482 This seems to be an inaccurate quotation of Baruch vi. 11. cf. p. 165 n.

483 Isaiah xliv. 16.

484 Isaiah xliv. 17.

485 Isaiah xliv. 20, lxx.

486 Psalm xcvi. 5.

487 I. Cor. viii. 5. I. Cor. viii. 6.

488 Psalm cxlvi. 4.

489 Song of the three holy children 63.

490 Psalm civ. 4.

491 Matt. xii. 43. Luke xi. 26. Observe difference of tense and variation.

492 Ephes. iii. 14. R. V. marg. It will be seen that the argument of Theodnret does not admit of the translation "whole family" as in A. V.

493 II. Cor. xi. 2.

494 Ephes. v. 25.

495 Ephes. v. 31. Ephes v. 32.

496 Gal. iii. 13.

497 Rom. vi. 3.

498 Rom. iii. 27.

499 Rom. xiii. 14.

500 Canticles ii. 16. Canticles ii. 3.

501 Acts xi. 26. "The word seems to have been in the first instance a nickname fastened by the heathen populace of Antioch on the followers of Christ, who still continued to style themselves the `disciples 0' or the `saints 0' or the `brethren 0' or the `believers, 0' and the like. The biting gibes of the Antiochene populace which stung to the quick successive emperors - Hadrian, M. Aurelius, Severus, Julian - would be little disposed to spare the helpless adherents of this new `superstition. 0' Objection indeed has been taken to the Antiochene origin of the name on the ground that the termination is Roman, like Pompeianus, Caesarianus, and the like. But this termination, if it was Latin, was certainly Asiatic likewise, as appears from such words as 'Asianoj, baktria/oj, Sardianoj, Trallianoj, 'Areianoj, Menandrta/oj, Sabellianoj. The next occurrence of the word in a Christian document is on the occasion of St. Paul's apearance before Festus (a.d. 60). It is not however put in the mouth of a believer, but occurs in the scornful jest of Agrippa, `With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian 0' (Acts xxvi. 28). The third and last example occurs a few years later. In the first Epistle of St. Peter, presumably about a.d. 66 or 67, the Apostle writes `Let not any of you suffer as a murderer or a thief ...but if (he suffers) as a Christian, let him not be ashamed but glorify God 0' (iv. 15). Here again the term is not the Apostle's own, but represents the charge brought against the believers by their heathen accusers. In the New Testament there is no indication that the name was yet adopted by the disciples of Christ as their own. Thus Christian documents again confirm the statement of Tacitus that as early as the Neronian persecution this name prevailed, and the same origin also is indirectly suggested by those notices, which he directly states - not `qui sese appellabant Christianos 0' but `quos vulgus appellabat Christianos. 0' It was a gibe of the common people against `the brethren. 0'" Bp. Lightfoot Ap. Fathers, II. 1. 417.

502 Isaiah lxv. 15, 16, lxx.

503 Acts ii. 38. "Believe" substituted for "repent."

504 i.e. of Caesarea. The Cappadocian Caesarea originally called Mazaca is still Kasaria.

505 Heb. iv. 14. On the opinion of the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews cf. note on page 37. The Alexandrian view is shewn to have affected the Eastern Church. For the reading "Jesus Christ" instead of Jesus the Son of God on which Theodoret's argument depends there is no manuscript authority.

506 Heb. ix, 24.

507 Heb. vi, 19, Heb. vi, 20.

508 Titus ii, 13. Cf. note on page 319 on the passage Ephes. v, 5. Here, however, the position of the article is in favour of the interpretation "Jesus Christ, the great God and our Saviour" which was generally adopted by the Greek orthodox Fathers in their controversy with the Arians and by the majority of ancient and modern commentators. But see Afford ad loc. for such arguments as may be adduced in favour of taking swthr as anarthrous like Qeoj.

509 I Thess. 1. 9, I Thess 1. 10.

510 I Thess. iii. 12, I Thess iii. 13.

511 II Thess. ii. 1.

512 II Thess. ii. 8.

513 Romans xiv. 10. Romans xiv. 16.

514 Matt. xxiv. 23 and Matt. xxiv. 27.

515 John i. 18. The "no man" of A. V. does not admit of Theodoret's argument.

516 Ex. xxxiii 20, lxx. oudeij oyetai.

517 II. Cor. v. 16.

518 I. Cor. v. 17.

519 II. Cor. v. 4.

520 I. Cor. xv. 53.

521 Phil iii. 20, Phil iii. 21.

522 Eph. i. 9, Eph i. 10.

523 Rom. xvi. 25, Rom xvi. 26, Rom xvi. 27.

524 Eph. iii. 20, Eph iii. 21.

525 Eph. iii. 14. A. V.

526 Eph. v. 20.

527 Phil. iv. 19.

528 Heb. xiii. 20, Heb. xiii. 21.

529 II. Tim. iv. 1.

530 I. Tim. vi. 13. I Tim. vi. 14. Tim. vi. 15. I Tim vi. 16.

531 Matt. i. 1.

532 The following letters omitted in the volume of Sirmondus have been published in the Auctarium of Garnerius and elsewhere. The following letter number CXLVII is the CXXVth in all the manuscripts. Schulze remarks that he would have replaced it in its own rank but for the confusion which would thus have been introduced in quotation. John, bishop of Germanicia is also the recipient of Letter CXXXIII. This is written a few days after the former, late in 449 or at the beginning of 450.

533 i.e. the twelve articles or chapters couched in the form of anathema against the heads of Nestorian doctrine, appended to Cyril's third letter to Nestorius.

534 It has been pointed out before (Page 293) that at the Latrocinium Domnus was compelled to yield his presidential seat as Patriarch of Antioch, Dioscorus presiding, the Roman legate sitting second, and Juvenal of Jerusalem third. "Cowed by the dictatorial spirit of Dioscorus and unnerved by the outrageous violence of Barsumas and his band of brutal monks he consented to revoke his former condemnation of Eutyches." "This cowardly act of submission was followed by a still baser proof of weakness, the condemnation of the venerable Flavian. Dioscorus having thus by sheer intimidation obtained his ends revenged himself for their former opposition to his wishes upon those whose cowardice had made them the instruments of his nefarious designs, and proceeded to mete out to them the same measure they had dealt to Flavian. Domnus was the last to be deposed. The charges alleged against him were his reported approval of a Nestorian sermon preached before him at Antioch by Theodoret, on the death of Cyril, and some expressions in letters written by him to Dioscorus condemning the obscure character of Cyril's anathematisms."

535 Canon Venables in Dic. Chris. biog. vol 1. p. 879. i.e. wild nomad tribes who live in waggons (amacobioi). These Horace (Car. iii. 24, 10) takes as a better type of character than wealthy villa-builders;-


536 Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia. He was of the orthodox party and stated himself to have been bred from childhood in the Catholic faith. (Conc. iv. 304.) His name is also written Calendio (Tillem. xv. 579, Dic. Chris. Biog. 1, 395).

537 Athanasius of Perrha, the delator of earlier letters (vide note on page 264) had been deposed from his bishopric at a synod of uncertain date held between 444 and 449 at Antioch under Domnus, and replaced by Sabinianus.

538 Gal. vi. 7.

539 i.e. Maximus, who was appointed by the Latrocinium to succeed Domnus in the see of Antioch, and consecrated by Anatolius in defiance of right and usage. Or possibly the irregularity of the nomination of Maximus may lead Theodoret to regard the see as vacant. Garnerius understands the reference to be to an interval between the appointment and consecration of Maximus.

540 Vide Might Pat. lxxvii. 1449.

"A letter so admirable in tone and feeling, so happy in its expression, that it has been attributed to the practised pen of Theodoret." (Canon Venables, Dict. Christ. Biog. iii. 350.) Tillemont describes it as "très belle, très bien faite et très digne de la rèputation qu'avait ce prèlat."

541 This letter may be dated in February 431. Celestine and Cyril bad written to John of Antioch in relation to the condemnation of Nestorius by the western bishops at Rome in August 430. Theodoret was at Antioch on the arrival of these letters and hence additional probability is given to the theory that he wrote the reply referred to in the preceding note. Then came the publication of Cyril's chapter or anathemas which Theodoret undertook to refute. Letter CL. is prefixed to his remarks on them.

542 The "old story" is a comparatively late addition to the myth of the marriage of Peleus.

543 Gal. vi. 16.

544 The Refutation of the anathematisrns of Cyril is to be found in Migne Pat. lxxvi. Col 393. Vide also the prolegomena.

545 This document did not appear in the original edition of the Letters. A fragment in Latin was published in the Auctarium of Garnerius. The complete composition is given by Schulze from a ms. in the Imperial Library at Vienna. The date may be assigned as early in 431. As Cyril had weaned the monks of Egypt and even of Constantinople from the cause of Nestorius, so Theodoret attempts to win over the solitaries of the East from Cyril.

546 Jer. iv. 19.

547 "Nihil contumeliosius," remarks Garnerius, "in Cyrilli personam et doctrinam dici potest." Some have even thought the expressions too bitter for Theodoret. But the mild man could hit hard sometimes. He felt warmly for Nestorius and against Cyril, and (accepting Tillemont's date) he was now about 38.

548 oikonomia. Vide p. 72.

This document (last modified February 03, 1998) from Believerscafe.com
Home | Bible versions | Bible Dictionary | Christian Classics | Christian Articles | Daily Devotions

Sister Projects: Wikichristian | WikiMD

BelieversCafe is a large collection of christian articles with over 40,000 pages

Our sponsors:   sleep and weight loss center W8MD sleep and weight loss center