THE INFLUENCE OF THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA ON

AUGUSTINE'S LETTER 187

It can be said, with at least some truth, that by the year 390
Augustine had shaped a christological pattern that was to endure for the
rest of his life: from his writings of that period Christ emerged as a
uniquely graced man, the exemplar of true wisdom because uniquely
and personally united to the Wisdom and Word of God. 1 But the pat-
tern, although set in outline, was by no means complete; over the years
the themes would be broadened and deepened, refined and elaborated,
and others added. It is the argument of this paper that not only was
this development in general along what are known as 'antiochene' 2 lines,
but that Augustine was for some years after 415 influenced in particular
by at least one work of Theodore of Mopsuestia.
The first notable enrichment of Augustine's early christology had
been evidenced in 392 in the expositions on the first thirty-two psalms.
These homilies reflected a new awareness of the humanity of Christ and
of its saving role; the somewhat remote and impersonal teacher and

1 This statement prescinds from Augustine's well-known criticism of his early

christology in the seventh book of the Confessions. Whether he was in fact too
-hard on himself or not, certainly by 392 he was no 'photinian'. And although
his first use of 'person' to denote the union of divine and human in Christ did
not occur before 394/5, as T. Van Bavel pointed out (Recherches sur la christo·
logie de saint Augustin, Fribourg, 1954, p. 13) the idea was there earlier (as
Van Bavel recognized).
2 The term 'antiochene' has, of course, a range of connotations, favourable
and unfavourable to difIerent eats, and takes on an intelligible meaning only when
used in contrast to another type of christology, usually 'alexandrian'. Very broadly,
'antiochene' as I .use it here means not only a christology that insists on Christ's
full humanity, but one which sees that humanity as having been able to exist
independently of the Word, although in fact it never did-hence the preference
in that 'school' for the term 'man'. In antiochene christology, therefore, the
union will be what has become (pejoratively) known as 'moral', i.e. personal in
that one person is effected, but no 'substantial'. Cf. J. M. Dewart, 'The notion
of "person" underlying the christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia', Studia Patristica
XII (1975) 199-207. The 'antiochene' character of Augustine's christology has long
been recognized, particularly by German scholarship, but, because of the adverse
view taken of such a christology, particularly among Roman Catholic scholars, this
recognition has been tempered by a certain defensiveness and attempts to soften
or explain away these traits.
Joanne McWilliam Dewart 114

model of 391 3 became in them an intensely personal and suffering fellow

man. In these homilies we find now words such as these attributed to
Christ: 'My heart itself has been proven by the visitation of tribulation ....
When I was tested by that tribulation I was found just' 4 and 'I have
kept the laborious ways of human mortality and suffering'.5
Also in these expositions Augustine added explicitly for the first
time the notion of Christ's human soul as a necessary factor in the chris-
tological union. He saw it as necessary in three ways-not only nega-
tively as shield and buffer between the Word and the material world,'
but positively as the means by which God's kingdom would conquer:
My soul is your weapon which your hand, i. e. your eternal strength,
takes up, to subdue through it the kingdoms of wickedness and to divide
the just from the impious.7

And further, Augustine explained, Christ's soul was the locus of the
reciprocal presence 8 of Word and man:
[The human soul itself] so inhered in and in some way coalesced with
the excellent supereminence of the man-taking Word that it was not
laid aside by so great a humiliation as the passion.9

And so he put into Christ's mouth utterances such as:

3 Observe, for example, the picture of Christ in On True Religion.

4 Quia ipsum cor meum visitatione tribulationis probatum est ... qua examina-
tus iustus inventus sum. En. in Ps. 16, 3. CCSL XXXVIII, 92.
5 Ego custodivi vias laboriosas mortalitatis humanae atque passionis. En. in Ps.
16, 4. CCSL XXXVIII, 92.
6 This conception of Christ's human soul as shield and buffer was spelt out
in the treatise of the following year, On Faith and the Creed. Augustin had said
that light is not contaminated by that which it touches, and continued: 'quanto
minus igitur poterat pollui Verbum Dei, non corporeum neque visibile, de femineo
corpore, ubi humanam camem suscepit cum anima et spiritu, quibus intervenien-
tibus habitat majestas est nullo modo potuisse Verbum Dei maculari humano cor-
pore, quo nee ipsa anima humana maculata est.' De Fide et Symbolo X. PL XL, 187.
7 Anima enim mea framea tua est, quam assumit manus tua, id est, aeterna
virtus tua, ut per ipsam regna debellet iniquitatis et dividat iustos ab impiis. En.
in Ps. 16, 13. CCSL XXXVIII, 93.
8 The term 'reciprocal presence' was, I believe, first used by R. V. Sellers in
his book, Eustathius of Antioch, (Cambridge. 1928), to describe 'the soul dwelling
with the Logos, and the Logos being present to the soul' (p. 107). Eustathius
was, of course, not alone in envisioning the christological union in this way. Cf.
J. M. Dewart, 'Moral union in christology before Nestorius', Laval Tbeologique et
Philosophique XXXII (1976) 283-299.
9 [Mens ipsa humana] ita inhaesit et quodammodo coaluit excellenti superemi-
nentiae Verbi hominem suscipientis, ut tanta passionis humilitate non deponeretur.
En. in Ps. 3,3. CCSL XXXVIII, 8.
The Influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia on Augustine's Letter 187 115

To you, Lord, I cry: 'My God do not separate the unity of your Word
from that which as man I am. . .. For, since that which is of the eternity
of your Word unites itself uninterruptedly with me, I am not such a
man as others who are born into the deep misery of this world. 10
But, coming into the transient world, I did not take my eye[s] from
him who always endures, thus ensuring that, after my activities in time
were finished, I should return to himY

Augustine expressed the inherence and coalescence in metaphors

such as inhabiting a military dwelling 12 or the union of husband and
wife,!3 but he was not then (or, indeed, for many years) prepared to go
beyond metaphor because, as he wrote in 397, the nature of the christo-
logical union was something· 'hidden and difficult to understand'.14
In the twenty years following 392 Augustine's theological develop-
ment was largely ecc1esiological, a by-product of the donatist controversy.
There was scarcely anything innovative in his christology; the themes
of 392 were repeated and elaborated, but little changed and few added.
In 402 he used for the first time the soul/body analogy for the christo-
logical union; 15 its use peaked in the years between 412 and 417, but
it was never entirely abandoned. 16 This comparison of Augustine's has
been thoroughly commented upon.17 He seems to have favoured it for
10 Ad te, Domine, ciamavi, Deus meus ne separes unitatem Verbi tui ab eo
quod homo sum ... Ex eo enim quod aeternitatis Verbi tui non intermittit unire
se mihi, fit ut non siro talls homo quales sunt ceteri, qui nascuntur in profundam
miseriam saeculi huius. En in Ps. 27,2. CCSL XXXVIII, 168.
uSed veniens in ea quae transeunt, non abstuli oculum ab eo qui semper
manet, hoc providens ut in eum post temporalla peracta recurrem. En. in Ps. 15,8.
CCSL XXXVIII, 91.
12 ••• in tempore vel in manifestatione po suit tamquam militare habitaculum
suum, hoc est dispensationem incarnationis suae.... En. I in Ps. 18,6. CCSL
XXXVIII, 102.
13 Et ipse procedens de utero virginali, ubi Deus naturae humanae tamquam
sponsus sponsae copulatus est. En. I in Ps. 18,6. CCSL XXXVIII, 102-103.
14 ... occultum et difficiIe ad intelligendum est, quomodo anima humana Verbo
Dei copuletur, sive misceatur, sive quid melius et aptius dici potest, cum sit iIlud
Deus, ista creatura. Contra Faust. V,4. PL XL, 286-287.
15 Tu homo es propter animam et carnem; ille Christus propter Deum et homi-
nem. Serm. CCXXXVII, 2,2. PL XXXVIII, 1123.
16 E.g. in 419: Filius hominis habet animam, habet corpus. Filius Dei, quod
est Verbum Dei, habet hominem, tamquam anima corpus. Sicut anima habens cor-
pus, non facit duas personas, sed unum hominem; sic Verbum habens hominem,
non facit duas personas, sed unum Christum. Quid est homo? Anima rationalis
habens corpus. Quid est Christus? Verbum Dei habens hominem. In Io. Ev. Tr.
XIX, 15. CCSL XXXVI, 199.
17 Cf. especially E. 1. Fortin, 'The "Definitio Fidei" of Chalcedon and its philo-
sophical sources', Studia Patristica V (1962) 489-98, who argues that the soul/body
analogy is especially appropriate in a neo-platonic setting.
 Joanne McWilliam Dewart 116

two reasons: it provided a metaphor for a union of two realities to make

a third (one plus one equalling one) that, because these realities were
spiritual, demanded neither a mingling in any corporeal sense that would
destroy the identity of either component, nor any kind of spatial alloca-
tion of parts in a whole. It thus allowed a union in which the elements
were mutually present, but distinct. Nevertheless, useful as the meta-
phor was, it remained only a metaphor, one of several that Augustine
continued to use.
. Beginning in 412 a new note appeared in his treatment of the
christological union-a note that was not to be expanded fully until the
early 420s. The emerging pelagian controversy impelled Augustine to
apply the conclusions of that developing theology of grace to his christo-
logy. The notion of grace had not, of course, been entirely lacking in
his understanding of Christ. As early as 392 Christ was presented as
receiving divine favour and help/8 and this receptivity was pictured more
clearly and strongly in the two decades following. 19 It was in 412, how-
ever, that the notion that the christological union was itself a grace first
appeared in Augustine's writings, and the context was that of the absence
of any previous merit:
Pride is the cause of all human offences. For its condemnation and re-
moval a great, heavenly medicine comes. The humble God descends
in mercy, displaying to man puffed up by pride clear and obvious grace
in the very man whom he took to himself with a very great love beyond
[that shown] his fellows. For not even did this one, so conjoined to
the Word of God that by the conjunction he became at the same time
the unique son of God and the same the one son of man, act by the
antecedent merits of his own will. He had, without doubt, to be unique;
had there been two or three or more, if this were possible, it would not
[have come] through God's own gift, but through man's free will and
choice.20

18 E.g. A resistentibus favori quo mihi favores.... In munimento caritatis et

misericordiae tuae protege me .... En. in Ps. 16,8, CCSL XXXVIII, 93. Dominus
adiuvans tanta patientem, et immortalitate protegens resurgentem. En. in Ps. 27, 7.
CCSL XXXVIII, 169.
19 E.g. in 411/12: In hoc ergo Domino et Salvatore nostro Jesu Christo posita
est magna et plena gratia. En. II in Ps. 18,2. CCSL XXXVIII, 106.
20 Vitiorum namque omnium humanorum causa superbia est. Ad hanc convin-
cendam atque auferendam talis medicina coelitus venit; ad elatum hominem per
superbiam, Deus humilis descendit per misericordiam, gratiam claram et manifestam-
que commendans in ipso homine, quem tanta prae participibus suis charitate susce-
pit. Neque enim et ipse ita Verbo Dei conjunctus, ut ipsa conjunctione unus filius
Dei et idem ipse unus filius hominis fieret, praecedentibus suae voluntatis meritis
fecit. Unum quippe ilium esse oportebat: essent autem et duo, et tres, et plures,
si hoc fieri posset, non per Dei proprium donum, sed per hominis liberum arbi-
trium. De Pecc. Mer. II, 17,27. PL XLIV, 168.
The Influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia on Augustine's Letter 187 117

It should be noted, in view of possible misunderstanding, that Au-

gustine was not here presenting a serious argument against Jesus having
merited the incarnation, simply because no such argument seemed to
him at that time necessary.21 This 412 passage is rather an exhortation
to humility, a reiteration of the futility of human acts apart from grace,
a defence of the absolute need for grace. Any suggestion that Christ
had merited was put forward only as an evident absurdity ('if Christ
the man had merited union with the Word, there could be two, three
or several christs!) and the incarnation was adduced as the most eminent
example of the nullity of merit (if Christ, who received such grace, did
not merit, how could anyone else?). In this same passage can be found
a hint-but only a hint--of Augustine's developed position of several
years later. Not only did God clearly and obviously grace the man
assumed, but he assumed him 'with a great love', a love beyond that
manifested to other human persons. In 412, however, this was merely
another attempt to express the 'quodam modo'; it did not drive out the
other metaphors. 22
In the years 415 to 417 Augustine pulled several themes present
in his earlier christology together into a new pattern, and in 417, in
Letter 187, broke what was for him new ground. This letter, some-
times called the 'treatise on the presence of God,23 demonstrates, in
Van Bavel's words, 'a rare doctrinal precision'.24 Augustine had worked
out long before that God is 'with' even those who do not 'possess' him,2S
that the just are in fact 'inhabited' by him,26 that the nearness of the

21 In 412 'merit christology' was not a immediate theological problem. The

Arians, however, had been accused of it earlier, and ten years later Augustine would
attribute this teaching to Julian.
22 E.g. the second exposition on psalm 18 repeated a metaphor employed in
the first twenty years earlier: '[Christus] tamquam sponsus procedens de thalamo
suo. . .. Hoc est, ille tamquam sponsus, cum Verbum caro factum est, in utero
virginali thalamum invenit, atque inde naturae conjunctus humanae ... .' En. II in
Ps. 1,6. CCSL XXXVIII, 109-110. And also in 412 he wrote in the exposition
of psalm 90: 'In carne inhabitavit Verbum, et caro facta est tabernaculum Deo;
in ipso tarbemaculo Imperator mllitavit pro nobis.' En. in Ps. 90, Serm. II,5. CCSL
XXXIX, 1270.
23 First by Augustine himself: 'De praesentia Dei scripsi librum, ubi nostra
intentio contra haeresim Pelagianam maxime vigilat, non expresse nominatur; sed
in eo edam de praesentia naturae, quem Deum summum et verum dicimus, et de
templo ejus operose ac subtiliter disputator.' Retract. II,49. PL XXXII, 650.
24 'La ceIebre lettre sur la presence de Dieu temoigne d'une rare precision
doctrinal.' Van Bavel, p. 29.
2S Nam isti nec cum Deo mW videntur esse et a Deo tamen haberi, itaque
non possum eos sine Deo esse dicere, quod Deus habet. Cum Deo item non dico,
quia ipsi non habent Deum. . .. De Ord. II, vii,20. CCSL XXIX, 118.
26 Ipsa ergo erit aeterna exsultatio, cum templum Dei fiunt justi; . . . Haec
Joanne McWilliam Dewart 118

just to God is a function not only of his love, but of their WillS,27 that
the resulting intimacy is a participation in the godhead by grace,28 and
that God and man mutually inhabit, the one giving, the other gaining
life.29 But, except in the very general metaphors of indwelling (in a
temple or military encampment) already noted, Augustine had not dis-
cussed the christological union under the rubric of divine presence. In
Letter 187 he did so, and wrote that God is present to Christ not sub-
stantially nor by operation, but by love and grace, and that this gracious
presence differs from the divine presence to the just in general in its
fullness and because it brings about a personal union between the Word
and the man in Christ.3O The questions arise: what led Augustine in
the first place to this discussion of the christological union in terms of
divine presence, and, secondly, to the method and conclusions of that
discussion.
O'Connell has pointed out the influence of Plotinus, and particularly
of Ennead VI, 4-5, on Augustine's earlier understanding of the omni-
presence of God which enabled him to posit a presence in which neither
the divine self-possession nor the universality of that presence to all
creation without containment is threatened.31 It is a presence 'non-bodily,
non-spatial, utterly partless, hence, if present at all, then present entire
to each unity of the inferior world-and consequently common to them
all and the property of none'.32 This plotinian influence endured and
remained the basis for the elaboration of 417, but further influences are
not so clearly established. T eSelle has suggested that Letter 187 owes
its treatment of the christological union at least in part to Gregory
Nazianzus' Letter 101.33 Although Augustine may have read some of
Gregory's works in translation,34 he did not follow his teaching in this

est benedictio, gloriari in Deo, et inhabitari a Deo. En. in Ps. 5,16-17. CCSL,
XXXVIII, 36.
27 Unus ergo idemgue homo corpore stans uno loco, et amando Deum accedit
ad Deum, et amando iniquitatem recedit a Deo; . .. Pedes enim nostri in hoc iti-
nere, affectus nostri En. in Ps. 94,2. CCSL XXXIX,1331. Cf. also En. in Ps. 123,1
and En. in Ps. 84, 11.
28 'Deos' dixit participatione, non natura; gratia, quo voluit facere deos. En.
in Ps. 94,6. CCSL XXXIX, 1335.
29 Ergo in guibus est ipse, tamquam indigentia continet, non ab eis tamquam
indigens continetur. En. in Ps. 113, Serm. 1,14. CCSL XL, 1641.
30 The pertinent passages will be quoted in the body of the article.
31 R. J. O'Connell, 'Ennead VI, 4-5 in the Works of Saint Augustine', Revue
des Etudes Augustiniennes IX (1963) 1-39.
32 O'Connell, p. 9.
33 E. TeSelle, Augustine the Theologian, London, 1970, p. 149. (Pages 146-156
of this book give a good summary of Augustine's christology.)
.34 B. Altaner, 'Augustin, Gregor von Nazianz und Gregor von Nyssa', Revue
Benedictine LXI (1951) 54-62.
The Influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia on Augustine's Letter 187 119

case; instead he rejected the very mode of union that Gregory had opted
for (substantial, kat'ousian) and adopted the one he had rejected (by
grace, kata charin).3s It is against this background that I suggest that
Letter 187 be compared to Theodore's Treatise on the Incarnation.
The suggestion of so close a link between Augustine and Theodore
is, I believe, a new one.36 I am aware that it would be much more
easily acceptable if it could be established either that the Treatise on
the Incarnation had been translated into Latin by 415, or that Augustine
was by that time reading Greek easily. I think neither can be proven.
On the one hand, we know that Theodore was highly esteemed in the
east:rr and as likely as any to be translated. We know also that he was
popular at a later date in North Africa,38 and that Augustine in 428
thought him an exponent of sound teaching.39 On the other hand, there
is the whole question of Augustine's knowledge of the writings of the
Greek church; the best opinion seems to be that it was wide, but super-
ficial. 4O
My argument rests, however, on a comparison of the writings them-
selves. The resemblances seem to me to be sufficiently strongly marked
to indicate (unless one posits a common source, of which I am unaware)

35 Ef 'rt;, cl>; ev npocp-lj'r7J, )..eyot x()t'toc X()tPW ivepytjxmt, ~ 11.1] )(()t'rtOUo-LOCV cruvijcp&()tt n
X()tt auv&m'Eo-kt •••• Ep. CI. PG XXXVII, 180. It should be pointed out, how-
ever, that what Gregory meant by 'union by grace' was not what Theodore and
Augustine meant; i.e. for Gregory a union 'by grace' was not a 'personal' union.
36 Van Bavel frequently recognizes the similarities between Theodore and Augus-
tine, but nowhere attempts to show a direct dependence. Many of the passages
he notes are from the johannine commentaries; a close comparison of the two would,
I suspect, reveal further influence of Theodore on Augustine.
37 He was deputed, while still a relatively young man and before being made
a bishop, to defend the orthodox teaching on the Holy Spirit against the Mace-
donians, and Barhadbesabba in his History says that the emperor Theodosius's ad-
miration of Theodore was so great that he referred all scriptural questions to him.
Barhadbesabba also claims tllat Theodore was well-known in the west. Cf. History ot
the Holy Fathers.. Patrologia Orientalis IX, edd ..R. Graffin and F. Nau, Paris, 1907-.
38 The North Mrican, Facundus, knew of a Latin translation of some of Theo-
dore's writings by 548, and complained of its poor quality. Swete suggests that
the commentary on the minor pauline epistles may have been translated in North
Mrica, where the Three Chapters condemnation was much resented. Cf. H. B. Swete,
Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in Epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii, Cambridge, 1880,
vol. I, Iv.
39 When he was cited (with Basil and John Chrysostom) by Julian, Augustine
replied, 'Would that you held their faith!'. Cf. Opus Imperfectum III, 111, PL
45, 1295.
40 The most detailed examination of this question can be found in a series of
articles by B. Altaner: three in the Revue Benedictine (1949, 1951, 1952) and one
in Vigiliae Christianae (1952). .
Joanne McWilliam Dewart 120

that Augustine had read and assimilated the Antiochene's treatise, per-
haps as early as 415, certainly by 417. It was not a matter of Augus-
tine's conversion to a view radically different from that he had held, but
rather, if my hypothesis is correct, of his finding in Theodore's work
a doctrine congenial to the direction his own christology had been taking,
and which he thereupon made his own. Certain aspects of Theodore's
thought which either were irrelevant to the purpose of Letter 187 or
jarred with Augustine's view of human nature (so much less positive
than Theodore's) were left aside. .
In considering the similarities and differences between the two texts
the circumstances and aims of each should be kept in mind. Augustine's
letter arose from the query of Dardanus on the meaning of Christ's words
to the penitent thief, 'this day you shall be with me in paradise'-did
this answer indicate that paradise was indeed a place? 41 Augustine
replied by distinguishing between the human and divine modes of Christ's
presence: on that day his soul would be in hell, his body in the grave,
but his divinity in the paradise in which it always dwells.42 This distinc-
tion led Augustine into a discussion of the notion of divine presence
generally and the inhabitation of the just in particular, and finally into
the question of God's presence in Christ.
Theodore had been much more involved than Augustine in the
ongoing christological disputes of the late fourth and early fifth centuries,
and his treatise, as its title indicates, was solely concerned with christology.
It had been written about 390, and survives only in sizeable fragments,
many of which,.because of the circumstances in which they were preserved
(the question of his condemnation in 553) deal with the manner of the
christological union.43 Early in the treatise, prior to the texts quoted
below, he had established that God's indwelling is not the same as his
presence generally, and his concern was then to determine what is meant
by 'inhabitation'.44
The relevant texts of both bishops follow. I shall indicate both the
similarities and dissimilarities, and account as best I can for the latter.

41 Quaeris igitur, mediator dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus quo modo
nunc esse credatur in caelo, cum pendens in ligno iamque moriturus lattoni credenti
dixedit; hodie mecum eris in paradiso. Ep. CLXXXVII, 2,3. CSEL LVII, 83.
42 Homo quippe Christus illo die secundum carnem in sepulcro, secundum
animam in inferno futurus erat; deus vero idem ipse Christus ubique semper est.
Ep. CLXXXVII, 3,7. CSEL LVII,87.
43 To be found in PG LXVI, 969-1002, and in H. B. Swete, Theodori Episcopi
Mopsuesteni in Epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii, Cambridge, 1880, vol. II, 290-31l.
44 Et ya.p ~.&oofLE'll (5'1tOO~ iJ £vo(x"laL~ ytv&'t'ov, da6lLE-9« XlXl 'tOil 't'p6'1toll XlXl 't't~ ~ 't'Ot)
't'p6'1tolJ 3LlXqlopa, Swete II, 293. PG LXVI, 972B.
 The Influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia on Augustine's Letter 187 121

THEODORE AUGUSTINE

(1) What is said of us according to Although God is said to be everywhere

condition of place is said of God extended, thinking materially must be
according to intention. .. because resisted and the mind must be turned
that which change of place accom- away from the bodily senses lest we
plishes in us, the will effects in think God to be extended spatially
God, who, it happens, is every- through all things. . .. God is every-
where by nature.45 where through the presence of his
divini ty.46

Both authors agreed that God's omnipresence is not in any sense material
or spatial, but is a function of his 'nature' (Theodore) or his 'divinity'
(Augustine). I am not, of course, suggesting that Augustine depended
on Theodore for this insight; it was a commonplace of philosophical the-
ology, and Augustine himself had voiced it thirty years earlier. (It is
interesting to note in passing Theodore's focus on God's will, reflecting
his characteristic placing of the divine and human wills in the forefront
of his theology.) .
(2) Therefore, to say that God inhabits But thus is God extended through all
by substance is highly unbecoming. things, not as quality of the world,
For it would be necessary to re- but as the creative substance of the
strict his substance to those things world. . .. [He is extended] not by
alone in which he is said to dwell, location in space... but contained
and he would be outside everything in no place, in himself totally every-
else. This is an absurd thing to where.48
say of an infinite nature, present
everywhere and enclosed in no
place.47

Theodore had begun his argument in this treatise by saying that we know
from scripture (Leviticus 26,12) that inhabitation is not a universal mode

45 "01te:p yap ecp' 7)f1.WV XIX't'~ "t"1Jv €v '1:61t<J> A€yt"tIXL crx.&crIV, 't"0iJ't'0 em 't"ou &e:ou XC('t"~ 'l1)v
-r'i'j~ YV6>[L"tJ<; •.•• Em:L/)1) orre:p ecp' iJf1.WVi) f1.t:'tcX~IXcrL<; e:PYcXt:e:'t'IX 'I.oU't'O €1tt 't"ou &e:ou iJ yv6>f1."tJ,
d:1tIXV't"IXXOU -r'i'j CPUcre:L 'l"\)yxcXvoV't"O~. Swete II, 300. PG LXVI, 981D-84A.
46 Quod dicitur deus ubique diffusus, carnali resistendum est cogitationi et mens
a corporis sensibus avocanria, ne quasi spatiosa magnitudine opinemur deum per
cuncta diffundi ... [deus] per divinitatis praesentiam ubique est. Ep. CLXXXVII,
4,11; 5,16. CSEL LVII, 90, 94.
47 OucrLIX [Lev OUV A€ye:LV €vOLxe:rV -rOV &sOV 't'wv ci:rcpe:mcr-rcX't'oov ~cr't'£v. ~ YIXfl ci.vcXy>t"tJ 't'O&rOL~
!L6VOL~ IXU-rOU "t"1JV oucr!otv =PL~A€1te:LV or~ civ tVOLxe:rV ).e:y&'t"IXL, XIXL ~cr't"IXL 't'WV moov d:~OOV
~'t'6~, 8m:p &'t'01tOV elm:!v rnL -r'i'j<; IX7tdpol) cpoae:oo<; -r'i'j~ &:=V't'IXXOU TroGpoucrYJ<; XIXt OMe:vL 't'61t!p
=PLYPIXCPO[L~t;' Swete II,300. PG LXVI, 981D-84A.
48 Sed sic est deus per cuncta diffusus, ut non sit qualitas mundi, sed substan-
tia creatrix mundi... non tamen perspati locorum... nullo contentus loco, sed in
se ipso uhique totus. Ep. CLXXXVII, 4,14. CSEL LVII, 92.
Joanne McWilliam Dewart 122

of the divine presence. We know from other of his wtltmgs, notably

the Catechetical Homilies, that creativity was (with immutability and holi-
ness) in his eyes the identifying characteristic of the divine nature.49 It
is precisely as creator that God is present 'in his infinite nature' every-
where to the totality of creation; he can be absent from none of it.
Theodore was thus arguing not only from the impossibility of an infinite
spiritual nature being confined, but also from the impossibility of the
infinite creative nature being absent from any part of the created world.
The particularity of inhabitation, therefore, means that it cannot be by
substance. On the other hand, it would be equally absurd, Theodore
argued, to extend the meaning of inhabitation to include the non-rational
and non-animate.50 Theodore may very well have been responding to
Gregory Nazianzus' position that God was present to Christ substantially
by arguing that no inhabitation can be kat"ousian.
Augustine did not bother with the refutation (Gregory's doctrine--or
indeed the christological controversies-was not of immediate con-
cern to Dardanus or to his readers generally), but stated the same
point positively: God is extended through all things as creative substance,
ruling and containing all not through location in space, but totally present
everywhere. It is, interestingly, Augustine who used the adjective
'creative' here. The idea of the divine omnipresence as creative was
certainly not new to Augustine, but the juxtaposition of that notion in
necessary association with 'contained in no place' may have been.
(3) [If we say inhabitation to be by . .. through certain people in whom
operation] the same can be said .... [God] does not dwell, or does not yet
Either of necessity to restrict his dwell, something of his power op-
operation to those things only [in erates.53
which he dwells] (and what will
then become of our conviction that
God foresees and directs all things,
and himself operates in all things
that belong to him?) or we affirm

49 Cf. Catechetical Homilies I: 'He is God and apart from him nothing else is
God, but only that which is from eternity and is the cause of everything. He is
God, and he who is not such is not God by nature.' R. Tonneau, Les Homelies
Catechetiques de Theodore de Mopsueste. Vatican City, 1949, 23-25. And also
Catechetical Homilies II: where the non-divine is 'separated from God in substance'
precisely by having been created. Ibid. 45-47.
so 7) )J.yovra. Q;"mXV"tttxoi:i 'ITa.pe:"CVCXL orov ~e:OV -rij) Myij) 't"1jc; O{)o-LcxC;, &mxo-w ~i:i (-t~a.8L86vcxL
xcxl 't"1jc; EVOLX~8e:6)c;, ouxe-ri. (L6vov cXv~p<lmoLC;, cXM&: xcxl &Mo-OLC; '1\87, xcxl TOLC; &'ljJuXOLc;, e.t'ITe:p
ouo-La. 'I"1jv EvoLXllo-LJ CXIJ't"OV 'ITOLe:"Ccr~CXL <p-ljao(LE:V. Swete II, 294; PG LXVI, 972C.
Cf. footnote 35.
51
in quibus non habitat vel nondum habitat deus, aliquid virtutis opera-
53 •••
tur. ... Ep. CLXXXVII, 12, 36. CSEL LVII, 113-114.
The Influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia on Augustine's Letter 187 123

the generality of his operations (as

is fitting and suitable, for every-
thing is strengthened by him with
a view to each operating according
to its own nature), and say that
he inhabits allY

They were again agreed that divine presence by operation is a wider

reality than inhabitation, and that, therefore, inhabitation cannot be accord-
ing to operation. Theodore was here probably attempting to refute
Eustathius of Antioch's position, or that of Marcellus of Ancyra, both of
whom had suggested that God was present to Christ according to opera-
tion,54 but Augustine, equally probably, knew nothing of this and so missed
the point of Theodore's argument. He interpreted it instead in terms of
miracles worked by non-christians, and asserted that there was no need
to worry that some who did not follow Christ nevertheless expelled
demons in his name, because 'something of his power operates in them'.
I have not found this discussion of presence by operation, or its non-
equation with indwelling, in Augustine's writings before this.
( 4) I do not say merely [that he does God is not everywhere by the grace
not dwell] in all things that are, of inhabitation.... Those in whom
but also not in all men; there must he dwells have him according to their
be some special characteristics different capacities.... God, who is
[which are] the reason for inhabi- everywhere totally present, does not
tation, which are present only in dwell everywhere, but in his temple,
those in whom he is said to dwell to which he is favourable and well-
. . . Oearly, therefore, one ought disposed through grace. 56

52 To 8' a.u-ro rJ.v 'ne; e:t'ltOL xcd tltl -rijc; tve:pydexe;. ~ ya.p tXvrXYXlj 'ltrX)..w exUTcj) 't7jv tv&pye:texv
'toU't'OLC; mpLypcicpe:w IL6vOLC;. Xa.L 'ltOU <n1jona.L ~[LW 0 Myoe;, 0 -rOU 'ltOCv't'wv 'ltPOVOe:LV TOV .&e:ov
xexl &'lta.'J'I'tX 8LOLxe:iv xot;l tv 'ltiXaLV a.U-rov tve:pye:i:v T&. 'ltpoa-i)xOV'L"ex; 'Il 'lta.aLV a.u-roU -rijc; tve:pye:f.or.e;
ILe:'rexi3t8oV't"e:e; - (Imp oU'oI'Itprnov -re: xa.t tXx6)..1J.&ov· ti'ltot;V't"IX yap U'lt' OI:u-rOU 8uvex[Lo\Yt-a.L 'ltpOC;
'to auvta'rrXvext 't"e: ~a.a-rov xOI:l xex-r& ~ otxdexv tpuaw tve:pye:!v - nexaLV exu'tov tvOLXe:i:V tpoUfLEV
Swete II, 294; PG LXVI, 972D·973A.
54 Cf. Eustathius', criticism of Origen's exegesis of the Witch of Endor (PG
XVIII, 613-676) in which Eustathius says Origen's voluntarism' does not do justice
to the christological union, which was one of Christ's soul and the Word 'living
together' with resulting shared power and operations. Eustathius' christology is far
from clear; Cf. R. V. Sellers, Eustathius of Antioch (Cambridge, 1928), F. Zoep£1,
'Die trinitarischen und christologischen Anschuungen des Bischofs Eustathius von
Antiochen', Theologischen Quartalschrift CIV (1923) 170-201, M. Spanneut, Recher-
ches ,our les ecrits d'Eustache d'Antioche (Lille, 1948), J. M. Dewart, 'Moral union
in christology before Nestorius', Laval Theologique et Philosophique XXXII (1976)
288-291.
56 [Deus] non ubique per habitationis gratiam [est] ... in quibus habitat, ha-
beant eum pro sua capacitatis diversitate.... Deus, igitur, qui ubique praesens est,
et ubique totus praesens, nee ubique habitans sed in templo suo, cui per gratiam
Joanne McWilliam Dewart 124

to say that inhabitation is by good

pleasure. Good pleasure is the
best and noblest will of God, which
he kindly effects towards those an-
xious to devote themselves to him,
because that which concerns them
appears good and beautiful to
him.55

They were again of one mind in further limiting the meaning of inhabita-
tion: it is not common to all men. There must be some characteristics
(Theodore) or a capacity (Augustine) corresponding to the divine selec-
tivity. This special human quality is met, in Theodore's text, by 'good
pleasure', 'the best and noblest will of God' bestowed on those attractive
to him, and in Augustine's by the favour and good disposition of God
through grace. The similarity of the language applying to God is worth
remarking, and also the dissimilarity of that applying to the human.
Augustine, who had twenty-odd years earlier used the active metaphor
of the human will as the feet that bring persons to God,57 did not in
417 pick up Theodore's 'those anxious to devote themselves to him', but
cast his thought in less active terms: 'those in whom he dwells have him
according to their different capacities'. The idea that God does not in-
habit everyone was not new to Augustine (he had talked in 415 of God
not dwelling in contaminated vessels), nor was the notion of 'capacity'.58
(5) On the one hand, boundless and Since, therefore, [God], who is every-
unlimited in his nature, he is pre- where, does not dwell in all men, he
sent to all; on the other, by good does not dwell equally. For how
pleasure he is far from some, close could Elisha ask that the Spirit of God
to others. . .. He is close by dis- be in him twice as much as in Elijah,
position to those worthy of this and how is it that among all the saints
intimacy, and is, in tum, removed some are holier than others unless by

benignus est et propitius. Ep. CLXXXVII, 5,16; 6,19; 13,38. CSEL LVII, 94,
98, 116.
55 ... 0,) ).J;yCJl 't'01:e; oi'icrw !J.6vov, ill' o,)l:le tXV'&pW7tOLe;, lI:lL&~OVt'& 'twO( l:le1: e:!Vo(L -.Ov l.6yov
't'lie; lvoLx~creCJle; x:x.&' liv e:xdVOLe; mxpe(TtW !J.6vov ote; liv lvoLxe1:v Aey~L ... l:lijAOV ow we;
e;,)l:lox£cx MyeLv y(vecr.!)-Q(L 't"lJv e:vo£x'1)O'w 'npo~xeL' e:ul:loxEa I:le ).bye:-ra.L 7J &p£tTt'Yj Xa.L X«M£a-t'7)
.aiA'1)O'Le; 't'ou .&e:ou iJv &v ,,"OL~O'e:'t'Q(L &pecr.&e:1e; 't'01:e; &.v!xxe:ra.!)-Q(L O(,)-.i/l ~~oul:lQ()(6(nv &""0' 't'OU
e:G xexi x«M: 1:l0xe1:v o(Ihi/l 7te:p~ O(,)'t'wv. Swete II, 294; PG LXVI, 972BC-973B.
57 a.
footnote 27.
Nam sicut in magna hominis domo, non in qualicumque loco eius requiescit
58
dominus eius, sed in aliquo utique secretiore et honoratiore loco, sic Deus non in
omnibus qui domus eius sunt habitat (non enim habitat in vasis contumeliae).
En. in Ps. 67,7. CCSL XXXIX, 872. [Verbum Dei] adest tamen sive occultum
sive manifestum, sicut lux adest oculis et videntis, et caeci; sed videnti adest prae-
sens, caeco vero absens. Ep. CXXXVII, 7. PL XXXIII, 518.
The Influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia on Augustine's Letter 187 125

from sinners, neither parted nor having God indwelling more abun-
coming nearer by nature, but ef- dantly? Therefore, how did we truly
fecting both by attitude of will .... say earlier that God is everywhere
And so, truly, the integral bound- present in his totality when he is in
lessness of his nature is preserv- some to a greater, some to a lesser
ed . .. Said thus to dwell in some degree? But it must not be forgotten
way, in no sense is equality of in- that we said he is everywhere present
habitation found, but by good totally 'in himself', not therefore in
pleasure there will be the appro- those who receive him, some more,
priate mode of indwelling. There- some less. . .. Those persons are said
fore, whether he is said to dwell to be far removed from him who by
in the apostles or in the just gener- sin are made unlike him, and those are
ally, he effects his inhabitation as said to be near him who receive his
if taking pleasure in the just, or, likeness by pious living, just as eyes,
in a sense, approving the virtuous.59 to the extent that they are more blind,
are said to be far from the light.«l

Furthermore, inhabitation itself is not equal, and the two fathers agreed
that the degree of inhabitation, like the fact, corresponds to something
in the person inhabited. But again, Theodore's explanation tends towards
the active, Augustine's towards the passive. Theodore talked in terms
of 'those worthy of this intimacy', Augustine used the analogy of the eye
unable to perceive light, and, while sin may distance the human person
and make him 'unlike' God, the positive statement is receptive only.
This is the first time of which I am aware that Augustine discussed the
degrees of inhabitation and the reasons for them.
(6) In [Christ], certainly, we do not Of him, our true head, the apostle said,
say inhabitation to have taken place 'For in him dwells bodily all the full-

59 &m:~po~ !J.tv yctp (},v xotl «m:plypotcpo~ rljv cpocrw 'TicXpe:<n"~v "or~ 'Tia.cr~v • 'tij 3i; e:u3ox(ot
or;;'v !J.EV &<n"W tLotXpciv, '"'wv ae: iyyU~ .... i:yyu~ ore: y«p y(ve:-rot~ Tii a~otWae:~ T;;'V ot~((,)V =&nj~
'tij~ ~~, Xotl ,.roppc.>&e:v 'TicXAW orwv ,xfLotp!IXV6VT(,)V yLve:-rIX~' oiYt'E 'tij cpocre:~ x(,)p~l:6!l-EVO~
olYte: 't'oto-rn 'Tihlcr~otETe:pov xluhcr't'cX!J.e:'Io~, Tii ae crxecrs~ ,",7j~ yvoo!J.7j~ cX!l-cp6Te:pot tpy/Xl:6!J.Svo~ .
... otA7j.ai~ otl'n-iii XotL &xepot~OV oro ,",7j~ cpocrs(,)~ cX'TispLypotcpov 3~otcrool:~ot~. . .. a:AA' cXX6AOU'&OV £~SL
'tij e:{)aoxEot xotl TOV 'tije;; tvo~x-Ijcre:(,)e;; Tp6'1tov • (hotv TO(VUV 'Ii tVTO;:~ c%'lt0<n"6AO~~ 'Ii OA(')~ tv ,",0 i:~
aLX/XLo~~ tvOLXSi:V My7jorIX~, &I~ tv a~xotLo~~ e:{)aoxwv '1tO~S;:TIX~ -rljv tvobt7jcr~v, &Ie;; tvIXP~O~~ x(no:
orov orp6'TioV clpscrx6!J.EVOe;;. Swete II, 295; PGLXVI, 976B.
60 Cum igitur, qui ubique est, non in omnibus habitat, non aequaliter habitat.
Nam unde est illud, quod Helisaeus poposcit, ut dupliciter in eo fieret spiritus dei,
qui erat in Relia? Et unde in omnibus sanctis sunt aliis alii sanctiores, nisi abun-
dantius habendo habitatorem Deum? Quo modo ergo verum supra diximus, quod
Deus ubique sit totus, quando in aliis est amplius in aliis minus? Sed non est
negligenter intuendum, quod diximus in se ipso esse ubique totum, non ergo in eis,
quae alia plus eum capiunt alia minus.... Rique ab eo longe esse dicuntur, qui
peccando dissimillimi facti sunt, et hi ei propinquare, qui eius similitudinem pie
vivendo recipiunt, sicut recte dicuntur oculi tanto esse ab hac luce longius, quanta
fuerint caeciores. Ep. CLXXXVII, 5,17. CSEL LVII, 94-95.
Joanne McWilliam Dewart 126

thus [i. e. as in the just generally], ness of divinity'. Not 'bodily' certain-
for we would not be so mad, but ly in the sense that God is a body ...
rather as in a son. For thus [but in the sense of] the body
[God] inhabited [him] by good of Christ, which he took from the
pleasure. . .. He was thought virgin [and] in which he dwells as
worthy of the indwelling of the in a temple.... What follows from
Spirit preeminently before ,others. this? Although in any holy member,
And he was deemed worthy of this whether a great prophet or apostle,
in a way unlike others. For he divinity in some sense dwells, but not,
received in himself all the grace however, all the fullness of divinity
of the Spirit. . .. [We do not say as it does in the head, which is Christ
Christ to have been only a man], -are we to judge this to be the dif-
but he was inhabited by God the ference between head and members?
Word from his very formation in For in our body there is but one sense
the womb, inhabited truly not ac- in the members, but such is not the
cording to that which is known as case in the head, where precisely there
grace, but according to that excel- are five. . .. Or further, beyond this,
lent mode by which we also say since the fullness of divinity dwells in
that both natures are united, and, that body as in a temple, is the dif-
following that union, one person ference other between that head and
is effected ....61 the excellence of any member? Clear-
ly [it is that] by the unique taking-up
of some sort of that man, there comes
to be one person with the Word. For
of none of the other saints could this
be said, nor can it be, nor will it ever
be able to be said.62

61 tv ocu...ij) tJ.MO~ -rljv tvotX7)aw OUX oiho<; cpoctJ.&V y&"fEVija&a.~ - tJ.lJ "'(<XP lJ.v, 't'080th-o !J.OC-
ve:t'l)[.L&v 7to're - &:>J.... ~e; tv ulij). oihwe; "'(ocp e?l80xiJaoc.; tVWX1)aeY .... -f)1;~w.&1J "'(ouv xoc~ 't'ij.; 'rOU
7tVeutJ.oc'ro<; tvo~xiJaewe; n-pWtOe; 7tOCp<X 'rou,; Aomoue; (h&pw7tou.;. xoct 7J1;~w.&1J 't'ocUon)e; OUX OtJ.OLWC;
'rOLe; AomoLC; olIToe; tJ.&v YOCP /SA'l)V 't'l]v :J(cipw 'rou 7tVeU!J.OC'ro<; tv €otU't'w t8el;oc't'o, hipo~e; 8e [.L&p~x'l)v
mtpeL:J(ev 't'ou 'TI:0CV't'0e; 7tveUtJ.oc't'oe; 't'ljv [.L&'t'ouatocv. [Dicimus non puro alicui hornini] sed
a Deo Verbo ab ipsa in utero mams plasmatione, inhabitato vero non secundum
communem inhabitationem neque iuxta earn quae in multis intelligetur gratiam, sed
iuxta quandam excellentem, secundum quam etiam adunari dicimus utrasque naturas
et unam iuxta adunationem effectas esse personam. Swete II, 295-296, 298, 307.
PG LXVI, 976B, 980C, 990B.
62 De ipso veto capite nostro apostolus ait: 'quia in ipso inhabitat omnis ple-
nitudo divinitatis corporaliter', non ideo 'corporaliter' quia corporeus est deus ....
Aut certe 'corporaliter' dictum est, quia et in Christi corpore, quod adsumpsit ex
virgine, tamquam in templo habitat Deus.... Quid ergo est? Hoccine interesse
arbitramur inter caput et membra cetera, quod in quolibet quamvis praecipuo mem-
bro velut in aliquo magna propheta aut apostolo quamvis divinitas habitet, non
tamen sicut in capite, quod est Christus, omnis plenitudo divinitatis, nam et in
nostro corpore inest sensus singulis membris sed non tantus quantus in capite, ubi
prorsus omnis est quinquepertitus.... An etiam praeter hoc, quod tam quam in
templo in ilio corpore habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis, est aliud, quod intersit
The Influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia on Augustine's Letter 187 127

The two bishops of course agreed that the divine indwelling in Christ
was different from that 'in the just generally'. Theodore designated the
special mode of the inhabiting of God the Word in Christ by the phrase
'as in a son'. 'As in a son' meant for him (in the context of his strongly
homoousian trinitarian theology) the kind of indwelling that is total shar·
ing and oneness in being which brought about one person in Christ and a
consequent total sharing of divine dignity and power with that person.
In an attempt to explain the qualitative difference of that phrase 'as in
a son', Theodore was driven to the quantitative term 'all'.63
The theme of totality was echoed by Augustine, but using Colos-
sians 2,9 as his key text. (He may have wondered why Theodore had
missed so obvious a text, or, if he had read Theodore's commentaries
on the minor pauline epistles, he would have known the reason. Theodore
had an exegesis of that text peculiar to himself in the patristic age. 'The
fullness of divinity', he wrote, 'is the created universe completed, brought
to fulfillment in him.') 64 Augustine used the Colossians text in three
ways of ascending importance: 'bodily' in the sense of the temple of
Christ's body; 'fullness' in Theodore's quasi-quantitative sense of the
totality of divinity (using the metaphor of the five senses); finally, 'in

inter iliud caput et cuiuslibet membri excellentiam? Est plane, quod singulari qua-
dam susceptione hominis illius una facta est persona cum Verbo. De nullo enim
sanctorum dici potuit aut potest aut poterit. Ep. CLXXXVII, 13, 40. CSEL LVII,
116-117.
as
63 '1"( £a't"LV 'r0 Wt; tv utij> j if>an EvoLx~alXt; I5AOV (WJ EtxU'rij) 'rOV Aoc(L(3«v6(WJov ~V6>-
0&\1, 'ltlXpeaxwlXaev 8e IXlhov ClU(L(L&TIXOXe:!v IXUTOO rclXCI"r)t; TIjt; 'rL!Llit; -9jt; IXU'rOt; 0 EvOLXOOV, uto~
if>v !pOOe:L !Le:'rtX.eL • wt; ClUne:Ae:!v !Lev dt; tv 'ltp6a6>'ltov, XIX'r1X ye: -rlJv 7tPOt; IXU't'OV !v6>aw, -rcOCCI"r)t;
81 ctu'rij> XOLV6>Ve;!v 'rlit; IXpXlit;, olYt 6>t; 8e: -rcocnor xlXnpylX~~a.lh~L ev IXU-rOO wt; xlXt 'rliv 't'OU 'ltIXV-
'ro~ XptaLV 're: XlXt t~&'tlXaLv 8L' ctUTOU 't"& XlXt 't'1jt; IXU'rOU 7tlXpouab:t; tm't'e:Ae:w' TIjt; 8LIX!popiit;
Ev 't"ct!t; Xot'ra -rlJv !puaLv XotpotX'r7JPL~OUaw 87JAOV6't'L vooU(WJ. Swete II, 246. PG LXVI,
976BC.
The association in Theodore's mind between the total communication of grace
and sonship is clear from many of his writings, e.g. 'For God, he said, did not give
him a small part of the grace of the Spirit, as to other men, but the total plenitude,
because he loved him; and on that account he also handed over to him universal
domination. It is clear that this pertains to that human nature which, because of
its union with God the Word, received universal domination overall things.' In
Io. 3,35. Voste, p. 59. '"For to me", he said, "all the grace of the Spirit is given
because I am united to God the Word, and have received true sonship .... ".' In
10. 16,14-15, Voste, p. 57. Theodore's argument is that the union is initiated by
grace, maintained by divine grace and human good-will, and that grace flows from
that continuing union both to Christ himself and to all mankind.
64 Omnem plenitudinem deitatis hoc in loco iterum dicit universam creaturam
repletam ab eo; dicit enim ilium sensum quem in superioribus posuisse visus est,
quoniam omnis creatura in eo inhabitat, hoc est, ipsi coniunctas est, et quasi quod-
dam corpus in se retinet aptatum, propter illam copulationem quae ad eum est.
Swete I, 286. Cf. P. Benoit, 'Corps, tete et pIerome dans les ephres de la captivite,'
Revue Biblique LXIII (1956) 5-44.
Joanne McWilliam Dewart 128

the unique taking-up ... of that man so that there comes to be one person
with the Word'.
Augustine's use of Colossians 2,9 had before this been surprisingly
rare. In the Confessions it had been quoted without comment; 6S in
Genesis according to the Letter the 'bodily' had been contrasted with
the 'shadowy' presence of God in the Old Testament; 66 in 407, in one
of the sermons on John's gospel, it had been used to suggest the difference
between other human persons who receive from Christ's £ullness and
Christ who does not receive but is that fullness. 67 In 415 (in the exposi-
tion of psalm 67) he had drawn the conclusion that he was to repeat in
Letter 187: 'It is not that [God] does not inhabit in others, but he
inhabits them through [Christ]. "In him all the fullness of divinity
dwells" not in a shadowy way as in King Solomon's temple, but bodily,
that is solidly and truly. . .. That is, the man is joined to the Word unto
the fashioning of one person in Christ.68
In this same passage Augustine had also presented Christ's unique-
ness in terms of the text, 'You are my beloved son, in whom I am well
pleased,.(f) . This was, to my· best knowledge, Augustine's only use of
this text in this way. It was also in 415 that Augustine had first applied
a quantitative metaphor to Christ (again that of the five senses-<>ne he
found particularly appropriate because of his wide use of the head/body

6S Videte ne quia vos decipiat per philosophiam et inamen seductionem, secun-

dum traditionem hominum, secundum elementa huius mundi, et non secundum Chri-
stum; quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter. Confessiones
III, 4, 8. PL XXXII, 686.
66 'Quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter.' Neque enim
divinitas corpus est, sed quia sacramenta Veteris Testamenti appe1lat umbras futurl,
propter umbrarum comparationem corporaliter dixit habitare in Christo plenitudinem
divinitatis, quod in illo impleantur omnia, quae in illis umbris figurata sunt. . .. In
Gen. ad Litt. XII, 7,17. PL XXXIV, 459.
67 Quomodo enim omnes homines de plenitude eius accipiunt, nisi ille sit Deus?
Nam si sic ille homo ut non Deus, de plenitudine Dei accipit etiam ipse, et sic non
Deus est. In 10. Ev. Tr. XIII, 8. CCSL XXXVI, 135. Augustine's treatment of
this text was to be markedly different about fifteen years later in Sermon 74 on
John's gospel when he wrote: 'Cui non est datus Spiritus ad mensuram; quia in
illo inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis. Neque enim sine gratia Spiritus sancti
est mediator Dei homo Christus Jesus.' In the later text Christ was distinguished
from others precisely by the measure of the Spirit given him. In 10. Ev. Tr. LXXIV,
3. CCSL XXXVI, 514.
68 Non quia in allis non inhabitat, sed quia in ipsis per ipsum. 'In ipso quippe
inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitas', non umbraliter tamquam in templo a rege Salo-
mone facto, sed corporaliter, id est solide atque veraciter. . .. Id est, homo Verbo
in unam Christi personam copularetur. En. in Ps. LXVII, 23. CCSL XXXIX, 886.
(f) . • • • Deo itaque placuit habitare in isto monte, quia paratus est in cacumine

montium; cui dicit, 'Tu est filius meus dilectus, in quo bene complacui'. En. in Ps.
LXVII,23. CCSL XXXIX, 887. .
The Influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia on Augustine's Letter 187 129

figure for Christ and the church), but in the context of apollinarianism
and without reference to Colossians 2,9.70
This coincidence in 415 of the new interpretation of the Colossians
text, the quantitative metaphor and the 'well-beloved' theme suggests the
possibility that Theodore's treatise came into Augustine's hands as early
as 415, although these threads were not all drawn together under the
rubric of the presence of God and the Colossians text until 417. What
was done in a scattered manner in 415 and coherently in 417 was done,
I believe, at the instigation of Theodore's notion of the totality of the
divine self-communication linked with personal union 'as in a son'.
Theodore, as we have seen, qualified his general understanding of inhabita-
tion with this phrase in regard to Christ. Augustine, using Colossians 2,9
affirmed the totality and the personal union, changed the term 'good
pleasure' to its synonym 'grace' (a change easily understandable in the
climate of 417) and dropped entirely the phrase 'as in a son'. This
important omission demands an attempt at explanation; I can only sug-
gest that it reflects Augustine's concern over a resurgence of arianism
in North Africa.71 The phrase, although denoting the idea of total sharing
and full divinity, may nevertheless have seemed to lend itself too readily
to a subordinationist interpretation.
(7) We shall rightly say this concern- There the sufficiency of divine grace
ing the Lord, that God the Word, is manifestly and clearly evidenced.
knowing his virtue by foreknow- For who would be so sacrilegious to
ledge from on high, immediately dare to affirm that some soul is able
from the beginning of his formation through the merit of free will to bring
took pleasure in indwelling and it about that another should be Christ?
uniting him to himself by the And [who would affirm], therefore,
habitude of the will, [and] offered that one unique soul would have been
some greater grace so that, from worthy by a covenant through the
[that] given to him, grace would free will given in common and natural-
be extended to all.72 ly to all, to bdong to the person of
70 Augustine argues that Christ as man {'agimus de homine'} not only lacked
nothing belonging to man, but was as humanly superior to others as the head is
superior to the body: 'etenim in ceteris membris non sentis nisi tactu; tangendo sen-
tis in ceteris membris; in capite autem et vides, et audis, et olefacis, et gustas, et
tangis. Si tanta excellentia est capitis ad membra cetera, quanta excellentia est capi-
tis universae ecclesiae, id est illius hominis, quem voluit Deus mediatorem esse inter
Deum et homines.' En. II in Ps. 29,2. CCSL XXXVIII, 175.
71 E.g. the Contra Sermonem Arianorum was written a year or two later, and
cf. also Sermons 117, 118, 341-all composed about 418.
72 'La;&t-b at "rOUTO cp1)O'O[l.E'I atXa;(ool\: X(U Em 'rou XUptOU, &rt 'ltEP b &E01\: AOYOI\: EmO"r&:-
\LEVOI\: IXU'IOU -ri)v cXpE'ri)'I, XC(t 87) XIX'r~ 7tp6yvooO'tV EU&UI\: &VOO&EV €\I -r'ii -rljl\: atlX7tAtXO'EOOI\: &pX~
!vOtX~O'IXL 'rE Eu80xi)0'1X~ XlXl ev6>O'L~ lXu'rb~ Sa;U'Iij'> 'In axeO'EL -rlj~ y~6>[l.7)I\:, fl.E(~ov&: 'rLvee 'r1X-
PEtXEV a.6-rij'> -ri}v X&:PLV, ~~ -rlj~ dl\: eeu-rOv X&:PL'l'O~ EL~ 'It&:\I"rIX~ 'rOUI\: t~1j~ 8La;/)0&rj0'0[l.€v7)1\: cX~&poo­
'ltOU~ .... 0 Gratia quae super omnia data est Jesu. 0 Gratia quae superavit omnium
natura rum. Swete II, 308, 292. PG LXVI, 989D.
Joanne McWilliam Dewart 130

the unbegotten Word, unless that sin-

gular grace had sustained him, which
it is right to affirm, wicked to wish to
condemn? 73

First it should be noted that Augustine omitted Theodore's insistence on

the indwelling of the Word from the very moment of Christ's conception
(an obvious attempt on Theodore's part to safeguard against an adoptianist
understanding of his teaching which, history tells us, was markedly unsuc-
cessful). The point can, however, be found in other augustinian writings,
and was one with which he was in obvious agreement.74
Both Theodore and Augustine were concerned for the uniqueness of
the christological union, and each handled the question in a manner highly
characteristic of his own theology. Theodore talked of the Word's fore-
knowledge of the man's moral excellence; this foreknowledge was fol-
lowed by the indwelling by good pleasure 'from the beginning'. One
aspect of this indwelling was the confirmation of Christ's good will, that
in ,turn followed by greater graces, first to him and through him to all
persons. The sequence in Theodore's mind of indwelling and good will
was primarily chronological, secondarily causal; i.e., the initiative remained
with the Word and totally free-another Christ could not be effected (as
it were) despite or without God's good pleasure. But, on the other hand,
it should be recognized that for Theodore Christ's goodness had an active
and necessary part to play in the union.
Augustine, on the other hand, threw the weight of Christ's unique-
ness (at least explicitly) entirely on the grace given and the activity of his
free human will is present only by implication. Here the position to
which the pelagian controversy had brought him is clearly marked: the
role openly assigned in 392 to Christ's free human will is present only in
the 'sustained'. Augustine predictably ignored Theodore's pattern of fore-
knowledge which was-at least to some extent-one of human goodness
eliciting divine response. He had asked, hypothetically in 412, 'who
would dare to affirm that some soul could, through the merit of free
73 Ubi divinae gratiae satis perspicuum clarumque documentum est. Quis enim
tam sit sacrilegus. ut audeat adfirmare aliquam posse animam per meritum liberi arbi-
trii, ut alter sit Christus, efficere? Ut ergo ad personam Verbi unigeniti pertineret,
quo pacto per liberum arbitrium communiter omnibus et naturaliter datum una sola
anima meruisset, nisi hoc singularis gratia praestitisset, quam fas est praedicare, de
quo nefas est velie iudicare. Ep. CLXXXVII. 13, 40. CSEL LVII. 118.
74 E.g. Haec etiam adoptio vocatur. Eramus enim aliquid antequam essemus
filii Dei, et accepimus beneficium. ut fieremus quod non eramus; sicut qui adoptatus,
antequam adoptaretur nondum erat filius eius a quo adoptatus. . .. Et ab hac gene-
ratione gratiae discernitur ille Filius qui cum esset Filius Dei, venit ut fieret filius
hominis. . .. Ep. CXL, 4,10. Sed ex quo homo esse coepit, ex illo est Deus: unde.
dictum est, 'Verbum caro factum est'. De Trin. XIII, 17, 22. CCSL L, 412.
The Influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia on Augustine's Letter 187 131

will, bring it about that another should be Christ?' His question now
referred not to some hypothetical absurdity, but to the actual incarnation
itself. To have allowed even Christ's human will an active role would
have been, in Augustine's eyes, to have endangered the uniqueness of the
christological union, and to have set a pattern of human merit winning
divine grace.
However, Augustine knew that the 'who' of his question was not
Theodore. I have said that Theodore's christology was one of Christ's
moral goodness 'to some degree' eliciting divine response. But it was
always a question of the maintaining of the special divine presence, never
of its initiation. That was pure grace-free, spontaneous, unelicited.
Theodore was as emphatic on this point as Augustine. Although they
differed on the part played by Christ's human will, the two bishops were
in agreement on the importance and the unique quality of the grace given
to Christ, and they rose to the same note: 'that singular grace' 7S and '0
grace which is above all and was given to Jesus! 0 grace which towers
over all nature' .76
Finally, the last passage quoted from Augustine's Letter 187 (#7)
marked the first time (to my knowledge) that he described the chris-
tological union as not only a grace in itself, but as a union by grace--i.e.
the union was, on the part of God .. an intense and unique presence, and,
on the side of man, a belonging to the person of the Word through free
will sustained by grace. It is important to recognize that Augustine
indeed taught a christological union by grace, for it has not been generally
accepted that he did so. Van Bavel, although he generally appreciated
the role of grace in Augustine's christology, argued (on the basis of a text
from the Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians) that he taught a union
according to substance,77 and several have followed him on this point.
Whether the 'naturaliter' of that passage will bear the weight Van Bavel
put on it, particularly in the light of contemporary (395) augustinian
te.'Cts indicating a moral union, and whether Augustine did at that point
think the christological union was a substantial one is irrelevant here
because it is clear that in his more mature writings he did not. What
may have still been somewhat casually expressed in Letter 187 was more
clearly and strongly phrased in the years that followed. The texts quoted
here all date from after 420:
7S Singularis gratia. Ep. CLXXXVII, 13, 40. CSEL LVII, 118.
76 0 gratia quae super omnia data est Jesu. 0 gratia quae superavit omnium
naturarum. Swete II, 292.
77 The text is ' ... omnes fiunt filii; non natura, sicut unicus Filius, qui etiam
Sapientia Dei est; neque praepotentia et singularitate susceptionis ad habendam
naturaliter et agendam personam Sapientiae. sicut ipse Mediator ... .' Exp. Ep. ad
Gal. 27. PL XXXV, 2125. Van Ravel commented, '"Naturaliter" pourrait etre
emprunte a la terminologie grecque " kat'ousian". "ousiosos'" (p. 14).
Joanne McWilliam Dewart 132

... and both at the same time joined in the one person of God and man
by the ineffable generosity of grace.78
The only begotten son of God (not by grace but by nature) by grace
assumed a man in such a unity of person that the same was himself son
of man.'9
Although human nature does not belong to the nature of God, human
nature does belong to the person of the only begotten son of God through
grace.so

In summary, therefore, I suggest:

(1) that about the year 415 Augustine read Theodore's Treatise on
the Incarnation, and found there a christology very much in agreement
with his own;
(2) that traces of this reading can be seen in scattered works of 415;
(3) that in 417 Augustine extended his already sophisticated under-
standing of the presence of God to the christological union, and that in
doing so he reflected Theodore's treatise not only in the method of prog-
ressively restricting the meaning of 'inhabitation', but also in the adop-
tion of two key theodoran notions: (i) not only was the christological
union a grace, but it was a union by grace, a moral union; (ii) not only
did graces flow from the christological union to the man, Christ, and
through him to all mankind, but the total communication of grace to the
man assumed was the cause of the union.
(4) that the differences between Theodore's treatise and Augustine's
letter are explained by Augustine's relative non-involvement in and
ignorance of the christological controversies, and by his different under-
standing of the interaction of the human will and grace;
(5) that, therefore, Augustine's early and rudimentary understand-
ing of Christ as the uniquely graced man did not change to a more sub-
stantialist understanding of the christological union, but remained firmly
'antiochene', and was helped toward fuller development and expression
by the reading of Theodore's Treatise on the Incarnation.
Joanne McWilliam Dewart,
St. Michael's College,
University of Toronto.

78 ... et utrumque simul in unam personam Dei et hominis inef£abili gratiae

largitate conjunctum. De Trin. XIII, 19, 24. CCSL L, 415-416.
79 ... unigenitus Dei filius non gratia sed natura, gratia suscepit hominem tanta
unitate personae, ut idem ipse esset etiam hominis filius. Ench. I XXXVI, 11. PL
XL, 250.
80 ••• quod cum ad naturam Dei non pertineat humana natura, ad personam
tamen unigeniti Filii Dei per gratiam pertinet humana natura. In 10. Ev. Tr. LXXXII,
4. CCSL XXXVI, 533.