(1071–1078), Nicephorus III. Botoniates (1078–1081), Alexius I. Comnenus (1081–1118). The
early part of his life he spent in Constantinople; and on account of his learning and virtues was
chosen tutor to Prince Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the son of Michael Ducas. From 1078 until
after 1107 he was archbishop of Achrida and metropolitan of Bulgaria. He ruled his diocese in an
independent manner, but his letters show the difficulties he had to contend with. It is not known
when he died.
His fame rests upon his commentary^934 on the Gospels, Acts, Pauline, and Catholic Epistles;
and on Hosea, Jonah, Nahum and Habakkuk, which has recently received the special commendation
of such exegetes as De Wette and Meyer. It is drawn from the older writers, especially from
Chrysostom, but Theophylact shows true exegetical insight, explaining the text clearly and making
many original remarks of great value.
Besides his commentary, his works embrace orations on the Adoration of the Cross,^935 thePresentation of the Virgin^936 and on the Emperor Alexius Comnenus;^937 a treatise on the Education
Of Princes;^938 a History of Fifteen Martyrdoms^939 and an Address on the Errors of the Latin
Church.^940 Two of these call for further mention. The Education of Princes is addressed to
Constantine Porphyrogenitus. It is in two books, of which the first is historical and discourses upon
the parents of the prince, the second discusses his duties and trials. It was formerly a very popular
work. It is instructive to compare it with the similar works by Paulinus, Alcuin, and Smaragdus.^941
The Address is the most interesting work of Theophylact. It is written in a singularly conservative
and moderate strain, although it discusses the two great matters in dispute between the Greek and
Latin Churches,—the procession of the Holy Spirit, and the bread of the Eucharist. Of these matters
Theophylact considered the first only important, and upon it took unhesitatingly the full Greek
position of hostility to the Latins. Yet his fairness comes out in the remark that the error of the
Latins may be due to the poverty of their language which compelled them to "employ the same
term to denote the causality of the communication of the Holy Spirit and the causality of his being.
The Latins, he observed, moreover, might retain the less accurate forms of expression in their
homiletic discourses, if they only guarded against misconception, by carefully explaining their
meaning. It was only in the confession of faith in the symbol, that perfect clearness was requisite."^942
In regard to the bread of the Eucharist the Latins held that it should be unleavened, the Greeks that
it should be leavened. Each church claimed to follow the usage of Christ. Theophylact admitted
that Christ used unleavened bread, but maintained that His example in this respect is not binding,
for if it were in this then it would be in everything connected with the Supper, and it would be
necessary to use barley bread and the wine of Palestine, to recline at table and to hold the Supper
in a ball or upper room. But there is such a thing as Christian liberty, and the kind of bread to be
(^934) Migne, CXXIII.-CXXVI. col. 104.
(^935) Migne, CXXVI. col. 105-129.
(^936) Ibid. col. 129—144.
(^937) Ibid. col 288-305.
(^938) Ibid. col. 253-285.
(^939) Ibid. col. 152-221.
(^940) Ibid. col. 221-249.
(^941) Viz. Exhortations, On Virtues and Vices, and Way of the King, spoken of farther on.
(^942) Neander, l.c. p. 586.