Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORS AND WORKS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME XXXIII

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, ARCHBISHOP Catecheses. col. 331 Five Mystagogical Catecheses. 1059 Homily on the paralytic lying by the pool. 1132 Epistle to the Emperor Constantius. 1165 Fragments of the lost works of St. Cyril. 1179 Works attributed to St. Cyril. 1183 Prefaces and notes of previous editors. 1211

PETER II, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA Encyclical Epistle. 1275 Fragments of an epistle to the Egyptian bishops exiled for the sake of the faith. 1291

TIMOTHY, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA Canonical Responses. 1295 Epistle to Diodorus of Tyre. 1295

APOLLINARIS, BISHOP OF LAODICEA Interpretation of the Psalter. 1313

ISAAC, THE CHRISTIAN FROM JUDAISM Book of Faith. 1539

DIODORUS OF TARSUS Fragments from the book On Fate. 1559 — from the book against the Synusiasts. 1559 — from the Catenae. 1561

Addenda to Apollinaris. 1627

[index: entries preserved]

PREFACE

I. Before I pursue the doctrine and deeds of Cyril with greater accuracy, I consider it my duty briefly to preface this work concerning the holy prelate and his writings, concerning previous editions, and the reason and purpose for this new one. Nor is it necessary to dwell at great length on praising Cyril. The dignity of his see and his noble deeds sufficiently commend him. He was first a presbyter, then archbishop of the Church of Jerusalem, the mother of all churches; there he delivered his catechetical orations, where the cradle of religion lies, where the fountain of holy tradition flows. Thence comes the value of his work. To this is added its antiquity: for they were pronounced before Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, and other most excellent Fathers—to whom Cyril was also a contemporary—had sharpened their pens against the Arians. The holy prelate experienced a variable fortune, having been cast from his see more than once. But to suffer these things for the Catholic faith was sweet and honorable to him. It is a more grievous thing that he did not escape the slanders of Catholics, indeed, of saints. But the less than fair judgment, into which many were deceived by the uncertain rumors of Jerome, is amply compensated both by the Synod of Constantinople, which vindicated Cyril’s faith and ordination from the crimes laid against him, and by the testimonies of ecclesiastical writers who always speak of Cyril with great honor. Theodoret (a) calls him a most fierce champion of dogmas; Theophanes (b) calls him most sacred and (c) a defender of orthodox doctrine; Photius (d) calls him a man who is held by all to be, and indeed is, a saint, and who wrote Catecheses filled with sublime theology; Glycas (e) calls him great; Nicephorus (f) one of the notable men who shone in the Church of God for learning and eloquence, a man (g) gifted with a singular ability for teaching the common people. Finally, his name is inscribed in the fasti of saints by both the Latin and Greek Churches, with the praise of a confessor. ^A

II. The praise of Cyril’s writings. — As regards his works, I shall not hesitate to say that, of all the monuments of antiquity, almost nothing of greater value has come down to us. For, if you consider the subject matter, he inculcates all the dogmas of religion unto the simple children of the Church; in eighteen Catecheses he encompasses the entire doctrine of the Creed, and in five others the three sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and the Eucharist; which work is of the greater moment because, whereas the catecheses of other writers are contained in one or another homily, the Cyrillian series presents such homilies reduced into, as it were, a single body. If you look at the method of treating matters, nothing is more simple, nothing more accommodated to the grasp of the common folk. He demonstrates each dogma clearly and copiously, by the weight of reasons against pagans, by the sentences of Scripture against Jews and heretics; and, setting aside theological jargon, he discusses matters drawn from the heart of theology in the words of Scripture and in common speech. You may also marvel at this in Cyril, that, though he is very ancient, you will yet find almost nothing in him that savors of those times in which heresies had not yet brought about a more cautious manner of speaking. He disputes so clearly and distinctly that he overthrows not only the heresies that had arisen, but, as if by prescience, those that were to come. The Macedonians had not yet emerged when he defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit in such a way that Athanasius, Basil, and both the Gregories could scarcely have vanquished the emergent heresy more thoroughly. He anticipated and refuted Nestorius, Eutyches, the Monothelites, and the Adoptionists, explicitly asserting one person and one sonship, but a dual nature and operation, yet without usurping the name of person or nature. He refutes Aerius, who declared war on prayers for the dead, and Vigilantius, who declared war on sacred relics, before they even emerged. But those matters which are in controversy ^B

among the heretics of today are asserted so significantly and confirmed so zealously by him—such as the force of the sacraments, real presence, transubstantiation, and the eucharistic sacrifice—that some among the heterodox have been compelled to pretend that the Catecheses ^A attributed to Cyril are spurious or interpolated, others to confess that Cyril stands on the side of the Catholics, and others, finally, have attempted to elude the issue with the most foolish subterfuges. If these tactics were once to prevail, no laws of human discourse would remain, and nothing would survive among the ancients about which a dispute could not be raised.

III.

How highly regarded among the Greeks and Orientals

IV.

Among the Latins

V.

Various editions: Slavonic and Polish

desiderated being restored in full, the series of the discourse and of the doctrine corresponded in such a way that no suspicion could remain that these Catecheses of Cyril are most genuine." Thus Grodecius concerning both that Slavonic and Polish interpretation. We gladly assent to him, we who have seen neither, and are ignorant of both languages. Moreover, whether that first Slavonic exemplar was written by hand or printed from type, Grodecius left in doubt.

VI. Edition of Vienna, a.d. 1560. — That five of Cyril's mystagogical catecheses were published at Vienna in Austria in Greek and Latin in the year 1560 is shown by the catalog of Greek codices of the Augsburg library. I shall not interpose my own judgment concerning this edition, for I have not had the opportunity to inspect it, although I have sought it for a long time and extensively. The same experience befell Fabricius, a most diligent searcher into such matters, who testifies that no copy of this edition could be found by him in all of Germany.

VII. The Parisian edition of Guil. Morelius from the Memmian MS. — In the year 1564, William Morelius, printer to Charles IX, published at Paris in 12° some of the Catecheses of the Enlightened—the fourth, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, fifteenth, and eighteenth, together with five mystagogical ones—from a manuscript codex belonging to the illustrious man de Mesmes, master of petitions. This Greek edition is commonly kept in the context; yet in the exemplar of the Royal Library, there is attached a Latin interpretation, which, relegated to the end and mutilated of many leaves, is attributed to the same year and the same printing house; nor could it be described from Grodecius, who published his own in the same year, but it renders the Greek context diligently and elegantly in all parts. This single exemplar of this kind came into my hands, and I have nothing to conjecture concerning the author of the interpretation. Concerning the context, however, in this edition, which was elaborated upon the faith of a single codex—and that one mutilated and faulty—I noticed the very same defect that was in all the others which had been produced from a single codex: for the gaps are frequent, and very many words are deformed in the highest degree. Its variants, however, were of no small use to me for amending the context. If it had been permitted to inspect the codex itself, I might perhaps have perceived more utility, or at least there would have been an opportunity to judge concerning its age and value. But it has vanished entirely, nor could it be found anywhere; although the most illustrious prince of the senate, to whom the inheritance of this library came down from his ancestors, had signified his liberal willingness in this matter in his usual manner.

VIII. The Grodecian interpretation. Catechesis 22 edited by Stanislas Hosius, a.d. 1562. The French interpretation of Cyril. Judgment concerning the edition of Grodecius. — In the year in which some catecheses appeared in Greek at Paris, all of them appeared in Latin with a letter to Constantius. The author of this interpretation is Joannes Grodecius, dean of Glogów, and canon of Wrocław and Warmia. When he was staying in the City some years ago, and was with the most eminent D. Stanislas Hosius, Cardinal of Warmia, and afterwards a most ample legate of the Apostolic See at the Council of Trent, having obtained a manuscript Greek exemplar of the Catecheses of Cyril, not previously translated or edited into the Latin tongue so far as he knew, he applied himself to rendering it into Latin. While he was occupied in completing this work, and had clearly finished it, having been given that Slavono-Polish exemplar which we mentioned by D. Jacob Uchanski, he compared it with his own Greek in such a way that he completed his Latin translation from both, borrowing certain things from time to time from each. That Greek codex, which he says he obtained from Cardinal Stanislas Hosius, belonged to William Cardinal Sirleti, so deserving of ecclesiastical letters; and from it Hosius had already in the year 1562, in the Confession of the Synod of Piotrków, ch. 40, edited in Greek the fourth mystagogical [catechesis], or as I number it, the twenty-second catechesis, and in ch. 38, a fragment of the third mystagogical, or twenty-first. Grodecius finished his work while the council was not yet dismissed, and inscribed his preface at Trent on the ninth day of July, a.d. 1563. This interpretation was printed the following year in Rome, Cologne, Antwerp, and Paris; which declares the studies of Catholics in reading this book. Moreover, the same year saw Cyril speaking in French, by the work of Louis Ganeius (for so he calls himself in the Admonition to the Reader), who followed Grodecius as his guide in all things, and committed in the vernacular the same faults that the other had committed in Latin. To explain in a few words what I think concerning the Grodecian edition: he says that he consulted truth more than elegance, yet it does not lack elegance. Gaps occur, interpolations occur, and faulty readings; but these are to be attributed to the fault of the codices which he used. While he followed the word and the letter in interpreting, he becomes

^A sometimes even barbarous: and he often strays from the sense of the Greek words, while he pays more attention to what they mean among grammarians than to what they intend in Cyril. He sinned in similar fashion regarding many ecclesiastical terms, the force and meaning of which he did not know. A case in point is the passage in Catechesis 5, no. 12, where Cyril, forbidding the faith or the creed to be learned or recited by others than those to whom he was about to deliver it, speaks thus: *Πίστιν ἐν μαθήσει καὶ ἐπαγγελίᾳ ταύτην μόνην κτήσαι*, etc., which Grodecius translates: *Fidem si didiceris et promissionem habebis*; Prevotius is no better: *Fidem in disciplina et promissione*. In many other places Grodecius, when in doubt as to Cyril's meaning, seems not so much to have considered what he was interpreting, as to have made a lucky guess. ^B Items of greater importance, the sum of Cyril’s reasoning, are noted in the margin in that same edition. The citations of Scripture are neither indicated nor distinguished; often, not being sufficiently observed by the interpreter himself, they lead him into various errors, sometimes being translated without any regard for the Vulgate, and sometimes, when accommodated to it, diverging entirely from Cyril’s manner of reading Scripture. His brief Preface regarding Cyril’s life and writings is reasoned lightly, though not without learning. The work of Grodecius and his interpretation were indeed useful to the Church, having been often reprinted in Latin collections of the Fathers; and in the Lyons edition of 1678, they were augmented—though rather obscured than illustrated—by notes in the margin that are partly useful and partly useless.

IX. The edition of Prevotius, Paris, 1608.—The whole work had not yet appeared in Greek; Joannes Prevotius of Bordeaux performed this service for the Church. ^C In his dedicatory epistle to Paul V, he relates that he had obtained copies of better quality in the Vatican Library, and that he had purged the Catecheses previously edited by Morellus of their faults and filled in their countless gaps, and furthermore had accurately transcribed those not yet edited and diligently compared them with the Latin translation. Cardinal Perronius facilitated his access to the Vatican, as may be understood from these verses written by Fredericus Morellus for this edition:

*Te Solymorum antistes, maxime Paule, salutat* *Cyrillus per te qui redivivus erit.* *Contulit ut Romæ chartas Prevotius amplas* *Cyrilli, ostrigeri Perronii auspicio.* *Inde typis lingua regalibus edita utraque* *Morelli studio, scripta sacrata Patris.*

The faith which he had pledged to the Supreme Pontiff in Rome, he liberated upon his return to the Gauls; and his edition was offered for sale in Paris, in the month of September, in the year 1608, by Claudius Morellus, ^D comprising the text and interpretation on alternating pages in quarto, augmented by the titles of the Catecheses omitted by Grodecius. Gretserus had edited the Epistle to Constantius in Greek at Ingolstadt in 1600, with an interpretation by Grodecius amended in a few places; Prevotius provided it from Vatican manuscripts, which he does not appear to have compared with the Gretserian edition. Prevotius certainly changed many things in the context quite conveniently, though without notifying the reader, nor mentioning the number, age, or variant readings of the codices; but he changed very little in the interpretation, and not always with happy results. For while he placed more trust in his own codices than in those which Grodecius had used, he often rendered his interpretation, which had been clear and accurate, inept and absurd; as for example in Catechesis 6, no. 17, where for the word "Valentinian" (which Grodecius had understood perfectly), he introduces the Jupiter of the Gentiles, not without absurdity. He marks and distinguishes the citations of Scripture, yet in such a way that he leaves out many. He partly retains the notes of Grodecius in the margin, while rejecting others and adding others of his own. This edition, which suffered from perennial errors—whether through the fault of the printers or the codices—appeared a second and third time in Paris in 1631 and 1640; however, it was more revised, issued in folio, and joined with the works of Synesius. By whose care, or with what instruments it was issued in an emended state, I have been unable to trace by any evidence. That ancient codices were consulted, the gaps occasionally filled in make clear. To those matters which Prevotius had emended in the translation are added very few, but sometimes amended very negligently.

X. The integrity of Grodecius and Prevotius defended.—Before I dismiss Grodecius and Prevotius, the integrity of both must be defended against the wicked accusations of Rivetus and Albertinus. Andreas Rivetus proclaims that the Cyrillian Catecheses issued from the "conciliabulum" of Trent, from the Vatican at Rome, and from the house of Cardinal Perronius in Paris; nor can he bring himself to believe that anything pure or sincere could emerge from that "impure mire." The "sharpness" of Rivetus appealed to Albertinus, and he distrusted the Roman codices and Prevotius, fearing the Greeks and their gifts. I would wish that moderate Protestants might notice the iniquity of their predecessors. It would have been very easy for Rivetus and Albertinus to convict Grodecius and Prevotius of theft; they needed only to consult the ancient codices; if any fraud had been committed, this would have been detected not by any odor or light conjecture, but by eye and hand. But to examine them is impossible for you; it is indeed the way of men who do not seek the truth, but those who have accepted a pre-conceived error...

and who have cast aside all fairness along with the truth. We hold Rivet and Albertin in this place to be in manifest dishonesty. For the things which they declare were added by Grodecki and Prévôt regarding the real presence, transubstantiation, the intercession of the saints, and prayers for the dead, are found in all the manuscript codices and in the books of the ancients—such as Eustratius, who wrote in the seventh century, and Nicon, who wrote in the tenth—expressed in the very same words in the Greek treatise on the divine mysteries. ^A Grodecki differs in many places from the text edited after him; but this discrepancy should be attributed to the codices he used, not to fraud. For whatever was omitted by him is lacking in some manuscripts; and whatever was added is likewise read in the same or others. Prévôt’s incredible diligence in transcribing the codices—from which neither Grodecki’s interpretation, nor the continuation of the Cyrillian argument, nor zeal for the Catholic cause could induce him to depart—was of such great account to him. We shall submit one example of this matter, although we could provide many. Cyril, Cat. 22, Myst. 4, no. 2, demonstrates that the water was changed by Christ into wine akin to blood, and concludes that one must believe it changes into blood. Grodecki, who in his codex had read οἰκεῖον αἵματι, translated—as was proper—"akin to blood," which way of reading is more suited to confirming Catholic dogma. But Prévôt, when he had read οἰκεῖον νεύματι in his own codices, although he could have borrowed the better reading from Grodecki and Hosius, preferred to pass over the opportunity for confirming the dogma, rather than to depart from the diligence he had established in transcribing. Let fair judges therefore decide whether a suspicion of nefarious fraud resides in such timidity.

[XI. Rivet’s inept animadversions against Cyril] — Since we have fallen upon the subject of Rivet, it seems worth the trouble to record his inept animadversions against Cyril, regarding which another time to speak will not occur. In the year 1610, not long after the Prévôt edition, he published his *Critica Sacra*; in this work, while he makes foolish judgments about other writers, I do not know if he judges most ineptly regarding Cyril. In Book II, chapter 18, that trifler tries most of all to establish two things: 1st, that very many things were interjected into the Catecheses of Cyril by the fraud of the editors; 2nd, that very many things are in total conflict with the errors of the "Pontificals" (this is what he calls Catholic dogma). But if the editors inserted what favored their own dogma, why did they not with the same license remove what conflicted with it? Thus Rivet contradicts himself and fights with himself. We shall record and refute his dreams about an interpolated Cyril in our second dissertation, where we maintain the integrity of the Catecheses; nor indeed is there anyone who does not see that Rivet had no other cause for feigning that Cyril was interpolated, except that he could not otherwise escape the force of his testimonies. But the things which he pronounces to be in conflict with the errors of the Catholics are either falsely assigned to the teaching of the Church, or refer to opinions not forbidden among theologians, or to ancient rites from which we have now grown unaccustomed, or to opinions which were once not sufficiently explained but later defined by common consent, or finally to the actual dogmas of the Catholic Church, upon which he tries to pour darkness by quibbling and trifling. ^B To the first category I recall the reading of the Scriptures, which he falsely claims we prohibit, though Cyril commends it; the efficacy of baptism, which he claims is attributed by Cyril to the Holy Spirit, but by us to the *opus operatum*; as if we dissociate the sacramental work from the Holy Spirit and divine operation; the faith of dogmas and the faith of miracles, which he feigns are distinguished by Cyril but confused by us—since no Catholic is ignorant that the former almost always consists without the latter; the eucharistic consecration, which he says is attributed by Cyril to the invocation of the Trinity, but by us to the efficacy of the words of Christ; although neither does Cyril detract anything from the power of the words, nor the Church—which has sanctioned nothing on this matter—from the power of prayers and invocations. The second category concerns the baptism of John, and he pronounces that those who are unwilling to attribute remission of sins to it are struck by the opinion of Cyril. Indeed, the matter seemed otherwise to many of the Fathers, and it seems otherwise today to most theologians; but freedom to choose is given to everyone, provided he does not attribute to the baptism of John the same and equal power as to ours, which—as alien to Cyril and the other Fathers—the Council of Trent condemned under anathema. The rest do not fare any better for Rivet; as when he objects that many things forbidden among us are commanded by Cyril, such as that even the laity receive the body of the Lord by hand, drink the chalice, and smear their eyes and other senses with the moisture remaining on their lips. Who does not see that all these things are nothing other than rites and ceremonies, which in the Latin Church are partly disused, and partly changed by set purpose,

and yet were never condemned among the ancients, nor among the Greeks, who retain some part of them? But as for his claim that Cyril’s canon of the Scriptures agrees with the Reformed Churches and disagrees with the Catholics, we demonstrate in dissert. III, cap. 13, num. 95, that he is mistaken and misleading. Likewise, the passages he violently wrenches against traditions and transubstantiation, we defend in the same dissertation, cap. 9, 10, 13. Wherefore, leaving Rivet, let us return to the editions of Cyril.

^A XII. The English edition of the renowned Thomas Milles. The same lot had not yet befallen Cyril as has happened to many writers within our memory and that of our fathers, namely, that he should appear illustrated by more accurate industry. Previous editions had nothing but the Catecheses and the Letter to Constantius. No one had collected what is circulated under the name of Cyril, such as the homily on the Hypapante, or the letter to Augustine; no one had unearthed the fragments hidden in libraries. To these defects were added a text remarkably deformed, an interpretation teeming with blemishes, and the absence of any notes to heal the wounds or shed light on the obscure parts. This task was undertaken by the illustrious Thomas Milles, Bachelor of Theology from Christ Church College, Oxford. His edition was published at Oxford from the Sheldonian Theatre, at the expense of Richard Sare, a London bookseller, in the year 1703, with such clarity of type and splendor of paper that nothing more elegant could be desired. In this edition, besides the works already cited, there were added fragments recovered from libraries, especially the fragment of a homily on the Paralytic lying at the pool, and then for the first time edited from manuscripts: the *Ecclesiastical and Mystagogical History*, or *Theory of the Mysteries*; which work Milles, although he knew it was by Germanus, Bishop of Constantinople, nevertheless thought should be published with Cyril, because it is attributed to his name in some books. All these were corrected according to manuscript codices, the interpretation was refined, the text divided into numbers or articles, the Scriptural testimonies diligently noted, and the indices made copious, along with a more accurate preface regarding the life and writings of Cyril; of all which I shall speak in such a way that I neither deprive Milles of his due praises, nor yet keep silent about what is lacking in his edition; for the rationale of my project demands this—that I neither deny that much has been subtracted from my own labor by his work, nor conceal that much has been left to me to elaborate.

^B XIII. Judgment of the English edition. The most learned editor says that nothing was more important to him than to publish the Greek text, especially of the Catecheses, pure and uncorrupted. Wherefore he compared it both with previous editions and with two or three manuscripts, of which I shall speak after this preface in the notice of the codices. The various readings of all these, and especially of the manuscript codices, are placed between the text and the notes in lines occupying the whole width of the page, though with such religious care that he did not neglect even the slightest ones proceeding from the ignorance of copyists. Those things which are unearthed from the Grodecian interpretation compared with the published editions would have occupied this place better, in my judgment. He certainly corrected not a few things in the text, and always warned the reader of this; but many things escaped him, and many he left, whether prudently or knowingly, which could have been corrected from the various readings he had placed there. You have an example of this in catech. 4, num. 21, in the Oxford edition (35 in ours), and catech. 23, num. 5 and 6, in the Oxford edition (7-9 in ours), in which the perturbed construction of the words could have been restored in full from the added readings; yet nothing was changed. Moreover, even in the notes he mentions some things corrected by himself, which nevertheless remained the same in the text, I know not by what chance, as in catech. 3, num. 7, and catech. 6, num. 17. The marks of punctuation in this edition were observed much more diligently than in previous ones; sometimes they were less noticed and tormented the editor, and led him to try to "heal" places that were whole and sound; see cat. 11, n. 4. Furthermore, the diligence of John Potter, who oversaw the purging of typographical errors, was so great that in this genre, where it is easy to slip and err, he rarely ever faltered. Milles saw the necessity for a new interpretation; why he did not undertake this labor, I do not know. He indeed corrected the Grodecian translation in many places, but in many more he left it either completely unadorned or else discrepant from the Greek. Indeed, in addition to the flaws introduced into it by Prevotius, which he retains, he added others so that he might fashion Cyril to the opinion of Albertinus. He distributed both the text and the interpretation into numbers or paragraphs, which was lacking in previous editions. But I am surprised that those notes are missing in this one which were placed in the margin in those [previous] ones, indicating things worthy of observation and the summary of the arguments. The Scriptural testimonies, which Cyril references or designates as if in passing, are diligently noted in the margin, yet in such a way that he left not a few for our labor, especially those which exist only in Greek or are placed with significant diversity in the Vulgate, and which mislead the reader; and yet not without noting these, one can attain the mind of Cyril.

See examples of this matter in *Procatechesis*, no. 7; *Catechesis* 1, no. 5; *Catechesis* 6, no. 2; *Catechesis* 8, no. 6; *Catechesis* 22, no. 7. [XIV] In his observations and notes, one may praise his moderation of mind and his erudition. As an editor not of the Catholic faith, he says nothing harsh or insulting against Catholics. He does a service to the Catholic Church in confirming many practices, such as the sign of the cross, exorcisms, insufflations, and prayers for the dead, which to most Protestants seem new, although they are most ancient. He always refers to Catholic writers—in these matters, the monks of our own congregation—with great honor; and he uses their authority more often than those of his own side. You would swear he was a Catholic, were he not wasting effort in other places by attacking the law of clerical celibacy, by muddling the distinct characters of baptism and penance, and by absurdly evading the testimonies of the Real Presence. ^B There is in these same observations a not mediocre knowledge of antiquity; but I shall nevertheless explain what does not satisfy me. He seems, 1°, not very consistent in his manner of appending notes: for in the first *Catecheses for the Illuminandi* and in the first *Mystagogic* catechesis, he is almost luxuriant; while in others, which provided no less material, he has withered away, in a certain manner, from the weariness of the labor. 2°. This is much more serious, that in worn-out and vulgar matters, such as the custom of giving a name before baptism, renunciations, the triple immersion, and other things of this kind, he is verbose and eloquent; but in difficult and dense passages, when the opinion of the writer is enveloped in a kind of darkness, or when he diverges from common doctrine, or errs from the truth in historical matters, or dwells upon obscure rituals—in these, I say, he is dry and almost silent. 3°. Nor was that undertaken by Milles which would nevertheless have been useful and pleasant to readers, namely, to weight the method of Cyril's interpretation of Scripture, which deviates from ours in many points; and to set before the reader what Cyril copied from older writers, and what younger writers copied from Cyril. He dealt so carelessly with this last category that, having been warned by a friend about a certain opinion of Cyril's praised by Anastasius, he searched for it for a long time, could not find it, and declared it not Cyril's; yet it is read in the seventh catechesis in the most explicit words. ^C [XV] At the beginning of the work, which is dedicated to the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, there is read a *Preface* concerning the life and writings of Cyril, concerning the various editions, and finally, concerning the Oxford edition, which is short and lucid. There were in the history of Cyril's deeds very many things, in a high degree obscure and entangled, which could have been explained more diligently; there was also a need to dispute more fully about the number, veracity, integrity, kind, and nature of the writings. Then he places in the middle the testimonies of the ancients: he collected many indeed, but did not however capture everything, as will be evident from those things which we have collected. At the end of the volume are appended 1° the censure by Robert Cook of the letter of Cyril to Augustine, and of the five *Mystagogic* catecheses—a true censure, indeed, as regards the letter (though he is angrier toward Catholics), but altogether absurd as regards the catecheses; 2° Rivet's judgment on Cyril and his writings, not worthy enough to be so highly valued by Milles; 3° finally, the disputation of Edmond Albertin on Cyril and his writings, undertaken with the desire not so much to explain Cyril as to harass and pervert him. The whole work is closed by a triple index. The first is of scripture testimonies; the second is of the writers whom the editor has cited and corrected in his observations, although he has corrected almost nothing; the third is of notable matters in the context and notes, much more copious than in previous editions as far as the text is concerned. [XVI]

The plan of our edition.

Correction of the text.

^A meditation and no small degree of judgment. For often, unless the greatest caution is applied, ancient codices will lead one into error, because it is customary for scribes to err through the similarity of words and to seem to themselves to read what is more agreeable to the customs of the age in which they lived, or to the methods of reading Scripture and speaking about theological matters. Wherefore, just as I am accustomed to repeat the method of emending Cyril from the mss. codices, so I have sometimes been compelled to refer the mss. codices themselves to Cyril’s own manner of speaking and thinking, and to attribute more weight to one codex that is consistent with his style and doctrine than to many that are in disagreement. There have existed some for whose emendation ancient codices provided nothing. These I have attempted to sanitate by conjecture, though not by inserting them into the context, but by placing them in the margin. But where I arrived at the source of the error by ^B most certain indications, I did not hesitate to change the context there. But I have taken this liberty so sparingly and so modestly, and with the reader always forewarned, that I think no one will blame me; especially since the entire emendation in such places for the most part consists in the change of a single letter or diphthong. I have acted somewhat more freely in distinguishing the interpunctuation, which, set rashly by scribes and at their own whim, had often deformed Cyril’s oration, which is interwoven with parentheses and concise sentences.

XVIII. A new interpretation.

XIX. Notes of this edition.

^A sign: some, indicated in the text by Greek letters, concern the context; others, designated by numbers in the Latin translation, illustrate various opinions of Cyril. Among those that pertain to the context: 1st, various readings are recorded, not all of them, however, but those of no slight value; for those of lesser moment are relegated to an index after the works of Cyril: yet on those that are entirely useless, we do not waste time. Moreover, I do not report the various readings simply and nakedly, but I have examined them with a certain weight and judgment, where a choice of them needed to be made; 2nd, the reason for an emendation is submitted to the reader as each matter in the text is altered; 3rd, we indicate in the same notes what Cyril borrowed from other writers, or others from Cyril, whether by express name or tacitly. The second kind of notes is as follows: 1st, the force and meaning of ambiguous words are weighed; where nothing certain could be extracted, judgment is left to the reader; 2nd, opinions of greater moment are explained by similar passages from Cyril or others; 3rd, we illustrate in various ways those matters which pertain to doctrine or history, giving light to obscure things, confirming those things that have been wrongly called into doubt, and investigating the source of error, if anything has been erred; for there are some things in Cyril which, at first glance, one might say were a blemish, but when viewed more closely, one would not disapprove of. Others, agitated by the interpretations of heretics, necessitated being defended by us; others, less conveniently stated—such as concerning the eternal priesthood of Christ—I have not indeed purged, but I have defended them from perverse consequences. In history, Cyril behaves in such a way that he must at times be explained by other monuments, and at times he seems to have believed poorly in his own memory or in uncertain monuments. In all these, I did not allow my observations to be wanting. 4th, Whatever is read in Cyril concerning the site of the sacred places, or the rites proper to the Church of Jerusalem, were matters placed before the eyes of the auditors, but they would cause no small amount of trouble to readers unless they were illustrated by other monuments. 5th, Cyril often departs from the common way of reading and interpreting Scripture: we have thought it necessary to demonstrate in a few words who preceded him in this matter, and who supported him. Our notes dwell upon these matters—not indeed necessary for the learned, yet I do not know if they are sprinkled with many things which the learned have not yet observed, and we hope they will certainly not be useless to those who are moderately learned. I have thought that two faults especially should be avoided in this genre: the one, lest, while I fear the fastidiousness of a few, I might act more sluggishly in defending the cause of the Church and in illustrating Cyril; the other, lest I waste time on matters that are common knowledge. Wherefore, in those things which have already been discussed, I am accustomed to refer to those who have discussed them, lest I seem to be doing what has already been done. And indeed, if equity is present in judgments, it will be more for me to fear that readers might think my effort was wanting in matters that are not to be despised, which I omitted as notes, than that they might complain I have been superfluous in lesser matters.

XX. What this edition contains. I represent all the works of Cyril, both those that are true and genuine, and those that are supposed or doubtful, along with fragments. An admonition prefixed to each declares what I judge concerning them. It had been my intention at the beginning to eliminate the supposed ones; but it seemed better that nothing should be missing from this volume which indeed bore the name of Cyril, excepting those whose author is certain and known. After the works of Cyril we append an index of various readings, then the dedicatory epistles of Grodecius and Prevotius, in which they discourse upon the instruments of their own editions. To these we add Grodecius's brief dissertation on the life and writings of Cyril, and the preface of Millesius with selected notes: in all these we have thought it best to serve the common custom of editions. By way of an appendix, there is subjoined a description of the Church of the Holy Cross or of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, in which Cyril delivered his catechetical lectures, and whose ornaments he often commemorates. I have taken care to have the plan of this temple delineated, and I follow its history with a brief discourse. There follow two copious indices: the first of Scriptural testimonies, the other of matters memorable in Cyril, and also of those things which are contained in the notes, the Preface, and the Dissertations. At the beginning of the volume, before the testimonies of the ancients and of certain moderns concerning Cyril, we institute a triple dissertation. The first is about the life and deeds of Cyril, which we pursue not perfunctorily, as previous editors have done, but more laboriously, so that I hope I have succeeded in illustrating this part of history. Another treats of his writings, the index of which is woven, and their truth, antiquity, and integrity are vindicated, and it is inquired especially concerning the Catechetical Lectures, at what time and place they were delivered, and by what reason, method, and style they were composed. Whatever it was not possible to discuss concerning the doctrine of Cyril in the notes, we have gathered into the third dissertation. In the first place, the opinion of Cyril concerning the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit is weighed, ^B and the most open testimonies concerning the authority of the Church and tradition, concerning the real presence and transubstantiation, are defended against the cavils of heretics.

XXI. It now remains for me to mention those by whose benefit, work, and counsel I have been aided in preparing this edition. To begin with foreign regions, I owe much to the most eminent Cardinal Ottoboni, whose most rich library, as it has often served us as a colleague, so it has served as a great use for this work, and who explored the manuscript codices. D. Philippus Raffier, who was then our colleague and procurator general at the Roman Curia. The same, attentive to my conveniences, obtained from the most learned man D. Antonius Maria Salvini, that he should grant for my edition of Cyril the scholia of the year 1640 which were of no small profit to me. In this city, the Royal Library, that great refuge for men of letters, lay open to me, through the consent of the most illustrious Abbot Camillus le Tellier de Louvois, the moderator of the library, and of most learned men, D. de Targny and D. Boivin...

who evinced the greatest kindness. But I had by far the greatest support in the Coislin collection, which the most excellent Bishop of Metz, DD. Henri du Cambout, Duke of Coislin, out of his singular love for us, deposited to be kept in this monastery of Saint-Germain-des-Prés: the overseer of which had previously been the illustrious D. Blanchard, a doctor of the Sorbonne, whom I found amiable and humane. The most illustrious Lord Jean Colbert, Count of Seignelay, did not close to me the well-known generosity he shows to our colleagues; and the overseer of his library, D. du Chesne, was ready to merit well of me. The most learned librarians of Sainte-Geneviève extended the same kindness to me. I pass over the learned men in this city who did not begrudge me the light of their genius when I consulted them on obscure matters. Nor were domestic resources wanting: to say nothing of those who helped with their advice, D. Jacques Leger, formerly of our congregation, now a Trappist monk through his pursuit of a more austere life, when he had begun to translate Cyril into the vernacular, and had become better informed of my intention, willingly communicated whatever he had excerpted from the manuscripts or had noted regarding Cyril. Two other colleagues provided useful help, one of whom is joined to me by a bond of close friendship, the other by one of fraternal blood. Now I must entreat the readers to patiently excuse things that may have escaped me through lack of thought, or that I may have expressed less appropriately; and at least to judge favorably my zeal to serve the Catholic Church, which led me to undertake this work.

The author of this edition is praised.

the lofty fruits of his labors, they certainly served his most holy and illustrious death. For the labor of his studies had no other purpose than the meditation of Christ crucified; entirely devoted to the study of the holy Fathers, he perceived not only that their opinions on dogma were very similar to those of our Catholics, but also that their religious devotions were greater than ours; he collected not only their excellent sayings, but also the faith and charity still breathing in these books. In these fountains he had drawn that exceptional love of truth which he declared by so many deeds; neither shamefully bashful in embracing it, nor timid in defending it, freely correcting himself if he had erred through imprudence, he adhered most freely to the doctrine of his patron. I shall not hesitate to attribute to these same studies the fact that he felt so magnificently about the monastic institution and about ecclesiastical precepts and documents, and especially about the Catholic Church itself, for the cause of which he had an amazing desire. He certainly yielded to no one in collecting more sorrow from its adverse circumstances, or in being carried away with greater joy in prosperous ones; and although he had become hardened to all the events of life through a long illness, this one thing refreshed him: if it were announced that anything had accrued to the Church for the hope of peace, or to the truth for its triumph. It is now almost three years since he was afflicted by an annoying cough. Badly treated, it sometimes flared up. But at the end of the year 1716, it settled upon his chest in such a way that he vomited blood more than once, nor could he be cured by any art of the physicians. The cause of this did not lie in immoderate studies; for, as he kept a limit on other things, so he did with his studies, and he attributed nothing to them that might have been taken away from either monastic duties or the necessary care of the body: but it is not at all surprising if his assiduous labor, added to a more austere life, undermined his good health. Though illness had long ago taken away his ability to read and write, it did not take away his ability to think and pray, even in his final breath. When he noticed himself failing day by day, on the eve of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, he requested the last sacraments of the Church, and in the presence of Christ the Lord, he gave signs of a religious and truth-loving spirit, and declared that he was dying in the faith and communion of the holy, catholic, apostolic, and Roman Church. With these aids, if his body was not relieved of disease, he said at least that it was relieved of pain, and his mind confirmed in the hope of eternal life. He spent what remained of his time (for nineteen days remained) in the meditation of heavenly things, neither moving his eyes from the image of the Crucified, nor his mind from the thought of the crucified God. To everyone who saw him, his body, which was wasting away, was a spectacle of a mournful nature, but one that was far and away most illustrious for the constancy and tranquility which the consciousness of a certainly known truth and a well-spent life gave him. Five or six days before his death, confined to his bed, when he had now felt death in his throat, and seemed like a breathing corpse, he was, as much as possible, of a robust and constant mind; he said he would pray for his friends when he had migrated to Christ, and he took care that the things he had once noted as provided for this time should be read to him from the holy Scriptures. Finally, on the day we celebrated the birth of God, thinking it well that he should die on so holy a day, he asked for the final prayers two hours before his death, and for the last absolution in his very final breath, and so he fell asleep in the Lord in the year 1718. We have deemed it wrong to mourn so signaled a death, marked by all the signs of predestination: yet we nevertheless miss his exceptional simplicity of character joined to no mediocre intellect, his utmost piety joined to no common learning, and his more severe doctrine joined to an easygoing spirit among his companions.

NOTICE OF THE MANUSCRIPTS

Regarding the manuscripts that Grodecius and Prevotius followed, since they themselves said nothing, we can form a judgment only by conjecture. Grodecius collated the entire work of the Catecheses and the Letter to Constantius with the Slavonic and Polish versions from the Slavonic interpretation, and with one Greek codex, the Scirletian; Prevotius collated them with Vatican codices, of which he reveals neither the number nor the note. What Grodecius took from the Slavonic book, and what from the Greek codex, he does not note. Stanislaus Hosius gave a specimen of the Scirletian codex by transcribing the entire 22nd catechesis from it. It abounds with many errors of scribes and of writing, nor did Grodecius follow it in all things. Grodecius has very many lacunae; he also has certain additions, which I have also found in other codices. The Vatican codices which Prevotius used are disfigured by fewer lacunae than the Grodecian edition, and are free from all additions; if you except the word ὁμοούσιον at the end of cat. 17, n. 32 and 35, which [was added] against the mind of the author, as I think, by the Holy Spirit. Thomas Milles, the curator of the English edition, also reviewed all the Catecheses and the Letter to Constantius, using one codex belonging to Sir Thomas Roe, and various readings collected by the illustrious Isaac Casaubon from some manuscript codex. He thinks the first, the Roe codex, was written six hundred years ago: it is on parchment, and was brought from the East with many others, and given to the Bodleian Library by Thomas Roe, a knight, who was sent as an ambassador by King James I of Britain to the Great Mogul. Those various readings of Casaubon, however, were collected by him from a manuscript codex and accurately written in the margin of his own book of Cyrillian works, in which, in addition to the varieties of readings, he had also added his own conjectures about obscure passages. The Bishop of Norwich communicated this most kindly to Milles. But who this codex is and whence it was taken is unknown, nor did Casaubon note it. Milles conjectures that it was discovered by an illustrious man in some library in France. I, however, strongly suspect that this codex is the same as the Roe codex. For in both, the variety of readings is the same, the omissions are the same, the additions are same, and the notes in the margin are the same, as is evident to anyone who even slightly inspects the variant readings of the Milles edition, or our own Greek notes and the index of variants. I do not care about certain differences between the two that sometimes appear. Their diligence is not to be praised: for it is a thing when one reviews a codex after another, that many things are missed or badly altered from the original. However, if there are two codices, at least one is supposed to have been described from both, and when the variations are noted, it appears they were transcribed by the best hand, for everywhere they represent the writing well, and only a few have additions, while some scholarly note sometimes appears in the margin or even in the text. They often represent better readings than the vulgar ones, which the corrected ones treat as suspect. Rome, the Rev. Father Philippus Raffier sent to me the variants of two manuscripts from the Ottobonian library, collected with the greatest industry, which crossed over into it from the Theatine [Library]. They contain all the Catecheses and the Letter to Constantius. The first, which is marked R, is ancient and of parchment, and contains many notable variations from the published ones: because of the first leaves being worn, the Procatechesis and the first catechesis could not be found. The other is of paper and is recent; it does not differ at all from the published ones;