Vision of the Cross at Jerusalem
A The sign of the cross of Christ appeared at Jerusalem at this time—the hour was about the third (on the day of Pentecost)—luminous, extended on the Nones of May in the heavens, from the Mount of Olives to Golgotha, in which place the Lord was crucified; facing the East, whence the Lord was taken up, with a crown appearing like the form of a rainbow circling the precious cross that had appeared. And at the same hour it was seen in Pannonia by Constantius Augustus and the army that was with him in the war against Magnentius. And as Constantius began to engage him near the city called Mursa, Magnentius was defeated and fled to Gaul with a few men.
From Book II of the Histories under the name of Paul the Deacon of Aquileia, monk of Monte Cassino, Bib. PP. Lugd. Vol. XIII, p. 253: When [Gallo Caesar] was coming to Antioch, about the East, a sign appeared in the sky on the day of Pentecost. For a column in the form of a cross was seen in the sky, having the appearance of light, extended from Golgotha to the Mount of Olives: this, Constantius Gallus also saw.
Acts of Saint Artemius the Martyr, in Surius, October 20th, no. 5: At which time (when Maxentius had been overcome), a very great sign of the cross appeared wondrously, so that it surpassed the light of day with its admirable splendor, and it was seen at Jerusalem about the third B hour of the day, when it was the feast day which is called Pentecost, reaching from the place which is called Calvary to the Mount of Olives.
Typikon of Saint Sabas, page 40, for the month of May.
Greek Menaion: C The seventh day, the memorial of the sign of the cross, which was seen in the city of Jerusalem in the sky about the third hour of the day, under the Emperor Constantine (read: Constantius), extended from holy Calvary through the stars to the holy Mount of Olives.
On the same month, the 7th, the memorial of the sign of the precious cross that appeared in the sky at the third hour of the day, under the Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great. And of the holy martyrs Acacius and Quadratus.
On the same month, the 7th, we celebrate the memorial of the sign of the cross that appeared in the sky, under the Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, and Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem.
The earth was sanctified of old when the cross was planted, And now, at its appearance, the heavens have been sanctified as well.
D In the days of holy Pentecost, on the seventh day of the month of May, at the third hour of the day, the precious and life-giving cross appeared, consisting of light, as all the people watched, extended above holy Golgotha as far as the holy Mount of Olives. Which, with the brightness of its shimmering, hid the rays of the sun. Wherefore every age, of both young and old, along with infants and nursing children, filled the church; and with immeasurable joy and fervent compunction they offered glory and thanksgiving to God for this miraculous spectacle.
FRAGMENTS OF THE LOST WORKS OF ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. — 357 ADMONITION.
I. The three fragments which we present here have been preserved from the homilies attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the Gospel of John by ancient and most weighty authors. The first two, from the homily on the miracle of the water turned into wine—which consist of two sections—we find cited by an unpublished author who collected a "Summa of the Faith," or excerpts from various holy Fathers and councils. A copy of this work is held in the royal library, code 2951, which was transcribed in the year 1291 from another codex written in the year 759; the passages cited from Cyril are found on folio A. The same two passages are cited in the Lateran Council under Martin I, in the year 649, act 5, page 305. But the earlier testimony was abridged in the Lateran Council, and ends with the words *ἐπειδὴ γάρ*, etc., exclusively, which now for the first time look upon the light from the royal codices. The second, moreover, is cited by St. Maximus in his letter sent to Stephen of Dora from Rome, vol. II, page 88. The third fragment, on the words of John 16:28, "I go to my Father," is referenced by Leontius the Byzantine in an unpublished work, *Against the Monophysites*, which the most learned Dominican Father, Michael Le Quien, has in his possession and, out of his singular kindness, has shared with me.
II. B The truth of these fragments was immediately rendered suspicious to me by the mention of the dual nature and operation in Christ, so explicitly stated that it seems to savor more of post-Eutychian times than of the fourth century. But the authority of the Lateran Council, St. Maximus, and another ancient writer is most weighty, and the authority of Leontius is even greater, whose acumen and judgment in discerning the true works of the holy doctors are well known. I pass over here the fact that we are not dealing with a work praised by heretics for the defense of their own errors—in which genre there are so many frauds of the heretics, detected both by others and by Leontius himself—but rather with a work cited by Catholic councils and authors, whose cause is certainly stronger and in no way needs fraud for its own support, and whose credibility is therefore greater: although we are not ignorant that they, too, were sometimes deceived by false inscriptions. But C that there were once many more works of our Cyril in the hands of Catholics than we have now can be persuaded by the authority of Nicephorus Callistus, who in Book IX, chapter 46, testifies that his writings were accustomed to be read under the name of the Cyrillianites. Moreover, we know that Cyril delivered many homilies on different places of the Scriptures, even from the time when he was a presbyter: and we also possess his oration on the paralytic at the pool from that time.
III. Nor, furthermore, am I deterred by the explicit assertion of two natures and operations from ascribing these fragments to our Cyril. For he both calls Christ dual, and most explicitly distinguishes the proper operations of each nature (Cat. 4, no. 9). He teaches that Christ must be confessed as God and man at the same time (Cat. 12, no. 1, and Homily on the Paralytic, no. 6). He defines that the two fathers of Christ are to be acknowledged according to the diverse natures of the Godhead and the flesh (Cat. 11, no. 5), and he separates D the one who was born in Bethlehem from the one who was begotten from the Father from eternity—so much so, ibid. no. 20, that the less accurate locution stands in need of excuse. In these true places he makes no mention of natures and operations: but how much does it matter, when one acknowledges the thing, to confess it by name? Furthermore, the usage of a dual nature was already celebrated by the opinions of many Fathers from the time of Cyril. It is frequently found not only in Gregory of Nazianzus, Nyssen, and St. Ephrem, but also in Origen and Tertullian, who are much older. Because of the Arian controversy, the properties of the natures began to be distinguished more accurately, so that Theodoret himself (Epistle 82) admits that the Fathers postdating the Council of Nicaea at times exceeded the measure in this distinction. After the Apollinarian heresy arose, it was necessary to urge that distinction even more, and from that time we find the confession of two natures more solemnly frequented. We think these fragments were delivered by Cyril in the final times of his homiletic career, either after the Council of Constantinople or shortly before it. In the year 380, Cyril had dealings with the Apollinarians, who gravely vexed the Church of Jerusalem and raised that same accusation against him, as if he were teaching one Jesus and another. This we understand from Gregory of Nyssen, in his letter to Eustathia, page 660. Certainly, the Apollinarians bore the distinction of a dual nature most unjustly, and it was 358 the foundation of all the accusations they leveled against the Catholic Church. V. Naz. Orat. 52, page 746 B. There is, therefore, no reason why we should judge these fragments alien to our Cyril.
FRAGMENTS
I. A Sancti Cyrilli Hierosolymorum episcopi, from a homily delivered on the Gospel, where the Lord turned the water into wine.
He strove neither to manifest his divinity entirely, nor completely to conceal it. He strove not to manifest it openly, for the sake of the men of that time; he strove not to conceal it, for the sake of those who should come after; but rather to show the clear operations of both his divinity and his humanity, so that neither the divine power would be obscured nor the belief in human nature be undermined. For since a heresy B was about to arise, claiming that the body was a phantom and that it had come down from heaven (for the incorruptible nature would not have taken on flesh of a corruptible body, nor would it have accepted filth, defilement, or stain), God, in order to guarantee to the race of men that he had become what we are, while remaining what he was, for this reason allowed his flesh to suffer the things proper to it.
Of the same, from the same sermon. He worked miracles, he showed the dual operation; suffering as man, yet acting as God, the same one; for it is not one and another, even if it be otherwise and otherwise.
II. C
III. From Leontius, in the unpublished book against the Monophysites. Cyrill of Jerusalem, from the sermon on the text: "I go unto my Father" (John 16:28). That the distinction of the natures may appear from the diversity of the things that are said [about one Christ].