by the Syrian bishops themselves at the Council in Ephesus and sent with it to Alexandria one of the bishops subordinate to Acacius, Paul of Emesus 97, who, in explanation with St. Kirill, abandoned all objections to anatematisms; agreed to sign the condemnation of Hectorius and as a sign of communion with St. Kirill performed the liturgy with him. As soon as it became known in Antioch about the reconciliation, Patriarch John hastened to notify Theodoret about it 98 . Finally, a sociable message from St. was received. Kirill. Theodoret rejoiced at the agreement, but at the same time grieved that the world had to sacrifice persons whom he was accustomed to respect. “The present epistle (Cyril), he wrote to John, is adorned with evangelical nobility: for in it our Lord Jesus Christ is recognized as perfect God and man, two natures are allowed and their difference and union is unmerged, ineffable, divine and preserving the properties of nature; It is stated that God the Word is impassive and unchangeable, and the church, that is, the body, was subject to suffering and death for a short time and then restored by the power of God united with it. And the Holy Spirit is confessed not to be from the Son, or to have existence through the Son, but to proceed from the Father, and to be His own, as being of one essence with Him. Having seen such correctness in this message and finding it different from what was written before (of course, anathematism), we glorified God, who healed the tongue-tied and transformed an indefinite sound into a pleasant agreement” 99 . So the blessed one judged. Theodoret on reconciliation: but still did not begin the alliance, because for this it was necessary to condemn Nestorius. He asked his Patriarch for the return of the thrones to those bishops who had lost them for their adherence to Nestorius, and petitioned for leniency to the Metropolitan of Hierapolis 100. Caressing himself with hope that his desires would succeed, and on the other hand, fearing that Metropolitan Alexander would also be expelled for his stubbornness, Blessed. Theodoret and Andrew of Samosata tried to convince him that it would not be a betrayal of faith to recognize the Epistle of Kirillo as Orthodox, and they promised to arrange everything in such a way that they would no longer demand any condemnation from them 101 . For this purpose, they urgently asked him to establish a Council in Zeugma, one of the cities of the Hierapolis metropolitanate 102. In a word, they wanted to use all measures in order, as Alexander himself says, to save the lost sheep. But it was all in vain 103. To greater confusion, John allowed himself to make some orders in the area of ​​​​the stubborn Metropolitan, which violated the inviolability of his rights. He deprived some bishops of their thrones, and elevated others to their places 104 . This aroused new displeasure against the Patriarch 105. Then Theodoret completely separated from him 106 and, together with Alexander, complained about him to Constantinople 107. But the Patriarch did not remain inactive. An order was received from the Emperor: - Remove Alexander and Theodoret from their dioceses 108. Theodoret was already preparing to leave both the city and the region, and go to his monastery, where, even at the beginning of the turmoil, he ordered a cell to be prepared for himself 109. But the most famous monks of Cyrus and Antioch, the venerables: Jacob, Simeon the Stylite and Varadat, whose godly deeds and miraculous talents always nourished in him respect for their word, held him back and tried by all means to persuade him to peace. Three archimandrites were sent to Patriarch John and the official sent with the imperial command to intercede for the bishop 110. This incident can be called a happy turning point in Theodorit’s illness. He remained in his see, again became close to John and agreed to give in to the fair demand to abandon Hestorius, although still with some restrictions. John offered him three ways to get out of his present predicament; Of these, Theodoret chose the one that, in his opinion, showed both moderate compliance and non-reprehensible severity. Around that time, a message was sent from Constantinople to all the bishops from the new Patriarch, Maximian's successor, Proclus (434), in which, outlining his confession of faith, he invited everyone to church union 111. New Archpastor of Constantinople, disciple of St. John Chrysostom, was known to everyone for the meekness and condescension of his character 112. Theodoret, having received favorable news about him from his friends, decided to accept this message 113, and thus enter into an alliance with the defenders of Orthodoxy who condemned Nestorius. After this, Theodoret appeared in Antioch, which he had not visited for a long time due to disagreement with the Patriarch, and entered into communication with him 114. Now all the efforts of the Bishop of Cyrus were aimed at extracting from the abyss of stubbornness his friends, and especially the Metropolitan, without whose knowledge he did not take a single step in the rapprochement that had taken place. “As I see,” he wrote to Alexander, our persistence will not lead to anything pleasant, but will only cause confusion in the churches, and will betray our flock to the ravenous wolves. We must be careful lest, with our excessive severity, we be subjected to punishment from God for observing only our own things and not looking at what is useful to the people” 115 . Theodoret repeatedly repeated his requests, both in letters and in person; tried to influence his Metropolitan both through those around him and by the example of others who were coming over to the side of peace 116. In his stubbornness, rejecting all ideas, Alexander himself wrote to Theodoret: “I think that your piety not only left nothing to be done to save my unfortunate soul, but also surpassed the most zealous shepherd mentioned in the Gospel. He once came to recover a lost sheep: and you came to Garbat Mountain, and to Hierapolis, and to Zeugma, and now to Antioch to recover my lost soul. But I ask you not to torture yourself anymore. I do not look at how the Cilicians and Isauricians do it; but at least everyone who lived from the beginning of the world rose again and began to call the Egyptian teaching piety: for me their testimony would be no more reliable than the knowledge given to me from God” 117. It’s hard to believe, but a letter from Theodoret to Nestorius himself has reached us, with a request that he, for his part, give advice to the Metropolitan of Hierapolis, putting aside stubbornness, to join John. “Please, write and convince him to listen to Ap. Paul, who says: do not seek your own advantage, but many, that they may be saved (1 Cor. 10:33). Let him commit a small sin (let's assume that it will be a sin); if only he would save others from great sin 118 . When this did not help, Theodoret wrote to Patriarch John asking him to tolerate the unyielding old man: perhaps he would soften over time. But if he remains the same, there will be no harm from it either to you, or to us and to our cathedral: he is not able to outrage anyone and will not attempt to do so; because he remains silent and does not disturb the peace of the Church. If he is cast out, then a lot of harm can come from here... Remember also what you yourself once told us: we all carry Vladyka Alexander in our arms; and we will not allow anyone to insult him 119. But Alexander did not remain on his throne 120. Theodoret's efforts to attract another shepherd Eulalia close to him, M. of Tarsus, who was already doomed to dethrone, were more successful. He, along with other bishops of the Cilician region, entered into communion with John 121. Reconciliation bl. Theodoret and the Patriarch of Antioch brought him into alliance with the archpastor of the Alexandrian Church, St. Kirill. There were also personal relations between them. St. Cyril, having written his ten books against Julian the apostate, forwarded them to Patriarch John, along with his other writings, so that he would communicate these works to the shepherd of Alexandria and other teachers of the Church known in the East. John sent them to Theodoret, and he, after reading them, returned them to the writer with his commendable review. St. Cyril answered him with his message, which, as Theodoret put it, testified to the St.’s disposition towards him. Cyril, and about the strict accuracy of dogmatic 122. Theodoret used this message to repel unfair accusations of Nestorianism. However, the irritated state of minds, disturbed by mutual suspicions of non-Orthodoxy, and the plans of secret adherents of suppressed Nestorianism, did not allow lasting peace to establish itself in the East for a long time. According to the reports of his presbyter Daniel, St. Cyril complained to John about Theodoret, as if he did not cease to oppose the concluded peace, supporting Nestorian opinions 123. Soon a turmoil broke out in Syria, much more threatening to the peace of the Church. When the fate of Hestorius was decided; - he was exiled to captivity in Egypt and his work was consigned to general shame and destruction - then zealous adherents of St. Cyril also extended their persecution to the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, in which they recognized the main source of Nestorian errors. The more moderate and meek Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Proclus was content to condemn the false opinions extracted from his books, without naming him. But they recognized that it was necessary to expose his name and untimely demanded that the Syrian bishops condemn Theodore. The people, while maintaining respect for the memory of the recently deceased bishop, were worried; Voices were heard loudly in the churches: “Let Feodorov’s faith flourish; we also believe like Theodore" 124. The Syrian bishops, having gathered in Antioch, composed a strong message in defense of Theodore and presented it to the Emperor and Patriarchs Proclus and Cyril. The unrest could only be calmed by the general agreement of the leading defenders of Orthodoxy - to limit ourselves to the published condemnation of the passages copied from the books of Theodore, but not to extend their judgment further 125. And to prevent the harm that these books could spread among the people, St. Kirill published his refutation of the false thoughts about the incarnation scattered in them. – But Theodoret also wrote his essay in defense of Theodore of Mopsuestia, where he tried to explain his way of expression by polemic against Apollinaris 126. The prolonged unrest caused in the Church by Nestorian disputes undoubtedly took a lot of time from the shepherd of Cyrus, which he could have devoted to the Church with great benefit; and the writings caused by the same disputes could not console the laborer for long: the day soon came for them, which indicated what of them should be preserved and what should be burned (1 Cor. 3:13). But even in the midst of the turmoil, he still found time to continue his favorite activities of explaining the word of God and for other scientific works. The explanation of the Psalter was followed by an interpretation of the letters of St. Apostle Paul. And here Theodoret used the works of his predecessors, as he himself says in the preface: but his work does not lose its value because of it. For the most part he used the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom, reducing the lengthy and extracting the essential. He often directs his interpretations against the false teachings of the heretics of earlier times, especially the Arians: but he saved himself from polemics against those with whom he argued then in his other works. At the end of his work, Theodoret communicated his interpretation to one of his friends with a desire to know “whether it requires some kind of purification”; but heard only praise 127. When the unfavorable course of affairs forced Theodoret to seek peace in a secluded monastic cell; then the memories of childhood and adolescence about the peaceful exploits of the hermits with whom he was familiar awakened more powerfully in him. The services rendered to him by some of them during his pastoral ministry required gratitude. The extraordinary manifestations of Divine grace in their lives involuntarily aroused them to glorify the generously gifted Lord. All this was the reason for describing the life of the great Syrian ascetics. The Kyrgyz shepherd realized that simple souls, which should not be touched by dogmatic debates, need lessons from edifying examples for their lives - and he tried to satisfy this need in his History of the God-Lovers 128, especially since it was unnecessary for this to delve into the times of distant antiquity and turn to strangers, unknown witnesses. Of the biographies of modern ascetics, the most distinguished are the lives of Jacob the Wonderful and Simeon the Stylite 129. An extraordinary type of asceticism of St. Simeon, the abundance of divine power in his words and actions attracted to him not only residents of surrounding cities and villages, but also remote inhabitants of Western Europe. Theodoret visited him several times and himself witnessed his miracles and the attraction of grace that directed numerous crowds of noble and uneducated, even wild desert dwellers, Christians and pagans, to the wonderful ascetic; he himself could testify to the reliability of his predictions. “For twenty-eight years now,” he writes about St. Simeon, how every year on Holy Pentecost he does not take any food at all. First he erected a pillar of six cubits, then twelve, then twenty, and now thirty-six, thus gradually rising towards the sky and moving away from earthly vanities.” But this was not the last degree of his rise. But as soon as Theodoret’s spirit found peace in the contemplation of these wonderful feats, a storm of circumstances again drew him away from peaceful pursuits with his flock. This time, he was no longer alarmed by the specter of heresy that he had created for himself, but what outraged him and the entire Church was the actual appearance of the false teaching that he thought to see in Nestorius’ opponent. St. Cyril died in 444. His place was taken by his nephew Dioscorus. Having distorted the teaching for which St. fought for so long. Cyril, he preached that two natures, united in Jesus Christ, constitute not only a single hypostasis, but also a single nature. He found champions of this false teaching even among those who had previously fought against Nestorius. The most famous of them was Eutyches Archimandrite of Constantinople, who was in close connection with Chrysaphius the eunuch, a strong temporary worker. Possessed of unlimited lust for power, devoted to passions, Dioscorus did not shy away from any means to achieve his goals. The elevation of the throne of Constantinople to second place over the Roman throne seemed to him a deviation from the throne of Alexandria. So, to establish his false teaching in the Eastern Church and humiliate his fellow man, with the help of a strong party and the respect that the Alexandrian Church acquired from the illustrious defenders of Orthodoxy - Athanasius and Cyril - this is what Dioscorus set himself as his goal: and the Syrian bishops, whom St. Cyril did not have time to completely distract from Hestorius; the former had to experience the violent influence of the new Patriarch of Alexandria. At that time, changes occurred in the faces of other patriarchal thrones. In Constantinople after St. Proclus was elevated to Flavian (in Oct. 447); in Antioch after John Domnus (from 441), nephew of Euthymius V., a Palestinian desert dweller. Theodoret, still unfamiliar with the character and way of thinking of the new Patriarch of Alexandria, but hearing good reviews about him from others, soon after his accession to the throne, wrote a respectful letter to him 130. But around 448, when Theodoret was in Antioch, an imperial order was unexpectedly received in his own hand: he should immediately leave here for his city of Cyrus. The message expressed the idea that the Bishop of Cyrus was interfering in matters other than his own, too often establishing Councils and outraged the Orthodox. Not knowing the reason for such an accusation, in bewilderment he left the city, which lovingly listened to his teachings, and the Patriarch, whom he helped with advice; he left so hastily that he didn’t say goodbye to anyone. From Cyrus he wrote to one of his patrons in the capital, a former military leader in Syria and once consul Anatolius 131: he asked him about the reason for such disfavor, pointed out his peaceful relationship with the civil authorities and with the flock, which he had already ruled for twenty-five years. “It is not what I grieve about,” he wrote, that they forced me to return to Cyrus: to tell the truth, I consider this city, entrusted to me by God, better than any other. But compulsion is unfortunate for me; For lawless people, this will be a reason for insolence and disobedience” 132. He also wrote to other persons from whom he hoped for protection 133; complained that the denunciation was accepted and no justification was asked; imagined that he had never been to Antioch without repeated invitations from the Patriarchs; pointed to his non-covetous lifestyle, his labors in the diocese, and his services to the city. – Soon Theodoret learns that it is not the complaints of his flock against him that are the reason for his imprisonment within his diocese, but the slander of heretics, whom he calls followers of the ancient Docetes, because they, like those, admitting a single nature in the person of Jesus Christ, thus deny the reality of his human nature. 134 Attacks also opened on Theodoret’s friends. Soon after the Council of Ephesus, by the election of Phoenician bishops, he appointed the former Komit Irenaeus as bishop of Tyre. Because he had previously been a supporter of Hectorius and was made one of the bigamists, by imperial command he was declared deprived of the throne and the rank of bishop 135 . Before this command was announced, Irenaeus, due to circumstances, asked his ordainer what he should do. Irenaeus wrote: one wicked judge gave two devotees of piety a choice: to worship idols and thereby save their lives, or to be thrown into the sea. One of these confessors of the true God immediately chose the latter and voluntarily threw himself into the sea, the other did not decide on either one or the other. Irenaeus asked: which of the two did better? “I think,” answered Theodoret, “that, and in agreement with your opinion, the latter’s act should be recognized as more worthy of respect: for without a command, no one should give himself up to death, but expect either a natural death or a violent one.” With this answer he inspired Irenaeus to stay on his throne to the last extreme; he still hoped to save him through his friends in Constantinople, and wrote to Patriarch Domnus how he could protect Irenaeus. He pointed out his spiritual virtues, testified to his Orthodoxy, and justified his very dedication to bigamy with examples from recent times. However,” he adds at the end, “I already suffer, as they think, one punishment; ready to bear, with God’s help, other things as well” 137. Four clerics arrived in Antioch with a complaint against Iva, the bishop of Edessa, who was also suspected of wrong-mindedness, due to his disapproving judgments about the Council of Ephesus. The Patriarch recognized them as slanderers; Meanwhile, two of them fled to Constantinople, and there, complaining about the injustice of the trial, they accused Theodoret of this, although he did not participate in the trial of them, being already in Cyrus, by order of the emperor. And in Constantinople the order was given to consider their case again 138. All these griefs came from different sides, but, obviously, they were directed against Theodoret by one hostile force: everywhere they wanted to expose him either as a Nestorian heretic, or as an accomplice of heretics. The explanation for this enmity is that the Patriarch of Antioch, Domnus, probably guided by the suggestions of Theodoret, was the first to expose the heresy of Eutyches in his report to the Emperor Theodosius. “I am forced to convey to your piety,” wrote Domnus, “that Presbyter Eutyches is intensifying to renew the wickedness of Apollinarius, the heresy leader, and to damage the apostolic teaching: perverting the dogma of the sacrament of the incarnation, he claims that the Divine nature of the Only Begotten and the human have become one nature, mixed and merged with each other; he makes the Divinity itself participate in saving suffering” 139. “But then Domna’s report was not taken forward. And strong under the protection of Chrysaphius, the heretic struck his enemies with an invisible hand. Finally, Dioscorus was moved to action, and as a highest hierarchical person, not by the force of imperial commands, but by his own spiritual means. In a letter to Patriarch Domnus, he informed him that some who had returned to Alexandria assured him that Theodoret, in his sermons spoken in Antioch, divided our one Lord Jesus Christ into two. The accused meekly answered Dioscorus that this was slander, unworthy of trust, that thousands of people and the Patriarch of Antioch himself had witnessed his preaching in Antioch, and none of them would confirm the accusation brought against him. Theodoret briefly outlined his confession about the prophesied dogma and pointed to the fathers who followed, and among them he mentioned Theophilus and Cyril of Alexandria; reminded him of St.’s favorable attention to him. Kirill, from whom he also has a letter. “And what I accepted,” added Theodoret, and two definitions of Patriarch John of blessed memory regarding Hestorius, my own signatures testify to this 140. But Dioscorus, not heeding any excuses, allowed himself to do such an act, as Theodoret says, that it would not have been possible to believe it if the whole Church had not been a witness. He allowed a curse to be pronounced on us, and, having risen, with his speech, he confirmed the word of those who cursed.” Not content with this, he sent a bishop to Constantinople with a denunciation 141. Then Theodoret considered it necessary to turn to Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople and present to him how unlawfully the Patriarch of Alexandria allowed himself to condemn a person not under his jurisdiction. “Everywhere he puts on display,” wrote Theodoret, the throne of the bl. Mark, although he knows that the great city of Antioch has the throne of the great Peter, who was the teacher of Mark and the first and supreme among the Apostles. But we know the height of the throne, we know ourselves, and we know how to pacify ourselves. For long ago we learned apostolic humility. And we beg your piety not to ignore the violation of the rules and to become zealous for the Divine Faith. His displeasure with us began from the time when we, following the rules of St. Father, agreed to accept the conciliar message of Proclus of blessed memory; and he repeatedly reprimanded us that we had betrayed the rights of the Antiochian Church and the Alexandrian Church” 142, i.e. Dioscorus considered it an insult to these thrones even when Proclus, still under St. Kirill, as the bishop of the leading Patriarchal see in the east, invited all eastern bishops to agree with him in the confession of the right faith, approved at the Council of Ephesus. The best proof that the accusation brought against Theodoret in Alexandria was indeed slander should be the fact that the accused himself wrote to Cilicia at the same time: “they say that the reason for such slander was taken from some few among us who think so.” And having shown in short words the contradiction of the doctrine of two sons with the teachings of the apostles and with church tradition, he concludes: “if you find those who oppose the apostolic dogmas - which, however, I do not believe - let your love for God stop their mouths and let them understand in the churchly sense” 143. But since the accusation about the unrestricted preaching of Nestorian opinions in Antioch concerned the honor of not only Theodoret, but also the Patriarchs, in whose presence he allegedly taught so, and since Dioscorus sent a bishop from himself to Constantinople with such a reproachful denunciation, then the throne of Antioch decided to send an embassy to Flavius ​​of Constantinople with a request for protection. It is not known what Domnus wrote: but Theodoret, for his part, outlined in detail how he teaches and what false teachings he rejects 144. At the same time, he wrote to many of the highest dignitaries, on whose zeal for piety he could hope, namely to the patricians: Taurus, Florence, Anatolius, Senator Nomus, military leader Lupician, prefects: Eutrechius, Protogen, Antiochus, Comite Sforazio, etc. He did not forget to ask some deaconesses, probably of a noble family, who with their intercession could have an influence on progress of the case. At that time, this title was an honor for widows and maidens of the highest circle: Pulcheria herself, the sister of Emperor Theodosius, took upon herself this title 145. One of the bishops of Syria, Basil of Seleucia, was at that time in Constantinople: Theodoret wrote to him, and, moreover, with a reproach for the lack of zeal in defending the one subjected to slander, against which he could act all the more freely because he himself had repeatedly heard Theodoret’s preaching. “If you despise me as poor and insignificant, I consider it necessary to remind you of the commandment of the Lord: be careful that you do not despise one of these little ones (Matthew 18:10). If your piety is commanded to remain silent by the power of our accusers, then you must remind us of other laws: do not offend the face of a strong man (Sir. 5:31). Judge righteous judgment (John 7:24). Do not be with many out of malice (Ex. 23:2). The bishops elected by Patriarch Domnus to protect the Syrian Church from the slander of Dioscorus left Antioch in the winter of 448,146, and in November of the same year the trial of Eutycheus had already taken place in Constantinople. Patriarch Flavian, according to the report of Eusebius, Bishop of Doryleia, at the Council, having exposed Eutyches in false teaching and not finding repentance in him, excommunicated him from the Church, and deprived him of the management of the monastery and the rank of priesthood. “But this still did not promise favorable success for the eastern bishops. Eutyches, supported by Chrysaphius, his adopted son, filed a complaint to the Emperor about the injustice of the record of the council's trial against him, and asked for a revision of the acts. The Emperor demanded from the Patriarch himself a confession of his faith, as if not trusting his Orthodoxy. For a new study of the matter of Eutyches, a new Council was appointed in Ephesus; the chairmanship of this Council and the main management of its affairs was entrusted to Dioscorus of Alexandria. He was to appear at this Council with ten Metropolitans and ten bishops; other Patriarchs, probably with the same number present. But it was specifically said about Theodoret in the imperial command that he should not be admitted to the Council otherwise than with the consent of all other members of the Council 147. Nothing more is known about the embassy of the Syrian bishops. Probably their requests were postponed until general consideration at the proposed Council. But even from this Council, Theodoret, whether he knew or did not know about his exclusion from among those invited, did not expect anything useful either for himself or for the Church. From his city he wrote to Patriarch Domnus: “We were already beginning to hope that the troubled state was over: since some informed us that the displeasure of the good-victorious Emperor had passed, and he had reconciled with the most God-loving bishop (Flavian of Constantinople); that the invitation to the Council has already been postponed and peace has been returned to the churches. But this letter from your piety has saddened us greatly. One cannot expect good from the proclaimed Council if the humane God does not, through His Providence, destroy the machinations of the all-disturbing demons. And at the great Council - I mean, gathered in Nicaea - along with the Orthodox, the adherents of Apius raised their voices and subscribed to the exposition of the apostolic faith: but then they continued to attack the truth until they tore apart the body of the Church. Theodoret advised that when going to the Council, take with you all the acts related to reconciliation with St. Kirill after the Ecumenical Council in Ephesus, and proposed to pay special attention to the choice of those bishops and clergy who should accompany their Patriarch to the Council. “Those called to heroic deeds for piety,” he wrote, must use all their labor and call on God’s help in order to preserve intact the property left to us by our ancestors. Theodoret's premonition did not deceive him. It is known how the Council of Dioskorovo ended 149. Eutyches, acquitted; St. Flavian was condemned and left the Council as a martyr for Orthodoxy. Domnus could not resist the fear and violence that dominated the Council, but even so he did not retain the throne. Theodoret, in absentia, without any research, along with other bishops was also declared dethroned. Those present at the Council were forced to sign on white paper. The Emperor's edict declared the works of Theodoret prohibited 150. How did Theodoret accept this sentence? Personally, he was complacent for himself. He wrote to one of his acquaintances: “Your piety is indignant and angry at the sentence pronounced against us lawlessly and without trial: but this is what consoles me. If I had been justly convicted, I would have grieved that I had given a legitimate reason for the condemnation. since my conscience is clear on this side, I rejoice and triumph, and hope for remission of sins for this injustice. And Naboth became famous not for any other virtue, but only for the fact that he suffered an unjust murder. I ask you to pray to God for me, so that He will not leave me, and may He strike the enemy. Against all fear, the mercy of my God towards me is sufficient for me. If He remains with me, then I despise all sorrows as an insignificant thing” 151. Devoted from the bottom of his heart to his convictions, he does not think of repenting of the fact that he spoke and acted with complete freedom, which brought persecution upon him. “I don’t understand,” he wrote to his sincere friend Uranius, Bishop of Emes, “I don’t understand these words in your letter: didn’t I tell you? – If this is said only as a word, then such words do not console. If you remind us of the advice to remain silent, of the so-called prudence; then I am glad that I did not follow such an interpretation. The Divine Apostle commands the opposite: the infusion is timely and untimely (2 Tim. 4:2.). And the Lord Himself said to the same preacher: Speak and do not keep silent (Acts 18:9), and Isaiah: Cry loudly and do not have mercy (Is. 58:1). So, not only do I not grieve because I acted freely, but I also rejoice and am glad and glorify Him who has made me worthy of this suffering 152 . So the courageous spirit of Theodoret did not fall under the burden of the disaster that befell him. But he was involuntarily embarrassed by the state of the churches. The bishops who returned from the Council mourned their fall, and yet did not want to do anything to correct the evils for which they themselves were partly guilty. False teaching triumphed with its violence: but the defenders of the truth, freed from its formidable power, remained slavishly silent. In Constantinople, a new Patriarch was soon installed in the place of St. Flavian, but he was also elected from the deacons of the Alexandrian Patriarch; therefore, it could not be expected that he would soon take active measures to restore the oppressed Orthodoxy 153. There was no longer a Patriarch in Antioch, but he was also installed in Constantinople, and therefore could not soon acquire a power of attorney. Patriarch Juvenaly of Jerusalem submitted to the violent influence of Dioscorus at his Council, although he subsequently renounced any unanimity with him. Theodoret, who for so many years labored to cleanse his flock of heresies, could rightly fear that those converted by his labors, carried away by circumstances, would now recognize him as a heretic and fall away from the Church 154. Drawing attention to this state of affairs, Theodoret wrote with sorrow to Bishop John of Germanicia: “The present state does not allow us to expect anything good. I see in it the beginning of a general falling away. What good can be expected from the fact that those who mourn what happened in Ephesus, as they say, due to the influence of violence, do not repent, but remain with what they dared lawlessly, and on this basis they create new deeds of unrighteousness and wickedness; and others do not advise them to renounce what they have done and do not withdraw from communication with those who are rigid in their iniquities?.. And why do they lie so obviously, why do they say that nothing new has been admitted regarding dogmas? Am I expelled for some kind of murder and sorcery? Is such and such convicted of fornication? So-and-so in grave-digging 155? It is clear to everyone that I and others were expelled for my dogmas. I read their verdict. I was excommunicated as the leader of the heresy, others were expelled for the same reason... So there is nothing to deceive, there is nothing to hide the wickedness that was confirmed with tongue and assault. If this is not so, then let them tell us the reason for the murders; let them confess in writing the difference of natures in our Savior and the unfused union; let them say that even after the union, Divinity and humanity remained whole and perfect.... I am not deceived by their false assurances. They praised me for my teachings in Antioch, when they were still brothers, then as readers, when they were ordained to the degree of deacon, presbyter, and bishop; it happened - at the end of the conversation - they hugged me, kissed my head, chest, hands, even touched my knees, called the teaching apostolic: and this teaching has now been rejected, consigned to damnation; and I, who was called the lamp not only of the east, but also of the universe, was excommunicated, and, as far as depended on them, even deprived of bread. And whoever was recently deposed, about whom they said that he was like-minded with Valentinus and Apollinaris (i.e. Eutyches), was honored as a victorious ascetic for the faith, fell at his feet, asked for his forgiveness, and was called their spiritual father... “We yield to them,” adds Theodoret, “thrones, and dignity, and temporary blessings: and we ourselves, adhering to the apostolic dogmas, await the imprisonments that seem to others to be sorrowful, considering the judgment of the Lord as a consolation.” In conclusion, Theodoret advises John not to enter into communication with those who have betrayed Orthodoxy; not, however, contradict his intention to wait for a change in the course of affairs until the election of a new Primate of the East, i.e., the Patriarch of Antioch 156. And Theodoret himself, to justify himself before the church court, decided to resort to other measures. He again turned to the help of Patriarch Anatoly, who was well-disposed towards him, and wrote to him: “so that anyone who does not know the matter would not consider the slander against me fair and would not be tempted to think that I think contrary to the Gospel teaching, I beg you to ask me from the good-victorious Head (i.e., the Emperor) permission to go to the west and seek justice from the most God-loving people there and the most holy bishops, and if I find myself having transgressed even a little the rule of faith, let me be betrayed to the very depths of the sea. If this request of mine is not accepted, then may I be commanded to live in my monastery, which is three miles from Apamea” 157. While Theodoret was awaiting a decision on his request, he was very pleased to receive a copy of the dogmatic message of St. Leo the Pope to Flavian, which he found completely in agreement with his teaching. It was intended for the former Council of Dioscorov, but was not allowed to be read. Delighted by this message, which was so favorable for him, Theodoret triumphantly wrote to Anatoly: The all-seeing and all-controlling Lord has finally revealed both the apostolic truth of our teaching and the falsehood of the slander against us.” 158 This, no doubt, further disposed Theodoret to seek justification for himself from the Western bishops. But Theodoret was not allowed to go to the west himself. He decided to send two chorebishops and one exarch of monasteries to Rome, and with a message to ask Pope Leo for help to the churches and a solution to a question that personally concerned him: should he calm down on the determination of his fate, decreed in Ephesus, or not? It was not the thought of the supreme supremacy of the Pope that pointed him to Rome. Exposing the advantages of the Roman throne, he places between them the greatness of the city, the dignity of the capital of the Empire, especially the observance of the purity of faith amid the present troubled circumstances in the east, and the precious shrine for all Christianity - the tombs of the Apostles. Having pointed out these advantages, he glorifies the virtues of the Pope: his zeal against the Manichaeans and his famous letter to Flavian, where he expounds in detail the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God. Then he sets out his complaint against Dioscorus, who, having deposed Flavian and other bishops, declared Theodoret deprived of the throne, in absentia and without any investigation, and in the past year 159 condemned him to damnation in Alexandria. In his defense, he points to his pastoral labors in Cyrus, and especially to his exploits against heretics, and enumerates a long series of his writings, which he would like to present to the Pope as proof of the purity of his teaching. Then he asks: “Should I submit to the unjust sentence of deposition or not? - I'm waiting for your decision. God knows, I do not care about honor and glory, but only about averting temptation. Perhaps many of the simple ones, especially those converted by us from various heresies, not being able to judge dogmas with strict accuracy, but paying attention to the importance of the throne of the condemner, will consider me a heretic.” Assuming accusations of another kind, he warns that during the twenty-six years of his bishopric, he acquired for himself neither house, nor field, nor money, nor tomb, but observed a voluntarily chosen poverty 160. Having learned from the papal letter to Flavian the names of the legates who were sent from Rome to the Council of Ephesus, Theodoret asked for their help in his case 161, as well as some Western bishops 162. Having not received permission to go to Rome, Theodoret had to retire, probably to the monastery he had chosen, 163 but no order was given to install another bishop in his place. Those who honored his services to the Church provided him with the necessities for his maintenance 164 . His relations with outsiders at this time were limited to a close circle. He repeatedly mentions in his letters that he decided to remain silent 165, and only special circumstances and feelings of gratitude and affection for famous people caused him to correspond. In addition to letters to some archimandrites who took an active part in his fate 166, two letters have reached us to those condemned along with him at the Council by Dioscorus - Savinian and Iva: he condemns the first for rapprochement with his enemies, in the intention of regaining the throne; the latter is encouraged to bear the general misfortune 167 . Some letters were either written by him for approval in Orthodoxy, or to resolve theological issues raised by modern disputes 168. In one of the last letters we mentioned, 169 we find an indication of the more extensive works of Theodoret, which he was engaged in after the appearance of the Eutychean heresy. Having resolved the question of how one should teach about the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ, and proving that the Divinity was not involved in suffering, he adds: “I tried to answer briefly, but this too exceeded the measure of the letter. I am also sending you a shortened teaching that I recently wrote, on the advice of the most God-loving and holy man of God, Mr. (name not indicated), which can reveal to you the truth of the apostolic dogmas. If I find a copyist, I will send to your piety what I wrote in the form of a conversation, in questions and answers, at length and supported by paternal testimonies. At this time, I am sending only a few sayings of the ancient teachers that can reveal the meaning of their teaching.” The first work and the last are now unknown 170; the second has survived to this day under the name Ερανιςής or collector. The false teaching that he refutes here appears to be a collection of false opinions from various heresies: hence this name is given to the false teacher, whom he does not name anywhere, and then to the book that refutes him. Dividing his debate into three conversations or parts, he proves that in Jesus Christ the Divine nature was not transformed into human nature, did not merge with it, and remained uninvolved in suffering. In these three provisions, the entire false teaching of Eutycheus was refuted. In the features with which he describes the false teacher, in his objections, in the very methods of argument, the face of Eutyches 171 is clearly depicted. It is worthy of note that Theodoret, citing the testimony of St. in support of his words. Fathers, among other things, presents several sayings and St. Cyril of Alexandria 172. But polemics were not the only thing that occupied the bliss. Theodoret: around the same time he wrote his history of the Church, starting from the time where Eusebius of Caesarea stopped, and brought it to the beginning of the Nestorian disputes 173. The desire to give his narrative a character of authenticity prompted him to introduce into his history many acts relating to the Church in their authentic form 174. Zeal for Orthodoxy was expressed here too in his harsh comments about false teachers: but at the same time, condescension towards the weaknesses of fellow believers is visible 175. Compared with the historical narratives of the same time by Socrates and Sozomen, the history of Theodoret is richer in the description of events dating back to the Eastern, or Syrian, Church itself. So, even in his distance from business, Theodoret found something to do that was worthy of his enlightened and pious zeal! But his removal did not last long, less than a year. He himself foresaw the imminent end of the rule of his enemies, based on untruth. He wrote to one of his acquaintances: “As for me, I rejoice that I have moved away from the storms and enjoy the silence that is dear to me. And those about whom you write that they are committing a lie will not in a long time themselves suffer punishment for their lawless deeds” 176. Emperor Theodosius II died (July 28, 450). Following this, Chrysaphius, the patron of Eutyches, also fell. Many complaints about the abuse of power that he enjoyed under Theodosius called upon him divine and human justice. The pious Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius, having accepted Marcian as co-ruler of the Empire (Aug. 24), hastened to destroy by violence the approved acts of the Council of Dioscorus. Patriarch Anatoly appeared as a zealous assistant to her. Rejecting the false teaching of Eutyches, he accepted the message of St. Leo Pope to Flavian, as a presentation of pure church teaching. An order was immediately made to transfer the relics of St. to the capital. Flavian, who died in exile; and the bishops who were expelled with him are allowed to return to their dioceses; but to establish themselves on the thrones, they had to wait for the decision of the Council 177. Theodoret blessed the right hand of the Most High, who carried out such a revolution. He rejoiced not in the hope of his restoration, but in the defeat of wrong-thinking. He only wanted to wait for the time when false teaching would be exposed and the truth would be solemnly recognized by everyone; then he intended to renounce the throne and return to his beloved solitude 178. Not yet leaving the place of his exile, he wrote to the patrician Anatoly and asked him to bring to the Emperor and Empress “a voice of gratitude and from his poverty.” “Our Christ-loving King,” he wrote, “having received the kingdom for piety, brought the firstfruits of his reign to the Giver of the kingdom, giving silence to the overwhelmed churches, strength to the persecuted faith, and victory to the gospel dogmas. And first of all, he hastened to make amends for the offense caused to us. - To bring to an end what has been proposed, beg the Emperor to convene a Council not from rebellious and vagabond people, but from people who are entrusted with the affairs of God, and who highly value and prefer the truth to everything human. Ask him to be present at the Council himself to intimidate the opponents of the truth. I ask this not because Cyrus wants to see him again: you know the desolation of this small city, whose unpleasant appearance I myself covered with various buildings that cost significant sums. But I wish that the agreement of our teaching with the apostolic dogmas would be obvious to everyone and that the lies and wrongheadedness of our opponents would be revealed. When this is accomplished, then, I will say to the will of God, I will live the rest of the years complacently, wherever the Lord commands us to live." 179 The change in circumstances made it possible for Theodoret to find other ascetics for Orthodoxy in Constantinople. He especially honored the then primate of the monastery of the never-sleeping, St. Markell. From two letters to him it is clear that during the Council of Dioscorov, this ascetic was not afraid of threats of violence and did not succumb to the weak-hearted compliance of those present at the Council 180. Marcellus may have been known to Theodoret as a native of Apamea. – By entering into relations with others previously unknown to him, Theodoret tried to destroy the slander spread against him by the adherents of Eutyches 181. Returning to Cyrus, awaiting the decision of the conciliar, Theodoret, although he did not enter into the management of the affairs of his Church, and, having entered into a monastery, avoided all outside visits, he did not abandon admonishing his clergy in the correct understanding of the truth. There was noticeable unrest in the city due to the following circumstance. While the presbyters, according to custom, concluding their prayers with an exclamation, said: “For glory befits You, and Thy Christ and the Holy Spirit,” or: “By the grace and love of Thy Christ, with Him glory befits You with the Holy Spirit,” the archdeacon began to assert that instead of the name Christ, one should use: Only Begotten. Whether this stemmed from the Nestorian concept of two sons: the Only Begotten, the actual Son of God by nature, and Christ, the Son by adoption, or from the Eutychian wisdom that after the Incarnation two natures merged into a single, Divine one, both false wisdoms were equally far from the truth. When word of these disputes reached Theodoret, he sent a message addressed to the steward John, denouncing the archdeacon's foolishness, proving that in the writings of the New Testament the name Christ is very often used instead of the Son of God, or the Only Begotten, and that therefore there is no reason to prohibit the use of the name of Christ in the doxologies of the Holy Trinity proclaimed by the priests 182 . Theodoret's wish finally came true. Emperor Marcian, to restore church order and establish Orthodoxy, appointed an Ecumenical Council, first in Nicaea, then, for immediate convenience, to personally attend the Council in Chalcedon, which was separated only by a strait from the capital of the Empire. On October 8, 451, the Council opened its operations. The bishops gathered up to 630 people, mostly from the eastern patriarchal districts: but the legates of Pope Leo and two bishops from western Africa also arrived. To eliminate the disorder that occurred at the Council of Dioscorus and for the smooth flow of council meetings, the Emperor appointed nineteen highest dignitaries of the state to be present at the Council, as locums of the Emperor. Among them, Anatoly, the patron of Theodoret 183, took precedence. At the Council, Dioscorus was not allowed to take a place between the judges, but he was assigned a special place in the middle, as responsible for his illegal acts. Irritated by this, the Egyptian, Palestinian and Illyrian bishops, who supported his side, were quite opposed to the admission of Theodoret to the Council. When he appeared at the meeting of bishops, as recognized as worthy of restoration from the Pope and appointed to be present by the Emperor himself, the followers of Dioscorus greeted him with noisy exclamations: “Have mercy! faith perishes. The rules throw him out. Cast him out!... The eastern or Syrian bishops responded to these cries by accusing Dioscorus of his violent actions at his Council. The clicks continued for a long time. Finally, Theodoret, standing in the middle, announced that he had filed a complaint with the Emperor about the injustices caused to him, and asked for an investigation about them. Reconciling both dissenting sides, the Emperor’s locum tenens invited Theodoret to take a special place together with another accuser of Dioscorus, Euseus, Bishop of Doryleia, and, moreover, announced that Theodoret’s presence was not an obstacle to anyone - that both he and his opponents were given the right to speak if they wished to discuss something among themselves. But the irritations did not subside. The Egyptian bishops cried out: “We will expel Cyril if we allow Theodoret.” Then the Emperor's locums should have noted to the troublemakers that such vulgar shouts were indecent for bishops and would not bring any benefit 184. The cathedral records do not represent Theodoret’s active participation in the proceedings of the Council. But all the occasions when he cast his voice are worthy of note. During the second session, the famous letter of Pope Leo to Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, which Dioscorus did not allow to be read at his Council, was read. At the same time, the Egyptian and Illyrian bishops expressed some doubt about the accuracy of some expressions. Theodoret defended their meaning with similar expressions from the writings of St. Kirill, which he himself previously cited in his writings 185. So unfair was the assurance of the Egyptian bishops that the teaching of Theodorite was at odds with the true teaching of St. Kirill. At the fourth meeting, when feedback on this message of Leo was required from all the bishops present, Theodoret replied: “The message of the most holy Archbishop, Mr. Leo, is in accordance with the faith set forth by the holy and blessed Fathers in Nicaea and with the symbol of faith compiled by the 150 Fathers at the Council of Constantinople and with the messages of Blessed Cyril. Accepting the above message, I subscribe” 186. He also signed up for the sixth meeting under the definition of faith drawn up at the Council of Chalcedon itself, where the union of two natures in Jesus Christ was clearly confessed, unfused, unchangeable, indivisible and inseparable into a single hypostasis 187 . At the eighth meeting, the Council took up the issue of restoring Theodoret to the throne of Cyrus: since by imperial decision this matter was postponed until the decision of the council. Although even at the first meeting it was announced that the Pope would recognize Theodoret as worthy of restoration; but as everyone knew his alienation from the Ephesian Ecumenical Council and his personal relationship with Nestorius, whom he did not want to recognize as erring for a long time, now it was necessary to completely cleanse Theodoret of all suspicions against him. Here's what happened at that meeting: As soon as Theodoret appeared at the meeting of bishops, voices were heard: Let Theodoret just pronounce anathema (Nestorius). Theodoret answered: I submitted a petition to the Emperor, submitted a complaint to the bishops occupying the place of the most reverent Archbishop Leo. If you like, read it and find out how I think. Bishops. We don't want to read anything. Curse only Hesterius. Theodorite. By the grace of God, I was raised among the Orthodox, accepted Orthodox teaching and preached Orthodoxy. I disgust and consider alien not only Nestorius and Eutyches, but also anyone who is unjust. Bishops. Say clearly: anathema to Nestorius and his teaching. Anathema to Nestorius and his friends. Theodorite. Truly, I say nothing except what I think pleases God. First of all, I want to convince you that I am not seeking the return of the city to me, I am not seeking honor, that is not why I came here. But since I was slandered, I came to assure you that I am Orthodox and that I curse Nestorius, Eutyches and everyone who recognizes two Sons. Bishops, interrupting him: say frankly: anathema to Nestorius and those of like mind with him. Theodorite. I will not say this before I explain how I believe. I believe.... But his words were interrupted by exclamations: he is a heretic. He is a Nestorian. There's the heretic! Theodoret finally said: “Anathema to Nestorius and to everyone who does not call the Holy Virgin Mary the Mother of God and who divides the only Son into two sons. I subscribed both to the definition of faith (drawn up at the Council of Chalcedon) and to the message of His Holiness Archbishop Leo. After this, farewell." The Emperor's locum tenens, pointing to this evidence of Theodoret's right-mindedness, said to the Council of Bishops: it now remains for your love of God to pronounce a sentence on the return of the church (Cyrsk), as was also awarded by His Holiness Archbishop Leo. Then all the bishops exclaimed: Theodoret is worthy of the throne. Return the Orthodox to his Church. May the Church accept its shepherd. May the Church accept the Orthodox teacher again. Theodoret is worthy of the throne. Many years to come to Archbishop Leo. Leo pronounced his judgment with God. After these exclamations, the legates of the Pope and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and some others separately cast their votes in favor of the restoration of Theodoret. The review of Maximus of Antioch is noteworthy: “from the beginning I knew the most God-loving Bishop Theodoret to be Orthodox, having had the opportunity to hear his teachings in the Holy Church. And now I accept him all the more because he cursed Nestorius and Eutyches, and to think in accordance with the definition set forth by this very saint. Cathedral." Other bishops expressed their consent to the verdict with general exclamations: “Here is a righteous judgment! This is the judgment of Christ. We agree with this too.” And the Emperor’s locum tenens, concluding the consideration of the case, proclaimed: “May the most reverend Bishop Theodoret receive the Church of the city of Cyrus 188. Thus, at the Ecumenical Council, the Orthodoxy of Blessed Theodoret was recognized by everyone and the throne, unjustly taken from him, was returned to him. Theodoret remained at the council until the end of its actions. At its sixteenth meeting, he signed a definition that confirmed the equality of the rights and advantages of the Patriarchal throne of Constantinople with the Roman one 189 . Returning to his flock, the following year Theodoret was consoled by the letter to him from St. Leo Pope. The Holy Pope greeted his brother with the victory that by his faith he had won over the epes of Hectorius, as well as Eutyches, and expressed joy that the judgment pronounced by the Roman bishop was confirmed by the irrevocable consent of the entire brotherhood 190. At the same time, he advised Theodoret, in the teachings of the catechumens and others, to no less expose the errors of Nestorius, as well as Eutyches, and, when the benefit of the listeners requires, to directly and unconditionally anathematize both of them, so that some vagueness or slowness would not seem like something forced. Of this, the Pope added, hinting at the circumstances of the judgment on Theodoret of the Council of Chalcedon, your prudence could be convinced from experience. So, since in the east there were still adherents of the Nestorian and Eutychian errors, the Pope asked with all zeal and purity to defend the truth of the definition of the Council of Chalcedon against false teachers, and to notify the Roman throne about the successes of Orthodoxy in those countries 191 . No less helpful was the decree of Emperor Marcian, issued at the same time, to clear the name of Theodorit from reprehensible criticism, repealing Theodosius’ decree, which ordered the destruction of Theodorit’s writings along with the Nestorian ones 192 . From the above letter from Pope Leo, we can conclude that Theodoret, upon returning from the Council of Chalcedon, did not leave his see, as he had previously assumed. Likewise, his learned works relating to the last years of his life show that neither his advanced years nor troubled circumstances weakened his zeal in spreading the light of truth. To this last time belong “Differentiating truth from falsehood” and interpretation of the books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings and Chronicles. “Differentiating truth from falsehood” was written by Theodoret at the request of Sporius, one of the Emperor’s locum tenens at the Council of Chalcedon, and then the Consul (452). It consists of five books: the first four briefly outline the false teachings of the heretics; in the fifth, the teaching of the Orthodox Church, dogmatic and moral. He borrowed information about ancient heretics, as he himself says, from the writings of Justin the philosopher, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea and another Eusebius of Emez, Rodon, Titus (Bossor), Diodorus (Tarsus) and others who were engaged in the refutation of heresies. Among these unnamed benefits is St. Hippolytus of Rome “reproof against all heresies” 193. At the end of the fourth book (chapter 12) the heretical opinions of Hestorius and Eutyches are also stated. The interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament was written at the request of Hypatius, probably one of the two chorebishops who went to Rome with a letter to Pope Leo on behalf of Theodoret 194. It is presented not in the form of a continuous explanation, as in his previous interpretative works, but in the form of questions and answers to certain passages of Scripture, as chosen. As before, he used the works of Antiochian interpreters, for example. Diodorus 195, but freely deviated from them when he found their explanations inconsistent with the general understanding of the church. So bl. Theodoret, in his own expression, fed from the shrouds with the milk of the word of God 196, sought the same food for his soul in the last years of his life. The year of his death is unknown to us. According to the testimony of Gennady of Marseilles, we can only assume that he lived to see the beginning of the reign of the Emperor. Leo (467) 197 . Among the unrest to which the Syrian Church was subjected shortly after the Council of Chalcedon from the opposing false teachings of the Nestorians and Monophysites, the memory of the famous Bishop of Cyrus was not left alone 198. But the Orthodox Church at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, rejecting his writings against St. Cyril of Alexandria 199, condemned by himself along with the condemnation of Hectorius, retained and retains respect for the other works of the blessed one. Theodoret, mainly interpretive. St. Gregory the Great, on behalf of Pope Vigilius II, wrote: “We do not condemn all the works of Theodoret, but only those that he clearly once wrote against the twelve chapters of Cyril, against the right faith.,. His other writings are not only acceptable, but we also use them against our enemies.” And for example, what benefits can the writings of Theodoret, St. Gregory points to his explanation of the book: Song of Songs. “Whereas Theodoret (of Mopset), having decided to explain this book, wrote not an interpretation, but some nonsense: Theodoret, denouncing this, although he did not directly point out his name, but exposed his madness. As they say, concludes St. Gregory, that we do not accept any of Theodoret’s writings, when in him we find a witness of the truth against Theodoret himself” 200. Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, having read Theodoret’s interpretation of the book of Prov. Daniel, gave the following review of the interpreter: “in the disclosure and explanation of prophetic sayings, this blessed man far surpasses not only Hippolytus, but also many others.” And then, having spoken about the dignity of his language, he continues: “in general, he has risen to the highest dignity in an interpreter, and it is not easy to find another who would explain him better. You can also find in others purity of language and a deepening of the meaning of contemplation. But so that at the same time the speech is clear, and, in a brief presentation, nothing necessary is omitted, and there are no deviations, or erudition for show, or other, although not useless, but not related to the subject comments in the interpretation - if anyone else was concerned about this, then the good Theodoret: and moreover, not in this one work (interpretation of St. Daniel), but in almost all of his interpretative labors on St. Scripture - and there are many of them" 201. John, Metropolitan of the Euchaites, who left to the Church many canons in honor of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Mother of God and St. John the Baptist 202, who comprehended in visions and the secrets of the heavenly Saints 203, ranks Theodoret among the great teachers of the Church. In his poems about the most famous church writers, he says: “Having depicted wise teachers, I include among them Theodoret, the man of God, the great teacher, the indestructible pillar of Orthodoxy 204. If he hesitated for a short time on some occasion, do not judge, man: he was a man. His hesitation came not so much from impiety as from passion in the argument. But he recovered later. In all other respects, seeing in him a man who in no way lags behind the great shepherds, I rightfully rank him here among them 205.” Interpretations of the blessed Theodoret are found in many published and unpublished sets of paternal explanations: on the historical books of the Old Testament 206 on the psalms 207, Song of Songs 208, on the Prophets 209, on the Gospel 210, on the epistles of the Apostle Paul 211 and conciliar 212. This shows how respected they were among the collectors of paternal interpretations. The Orthodox Church accepted the legends of Blessed. Theodoret about the holy ascetics of Syria was included in the number of books serving to arouse the spirit of piety and appointed them for reading for general edification 213. And since nothing more is known about many ascetics except what the bl. says about them. Theodoret, then one might think that his legends were the first evidence for the Church of their godly holiness. – At the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Fathers used these legends to confirm the veneration of icons 214. In the Slavic language, from the first centuries of the spread of Christianity among us, interpretations of Bl. Theodoret on the Prophets, although not completely, and on the psalms, as well as legends about eastern ascetics. We know about the translation of the interpretation into the Prophets from lists in which evidence has been preserved that their original existed with us already in 1047 215. The text of Feodoritov's interpretation is presented here for the most part in abbreviation. The translation of the interpretation into the psalms is no less ancient 216. Legends about holy ascetics are found in the ancient Chetyi-Menai 217. In the past and present centuries, partly in Slavic, partly in Russian, the following Psalms with a brief interpretation of Blessed Theodoret were published. St. Petersburg 1783. Commentary on the Song of Songs. M. 1808. Church History. St. Petersburg 1852. History of the Bogolyubtsev. St. Petersburg 1853. Religious. Histor. With. IX. r. 829. Opp. Theodoreti. ed. Sinnondi. (642. Vol. 3. The memory of St. Peter is celebrated by the Orthodox Church on February 1. Ibid. s. XIII. r. S39. Memory of Macedonia Ave. January 24. Ibid. cap. VIII. r. 819. Memory of St. Aphraates among the Greeks on January 29 Holy Life of Simeon ibid. s. VI r. 810. Ibid. r. 836. S. Ioh. Chrysost. op. t. II. p. 172.lb. Asseman Bibl orient p. 400. p. 3 See letters to St. John Chrysostom. 130. 222, etc. See excerpt of praise. sl. Theodoret in honor of St. John Chrysostom. Comment, in Daniel, praetatio. opp. T.II, p. 542 See Histor. Religiosa chapter 3. on Marcian, ch. 4. about Eusebius and Ammianus, ch. 5. about Publius. Histor. Religios. With. 13. r. 832 Zinon died under the bishop of Antioch Alksander (414–421). His memory among the Greeks is Feb. 10. Ibid, from 4 r. 709 About Iliodor p. 26. r. 878. Advers Gentiles Setm. XI T IV. r. 659 Hist, religion. With. IX. r. 820 Er. 81 “My parents promised me to God before I was conceived, and according to the vow they dedicated me to Him from the shrouds, and gave me such an upbringing. Before becoming a bishop, having spent time in a monastery, I accepted episcopal consecration against my will.” 954. In 449, persecuted by Dioscorus, he asked permission to live in a monastery, which was 120 meters from the Cyrus region, 75 meters from Antioch, and three miles from Apamea. Theodoret directly calls this monastery his own (ημετερον μοναςηρλον), of course, due to his stay in it before his episcopate. Er. 119. rub. 992, 993. Even earlier, around 434, due to troubles, intending to leave the episcopal see, he wrote to the archimandrite of his monastery to build a cell for him. Arcbimandritae monasterii nici de cella mihi aedificanda inandave – lim. ap. Baluz. Nova collect, concilior. T. 1. Synodicon cap. 66, p. 769. Theodoict. N.Ecd. V. 40. There are known interpretations of Polychrony on the book of Song of Songs, on Pr. Daniel, on Job. And from the interpretations of Theodoritovs, the first experiments were an explanation in the book. Song of Songs and the Prophet Daniel. The time of Agapit's death is unknown, but Polychronius was still alive in 428, when his brother died, as can be seen from the last chapter of Theodoret's Church History, which ends with the memory of Polychronius. Memory of Marcian Ave. November 2 Synodicon ar. Baluz. With. 71. rub. 773. Habitamus civitatem longe alicubi sitam, ab illa via, qua equi transcumunt. Cf. cap. 88 p. 795 Theodoret. epist. 32. p. 921. Ep. 42. p. 926. I. Malalae Chronographia L. XIII. Iulian. Imper. p. 328. ed. Dindorf. – Chronicon Alexandr. p. 550. His memory is in the Orthodox Church. Church of August 7th. In the first chapters he presented information about the ascetics of most of Antioch, in the 14th chapter he says: “now I will move to the meadows of Cyrus” and after that he describes the exploits of the Cyrus desert inhabitants of the already deceased ch. 14 – 20; and from chapters 21 to 25 he talks about modern ascetics. The remaining chapters contain information about ascetics and ascetics personally known to Theodoret from other cities in Cupia. Haeretical.Fabul.L.I.c.20 p.208 Theodoret.ep. 145 p. 1026 See the preface to the commentary on the book of Song of Songs. In 420, the Emperor issued a decree to fence the cities closest to the Persian borders with walls. Codlustin de aedific. L. 10 Probably similar concerns lay on the shepherd of the city of Cyprus. Er. 83. From here we can see the time of Theodoret’s entry into the episcopal ministry. According to the circumstances, he repeatedly pointed out his scientific works in his letters 81, 113, 116 and 145. Three books were written against the Macedonians, as can be seen from Haret Fabul. L. V s. 3. R 260. Cod Theodos, (el Honell. 1842.). L. XVI T. 10. 1. 23. 423 years. Ibid. 1 25. 453, and not 426, as was the case in previous editions of the Code of Theodosius, on the basis of which Garnier and others attribute the work of Theodoret against the pagans to this year, finding an allusion to the mentioned decree at the end of the 7th word. Exhorting the pagans to abandon their sacrifices, he concludes his speech with the following words: “let not the royal laws, not the fear of punishment, but the power of the truth, which has become known to everyone on land and sea, convince you to do this.” Graecar affection curatio prologus In the whole work there are up to 109 names of pagan writers and teachers, whom Theodoret uses as evidence. Photii Biblioth. cod. 273 Mentioned already in the letter of Theodoret ca. 432 Synodic. With. 40. from the book about the Trinity, an excerpt about Sabelli, ed. Kotelier. Monum. Eccl. Gr. T.Sh.r. 561. Excerpts from Feodorov's interpretation are given in the acts of the fifth Ecumenical. Cathedral. Collat. 4.n. 68–70. Preface to interpretation books Song of Songs Theodoret.Comment in Mich. p. 819. See also the interpretation on Prophet. Isaiah 2, 2–4. P12 Theodor. Antioch commentar. In piophetas minores, ed. Victor. a Wegnern. p.343 Leontius Byzantin. adv. Eutych et Nestonum, lib III. Angelo Mai Spicileg. Roman. T.X.p. 73. Acta Concil. V. Oecum. collat 4 n 22. Theodoret. Comment. in Psalm. XXI, 2. This can be seen from a comparison of both interpretations of Theodore and Theodoret on the lesser Prophets - for Theodore’s interpretations on other Prophets and on the psalms have not reached us. But in the interpretation of Haggai 2, 7. 8. he refutes Apollinaris, indicating his name. Interpretation of Polychrony in Angel. Mai Avetor veter.nov.collect. T. I. Also excerpts from the interpretation of St. Hippolyta. Sunodicon. cap. 71. Theodoret Epist. 81. Historia Religiosa. cap. 2. Opp. Theod. T.V.r. 54. Garnier thinks that this letter was written on behalf of John by Theodoret R. himself. 52. Theodor. Er. 112. Sunodic. cap. 4. Reprehens. Anathem. 2. rub. 709 Repreh. anath. 1. rub. 709. Repreh. Anathem 9. b. 718 Theodoret wrote from Ephesus to Bishop Andrew. Samosatsky: “there are very few healthy people who endure feats for piety.” Synodic cap 20 Instead of 68 bishops who did not agree to the opening of the Council before the arrival of John, according to the letters of the Ecumenical Council, less than forty remained with John. Synodic, cap. 30. Part of one of his conversations spoken by Theodoret in Chalcedon has also reached us. Ibid. cap. 36. Fragments survive only in Mapius Mercator. Patrolog, Curs. Complete. T. XLVIII. r. 1067. Slich. Surill. Epist. r. 105 and Synodic. cap. 17. The beginning of this epistle is placed in the Synodic. cap. 150. Socratis Eccl. L. 7. With. 41 Synodicon, cap. 155. Epistola Meletii ad Alexandrum post introitum Theodoreti in Antiochiam. Cap. 160. Theodoret himself wrote “collocutus sum Domino meo Deo amicissimo Episcopo Ioanni, et inveni eum pro orthodoxia studiose certantem et Ecclesiae unionem fieri festinantem, et depositionis subscriptiouem minime exigentem ab eis, qui facere nollent. Also cap. 161. 162. Synod. сap. 162. 166. 168 Ibid. cap. 167 See also sar. 169 Theodoret Epist. 83. St. also mentions this. Kirill. Synodic. cap. 210. Other messages sent to St. Cyril’s essay “about the scapegoat” (Lev. 16:8 et seq.) is located between the letters of St. Cyril to Akaki Opp. S. Cyrilli. T.V. r. 2.pagin. 121. Er. S. Cyrilli ad Acacium Meletin. opp. T.V.p. 2. p. 197 Facundi Er. Hermianensis pro defensione trium capitulorum. L. VIII, p. 1–4. Patrolog. curs. T. 67. p. 709 et sq. An excerpt from both works, i.e. St. Cyril and Theodorit were preserved in the acts of the Vth Universe. Cathedral. Coll. V. Theodoret mentions his work in a letter to Irenaeus. Er. 16. The time of its writing is quite closely determined by an indication of the time of the asceticism of St. Jacob, which Theodoret narrates in chapter 21 of the History of the God-Lovers. In chapter 23 it is said about him that he spent 38 years in exploits. until the time Theodoret wrote about him. And at the beginning of his ascetic life, the attack of the Isaurians is mentioned. Relig. hist, p 865. This attack, according to the chronicle of Marcellinus (Patrolog Curs. T 51.922) and according to the letters of St. John Chrysostom, dates back to 405. So, Theodoret wrote his book around 444. Ch. 21 and 26. They, together with Varadat (chapter 27), with their requests and their mediation, persuaded Patriarch John to peace in recent troubled times. – Commemoration of Jacob Ave. November 26, Simeon Stylite Ave. September 1, Varadat Ave. February 22 Theodoret. Er. 60. Written with presbyter Eusebius returning to Alexandria, with whom two presbyters were sent there and the following two epistles G1 and G2 At that time the Minister of Finance Concil. Ephes. Pars III. n. 47 et 48. cd. Binii. The edict was announced in the Palestinian monasteries, as stated in the signature on April 17. 448 Er. 87 and 111. About the complaints of the clergy of Edessa against their bishop in the acts of the IV Ecumenical. Cathedral. Acts 9 and 10. Facundi pro defensione trium capilulorum. L. VIII. c. 5. A in the XI book. Ch. 5, writes Donmus Antiochenus Eulychi, Apollinaris impietatem renovare tentantem, primus restitit, ad imperatorem Theodosium scribens. Patriarch Domnus paid attention to Eutyxius especially because he cursed Diodorus and Theodore, as can be seen from the same report Opp. T.V.r. 101, where this message is more complete than the one placed along with others, under the number 83. An indication of winter time is found in letters 94. 101 and 109 Acta Concilii Ephesini in Actis Concil. Chalcedonens Bmii. Tom. II. par. 1. p. 43. Er. 112. Letter 16 to Irenaeus probably dates back to the same time, which also expresses the hopelessness of the success of the faith at the proposed Council and speaks of the selection of Metropolitans for the Council Opened its operations on August 8th. 449 Er. 9. Letter 21 to Eusebius Scholasticus has the same content, but in a more extensive form and with reference to pagan writers. About the time of the installation of Anatoly as Patriarch of Constantinople and Maximus in Antioch, see Ballerini in the publication of the works of St. Leo Pope. Patrolog. Cuis. T. 55. r. 266. With Theodoret, Iva of Edessa and Savinian of Perga were deposed. From this it is clear that the letter to Pope Leo was written during the years of the Council, i.e. 449 Letter 116 to Presbyter Revat and 118 to Archdeacon Ilarius. Both were legates along with Bishop Julian. But Renat was not present at the Council and even died before its opening, which, of course, Theodoret did not know. Letter 117 to Bishop Florence; but from its content it is clear that it applied to many. Letters 114 and 115 contain orders regarding the expected imprisonment Er. 123.– Slichi and Er. 134 The first may be one and the same with the essay “on the incarnation of the Only Begotten,” which he sent in 448 to Eusebius, Bishop of Ancyra, asking him to give his opinion about him. Er. 109. But this work also has not reached us. Especially in the introduction and in the first conversation. Some of the testimonies of the Western Fathers, such as: St. Ambrose, Hilary and Augustine, cited by Theodoret in defense of Orthodox teaching, are, however, borrowed from the collection compiled by Pope Leo. See Opp. S. Leonis Magni. Ed. Ballerini, annot. ad Ep. 28. The time of writing this story is indicated by a) a hint of the beginning of the Eutychian disputes in the legend of Apollinaria, book. 5. Ch. 3. b) description of the transfer of the relics of St. John Chrysostom to Constantinople (book 5, chapter 36), which took place in 438 and c) the remark (5 books, chapter 39) that the persecution begun in Persia by Izdegerd did not end even after 30 years, which falls on 449. Citing the epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, about Apius, and Arius himself, he notes: “I will cite the epistle of Apius, and after it others necessary for the historical story, so that they confirm the truth of the story and express the past deeds more clearly.” Book. 1 chapter 3. Speaking about the persecution against adherents of St. John Chrysostom in Constantinople, Theodoret notes “to talk about this at length, I think it is unnecessary; besides, sad events, in my opinion, it is necessary to describe briefly and cover the errors of the actions of the same faith, Book 3, Chapter 34) Acta Concil. Chalced. Pars 1.num. XXXV – Epistola Pulcheriae ad Episcopum Romanum Leonem. Binii p. 28. Er. 138 The same content is written. 139 and 140. Letter 139 is inscribed: Aspar consul and patrician. But in 450 it was not Aspar, but Avienus who was consul. Moreover, Aspar was an Arian by profession. So it is more likely to assume that there is an error in the inscription that occurred from the scribes. It is noteworthy that Theodoret thanks this particular consul and patrician for bringing to the attention of the Sovereign about his suffering, and that through his efforts a just law was issued against an unjust law. Er. 141. 142. Memory of Ave. Markella December 29 See letter 134 to Andrew the monk of Constantinople and 115 to the monks of Constantinople. In addition to Anatoly, there are up to seven more persons among them, who are already known to us from Theodorit’s correspondence. Concil. Chalced. Act. 1. Bin. p. 44. 45. Leo said: quamvis in Domino lesu Christo Dei et hotminis una persona sit, aliud tamen est, unde in utraque communis est gloria. De nostro enim illi est minor Patre humanitas: de Patre illi est aequalis divinitas. Words of St. Cyril is indicated by Theodoret as follows: γὰρ, ὀπερ ῆν, νοευται δέ πάντως καῆ ἐτερον ἐν ἐτέρω πο κατοικουν, ἡ θεία φύσις ἐν τοῖς 'ανθρωπίνοις. The last words are quoted by Theodoret in his Eranist. Dial. 2. p. 111 Gloriamur in Deo, qui nullum nos in nostris fiatribus, detrirnentum sustinere perinisit, sed quia nostro piius ministerio defini erat, universis fraternilatis irretraclabili firmavit assensu S. Leonis Magni Ep. 120. ed. Vallegini. Written 11 June 453 Published July 453 Acta Concil. Chalcedon, pars III. n. XI. Binii p. 363. Recently became known to the scientific world from a list found in the monasteries of Mount Athos. Add to Creation. St. Fathers Part XII, p. 657. See two prefaces - one before the interpretation of the book of Genesis, the other before the interpretation of the book of Kings. See eg. Exodus. 4, 23, 20, 5, 21, 22. 23, 4. Lev. 12, 4,13,3. 1 Samuel 3.4 in the codex (σεβρα) by the interpreter edited by Nicephorus Theotokius in Leipzig, 1772 De Scriptor. Eccles, p. 89. Evagr. Hist. Eccl. L. 3. c. 31. Victor. Tunnunens. Chronic.an. 499. (Patrol. T. 68. p. 949.). Marcellini Chronic. an. 512. (Patrolog, T. 51. p. 937.) Assemani Bibl. Orient. T. 2. p. 15. Baluz. nov. Collect. Concil. p. 1540. Collat. VIII. Anathem. 13. Pelagii Papæ II Epistola III ad Eliam et Episcopos Istriae. Patrologiae Curs T. 72. p. 734. 736. That this letter was written by St. Gregory V., see Vita S. Gregorii M, Patrolog. T. 75. r. 273. St. himself Gregory, already Pope, sent copies of this letter to reassure Western bishops who were dissatisfied with the definition of the fifth Ecumenical Council S. Gregorii EpistoL L. IL Er. 51. Palrolog. T. 77. p. 594. Photii Bibliotheca. Cod. 203. See also Photius’s review of other interpretations of bl. Theodorit. Cod. 204. 205 and about its History. Cod. 31. Among his canons is the canon of the Sweetest Jesus. In addition, John wrote 25 canons to the Savior, 67 to the Mother of God and 11 in honor of John the Baptist. Nessel Catalogus Bibliothec. Caesar. Vindobonens. Cod. 78. p. 161 According to the vision he had, the feast of the Three Ecumenical Hierarchs was established on January 30. Of course, in those creations that were not in connection with the Hestorian disputes. John speaks about others after this. Greek text of poems – in the edition of the works of Bl. Theodoret, comp. Evgeniy Bulgar. T. I. Life of Theodoret p. 58. Fabi. Bibliotheca Graeca. ed. Harles. T. 8. p. 645. 646. Ibid. p. 663. 667. 668. 669 The history of the Bogolyubtsev is found in parts in the Prologues and Chet-Menaia of the Greek and ours Concilia, ed. Binii. T. 3. r. 567. An excerpt from the legend of Simeon the Stylite is given Preface to the edition of the Gospel according to Ostromirov's list. Page III. Vostokov's description of the Rumyantsov Museum. Hand. 335. Rk. Moskov D. Academy of the 14th century. The month of February. You might be interested in: