Tie made use in his own Commentaries, but which
he thinks not equal in style to the other works of
Theophiliis. ( V. I. I. c. ; Praef. in Matt. ; Algas.
vol. iii. p. 318.) There are still extant, in Latin
only, under the name of Theophilus, four books of
allegorical commentaries on various passages of the
Gospels, which the best critics pronounce to be
undoubtedly an original Latin work, of a period
much subsequent to the time of Theophilus, al-
though very probably his commentary may have
been used in its compilation. This commentary is
published in the Dibiiolhccac Patrum., Paris, 1575,
1598, 1609, 1654, Colon. 1618, Ludg. 1677.
Eusebius further mentions certain catechetical
works by him (/coi erepa de riva KOTTJXTjTt/c^ avTov
fii§Aia, H. E. iv. 24 ; breves elegantesque tradatus
ad aedificationem ecclesiae pertinentes, Hieron. V. I.
I. c); and Jerome (/. c.) refers to his Commentaries
on the Proverbs, in connection with hi&Coinmentarics
on Hie Gospels, and with the same qualification as
to their style. (Cave, Hist. Litt. s. a. 168, pp. 69
—71; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. pp. 101—106 ;
Lardner, Credibility ; Mosheim, Eccles. Hist.
Murdock's Note, vol. i. p. 155, Engl. ed. ; Clinton,
Fasti Rom. s. aa. 171, 181.)
. A bishop of Caesareia in Palestine, who
presided over the council of Caesareia, and signed
the letter of that council, which appears to have
been drawn up by himself, on the Paschal contro-
versy, A. D. 198. (Euseb. H. E. v. 23 ; Hieron.
r. /. 43 ; Cave, Hist. Litt. s.a. 198, p. 87; Fabric.
Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 1 07, vol. ix. p. 255, vol. xii.
p. 363.)
. Bishop of Alexandria, in the latter part of
the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries
of our era, is distinguished for his persecutions of
the Origenists, for his hostility to Chrysostom, and
as being altogether one of the most violent and
liUnscnipulous even among the ecclesiastics of the
Sntth century. His life belongs rather to ecclesias-
tical than to literary history, and therefore only a
kvery brief account of it is required here. He suc-
ceeded Timotheus, as bishop of Alexandria, in a. d.
385 (Socrat. H. E. v. 12 ; not 387, as the date is
given by Theophanes, p. 60, b., and Sozomen, H.E.
vii. 14 ; see Clinton, Fasti Rom. s. a. 387). Soon
after his elevation to the episcopal throne, he
secured the favour of the emperor by a most cha-
racteristic manoeuvre. When the fate of the empire
was suspended on the battle which was to decide
between Maximus and Theodosius, a. d. 388, he
sent his legate, Isidorus, to Rome, provided with
letters to both, the one or the other of which he
was to deliver, with certain presents, according to
the issue of the battle (Sozom. //. E. viii. 2). He
also emulated the zeal of Theodosius against hea-
thenism ; and having in A. d. 391 obtained the
emperor's permission to take severe measures with
the pagans in his diocese, he proceeded to destroy
their temples, and to seize their property, until,
after Alexandria had been troubled with insur-
rections and bloodshed, most of them were driven
out of Egypt (Socrat. H. E. v. 16). How little
this religious zeal proceeded from the dictates of
conscience or of calm judgment may be seen by
the pains which Theophilus afterwards took to
force the bishopric of Cyrene upon Synesius, in
spite of his avowed devotion to the heathen Greek
philosophy. [Synesius.]
His behaviour to the different sects, into which
the Christians of his diocese were divided, was
marked by the same unscrupulous inconsistency.
He appears to have passed a part of his early life
among the monks of Nitria, who were divided
among themselves upon the chief controversy of
the day, some being Origenists, and others Anthropomorphites. The ignorance of the latter party he
must therefore have well known, and he was far too
strong-minded to share their prejudices ; while, on
the other hand, he was quite capable of appreciating
the works of Origen, v/ith which it is evident that
he was well acquainted. At first, he declared
himself decidedly against the Anthropomorphites,
and in opposing them he sided openly with the
Origenists, and drew his arguments from the works
of Origen. When, however, it became evident that
the majority of the Egyptian monks were Anthropomorphites, and when that party had shown their
strength by the tumults which they stirred up,
about A. D. 399, Theophilus went over to their
side, condemned the writings of Origen, and commanded all his clergy to condemn them, and commenced a cruel persecution of the monks and
others who opposed the Anthropomorphites ; and all this, while he himself continued to read the works
of Origen with admiration. In a. d. 401, he issued
a violent paschal or encyclical letter, in which he
condemned the writings of Origen, and threatened
his adherents ; and in the following year he sent
forth another letter of the same character, to the
unbounded delight of Jerome, who had been long
intimate with Theophilus, and who writes to him
on the occasion in terms of exultation and flattery,
which are absolutely disgusting (Epist. 57, ed.
Mait., 86, ed. Vallars.). By these proceedings, and
by his general character, Theophilus well earned
the name of 'A//0oAA.o|, which we find applied
to him (Pallad. ap. Montfauc. vol. xiii. p. 20).
The persecuted monks of the Origenist party fled
for refuge to Constantinople, where they were
kindly received by Chrysostom, against whom
Theophilus already had a grudge, because Chry-
sostom had been made bishop of Constantinople in
spite of his opposition. The subsequent events,
the call of Theophilus to Constantinople by the
empress Eudoxia, and his success in procuring the
deposition and banishment of Chrysostom (a. d.
403), are related under Chrysostomus [Vol. L
p. 704, a.] During the tumult which followed the
deposition of Chrysostom, Theophilus made his
escape secretly from Constantinople, and returned
to Alexandria, where, in the following year (a. d.
404) he issued a third paschal letter against the
Origenists, and where he closed his turbulent
career in A. D. 412.
The works of Theophilus mentioned by the
ancient writers are : — one against the Origenists,
which is quoted by Theodoret (Dial. 2, p. 191),
under the title of irpocrcpwynTiKhi' irphs rovs <ppo~
vovvras rk 'ilpiyfvovs, and which Gennadius (.33)
calls Adversus Origcnem unum ct grandc volumen ;
a Letter to Porphyry, bishop of Antioch, quoted in
the Acta ConcU. Ephes. pt. i. c. 4 ; the three Pas-
chal Letters, or episcopal charges, already men-
tioned, and one more ; and some other unim-
portant orations, letters, and controversial works.
The Paschal Letters are still extant in a trans-
lation by Jerome, and are published in the Anti-
dot, conti-a divers, omniuin seculorum heresias, Basil.
1528, fol.; and the whole of his extant remains
are contained in Gallandii Biblioth. Putr. vol. vii.
pp. 603, foil. ; Socrat. H.E. vL 7 — 17; Sozom,
Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/1097
This page needs to be proofread.
THEOPHILUS. THEOPHILUS.
1085
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Dictionary_of_Greek_and_Roman_Biography_and_Mythology_%281870%29_-_Volume_3.djvu/page1097-1024px-Dictionary_of_Greek_and_Roman_Biography_and_Mythology_%281870%29_-_Volume_3.djvu.jpg)