and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5), and so on; otherwise cat. 3, n. 4, otherwise cat. 17, n. 11. He sometimes uses one Scripture text for another. Thus, under the name of Christ he cites in cat. 2, num. 4, a testimony that comes from the first epistle of John, while something similar in truth occurs in his Gospel, ch. 8, v. 44. But he does not represent either passage faithfully. Likewise, cat. 6, num. 5, he praises the words, "No man has seen God at any time," under the name of the Lord Jesus: these words are in the Gospel of John or of John the Baptist, or if you will, of the evangelist himself, but in no way of Christ; cat. 16, n. 18. Under the name of Isaiah, he produces two testimonies, whereof the first is from Malachi, the second only is from Isaiah. He sometimes confuses several similar passages and mixes them into one. Among many more notable ones are these testimonies: that in cat. 14, n. 20, "Who brought out from the earth the great shepherd of the sheep," is fashioned from the confused words of Isaiah and the Apostle writing to the Hebrews; another in cat. 18, n. 18, where he mixes the words [CXXXIV] of Daniel and of Christ in the Gospel, inserting some things of his own. Another in the same cat. 34, in which place he joins two testimonies of Paul from the same epistle to the Philippians. See also cat. 5, n. 3, where two from the epistles to Timothy are also mixed. Fourthly, into the same category can be referred the errors committed in the history of the heretics whom he mentions in cat. 6, and especially in many chapters where the exposition of the Valentinian doctrine is deficient. These and many other things which you might find demonstrate that Cyril truly poured forth his catecheses extemporaneously. In the same way he seems to have delivered his homilies on the paralytic, abounding in digressions, parentheses, improper locutions, and constructions; and [it seems] that he wrote the letter to Constantius, which, as he himself testifies in n. 5, was drafted quickly and in haste, just as his long and intricate periods confirm.
41. For these same reasons, I am persuaded that Cyril did not later arrange into writing the orations delivered extemporaneously, as many of the Fathers did, nor did he review them after they had been taken down by scribes. For what we have noted, without a doubt, would have been, in a time of leisure, in the greatest part corrected. Nor does anything of the catecheseon lose, on that account, in praise or value. For, to omit that the author was imbued with the best of studies and was trained and seasoned by the habit of many years in instructing catechumens, so that he could bring forth nothing but the best, even if extemporaneous; it is not to be thought that Cyril ascended the platform unprepared and entirely unpremeditated, especially as a young man, about to speak on the greatest of matters. For such a wealth of Scriptural testimonies, such a mass of arguments and proofs, could not have occurred to his memory without any preparation and premeditation; nor could Cyril have spoken so accurately and circumspectly about theology, instructed so diligently about morals, and discussed so eruditely and at times subtly the various senses of Scripture without a preceding preparation and disposition of the matters to be said in his mind. Rivetus desires much diligence in these catecheses: I do not know if the author would have added much more if he had written them in leisure. The faults of speech that we have brought up as evidence of an extemporaneous oration, if you look to the magnitude and excellence of the whole work, are but blemishes on an otherwise most beautiful body. Cyril of Alexandria was sometimes complained of in his lib. VII *De oratione*, etc., p. 267, because some of the faithful committed to writing the extemporaneous sermons of teachers, not without great risk to their reputation and fame; since they were published as carefully elaborated works which lacked diligent industry. There is no reason for us to complain similarly about the scribes of the Cyrillian catecheses: for they themselves noted that they were extemporaneous. And if they had neglected to point this out, it would have been detected by us with difficulty; nor would the ignorance of that fact have brought any detriment to Cyril's reputation. But his extemporaneous faculty teaches us what he was capable of when writing quietly and at leisure. We truly owe them a great debt of gratitude, because by their work and labor, they have preserved the most precious and unique monument of its kind for the Church.
Dissertation Three. On various chapters of Cyrillian doctrine.
1. The student here approaches the examination of the doctrine of St. Cyril: which others, with malevolent intent, have accepted in a worse sense to stir up envy against his name; others, occupied by the prejudiced opinions of their own sect, so that they might not leave behind such a bulwark of the Catholic Church, have worked with great effort to corrupt it with perverse interpretations and to bend it to their own opinions. The faith of the holy bishop must be defended against the former, it must be kept for the Catholic Church, and it must be rescued from its enemies, into whose hands they have rashly dared to invade and take possession. It is, however, of the greatest interest for many reasons to inquire into the doctrine of Cyril more studiously. First, because in his catechetical work he did not put forth or explain private opinions or overly subtle questions; but the naked and common faith of the Church, such as it was to be believed by all: and from that, one may form a legitimate conjecture as to what was being taught throughout the entire Catholic world. Nor should it be passed over that Cyril at that time, though very much an alien to the Arians, was [yet firmly] of the [party] of Athanasius and...
disjointed from the defenders of the Nicene faith by the controversies over terms that were then provoking motion, but who had expressed their doctrine in common and customary formulas that amount to the same thing, so that we may understand what was commonly taught by all the teachers of the churches to those who were candidates for our faith. Not even the Arians were excepted, for the majority of them, not daring to alter the customary language of the Church, strove to evade it with subtle interpretations. Since these interpretations exceeded the grasp of the uneducated people, they were either hidden from them and reserved for the disputations of bishops and doctors, or, if they were proposed to the people, the latter generally acquiesced in the obvious and natural sense of the simple instruction, passing over what they did not understand. Another way to investigate the doctrine of Cyril more studiously is through the authority of the Church of Jerusalem, whose faith he was setting forth. "Out of it went forth the law, and the word of the Lord," which from there irrigated the whole earth like rain, as Cyril himself says (cat. 18, n. 34); this is the mother of all churches; there is the fountain of ecclesiastical tradition: where could you better seek it than in its very origin? There is added to this the antiquity of Cyril, and his age, which was close to the fortunate centuries of the Church. The closer to the fountain, the purer and less turbid is the stream of tradition, muddied by the filth of base opinions. All the bishops of this city, almost up to that age, famous for their holiness and doctrine, had watched most diligently over this purity. That Church was flourishing then not only in its most chaste morals, and in the flocks of ascetics and monks and virgins, but also in C the abundant participation in the special gifts of the Holy Spirit, which, of course, were common and widespread in his age, as Cyril testifies in six hundred places. These reasons have caused me to inquire into the doctrine of Cyril with the greatest possible zeal. I have explained many chapters in the Notes. Here, those things remain to be investigated that demanded a more diligent effort than could be included in the brevity of the Notes. I follow the sequence of dogmas that Cyril himself prefixed to his fourth catechetical lecture.
CHAPTER FIRST.
*What the sentiment of Saint Cyril concerning the most holy Trinity was.*2. The faith of Saint Cyril regarding the most holy Trinity is accused by himself. Jerome in his *Chronicle* confidently numbers him among the flock of the Arians. Rufinus writes that he wavered at times in the faith, and more often in communion. Socrates and Sozomen say that at the time of the Council of Constantinople he returned to the faith of consubstantiality after repentance. In the time of Theophanes, there were those who, suspecting him of the Arian opinion, slandered his "Apeistophona," because of the title of "most pious" (εὐσεβέστατον) attributed to Constantius in the letter about the apparition of the cross, and because the word "consubstantial" was omitted in his catechetical lectures. Metaphrastes in his *Life of Saint Athanasius*, and another writer of the *Life* of the same saint, write that he was inflamed with the greatest ardor of impiety. These things gave room for slanders, either slanders spread about his ordination while he was alive, or those fanned by those who had dealings with the so-called semi-Arians.
What pertains to both heads, I hope I have explained abundantly in the various places of our dissertation concerning his life. But as for what can be brought forward from his writings for the purpose of defense or accusation, I inquire only into that here; and first I shall prove that he discoursed most perfectly on the Holy Trinity; then I shall show more specifically the same concerning the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
3. And, first, when he deals with the Trinity, he warns that the opposing errors must be avoided. The first, lest a Sabellian confusion of persons be introduced: the second, lest the Trinity itself be separated and distracted; and that either a plurality of gods or separated natures of persons be admitted (cat. 16, n. 4): "Our hope is in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. We do not announce three gods; let the Marcionites fall silent. Rather, with the Holy Spirit, through one Son, we preach one God. The faith is undivided, the piety is inseparable, nor do we separate the holy Trinity, as some do, nor do we cause a confusion according to Sabellius." He teaches, therefore, first, that our hope can be placed in God alone: (hom. in Paralyt. num. 6), he bids this to be placed in the three persons: he thinks, therefore, that each one is God. Second, while he denies three gods, he either denies the title of God to the Son and Holy Spirit, or he thinks they constitute one God with the Father. To deprive them of divinity is to separate the Trinity, which he most severely guards against: otherwise he pronounces the Son—at least by the words of the symbol—true God. He judged, therefore, that both together constitute one God with the Father. Third, what he warns about avoiding the confusion or separation of the three, he repeats in almost numberless places concerning the Father and the Son: principally (cat. 4, n. 8; cat. 11, n. 16, 17, and 18; cat. 15, n. 9); in which places he proves that the same thing should be supposed regarding the Holy Spirit—that he applied that same sentiment to Him in the cited testimony of the 16th catechetical lecture. But what is it, in Cyril’s view, to separate the Trinity or the persons? He explains it clearly (cat. 14, n. 17): surely, to relegate some person into the number of creatures. For there, explaining what he had said about the opposite errors, he says: "Lest, thinking to defer honor to the Son, we call Him the Father; and lest, while we think we are honoring the Father, we suspect the Son to be one of the things created." The matter itself cries out. He refutes equally the Sabellians, who confused the three persons into one; and the Arians, who referred the Son and the Holy Spirit to the number of creatures: neither sentiment pleases him; therefore, he exempts the Son and the Holy Spirit from the creatures. He so joins the three that he warns that one should only avoid the confusion of one person changed at times into three. Nothing else remains except that he admits three persons conjoined in one nature.
4. Second, he makes the divinity common to the persons equally. (Cat. 6, num. 6), speaking of the Son: "The only-begotten Son is a participant in the Father’s divinity, along with the Holy Spirit." Θεότητος τῆς πατρικῆς ἐστι σὺν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ κοινωνὸς ὁ Υἱός.
Υἱός. A And he brings this forward as an argument to prove that God is perfectly comprehended by the Son and the Holy Spirit, since both are participants in His divinity. In Catechesis 4, no. 16, he says concerning the Holy Spirit: "Who together with the Father and the Son is adorned with the glory of divinity," τῆς θεότητος δόξῃ τετίμηται. Thirdly, he always joins the Three in divinity, and likewise in the consessus (co-throning). In Catechesis 15, no. 45, speaking of the time of baptism: "Imagine for yourselves the Lord God of all sitting, and the only-begotten Son sitting at His right hand, and the Spirit present together," συμπαρόν. "The Thrones and Dominions ministering; how far removed from the Three!" In Catechesis 15, no. 24: "There will be present then in judgment the God of all, the Father, with Jesus Christ sitting, and the Holy Spirit being present together," συμπαρόντος. In Catechesis 17, no. 5, concerning the Holy Spirit: "Living, he says, and subsistent, and always present together with the Father and the Son," πάντοτε Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπαρόν. Fourthly, he joins together those who have one nature, divinity, and consessus, as holding also one operation. In Catechesis 16, no. 24, "The Father through the Son bestows all things with the Holy Spirit: for the gifts of the Father are not one thing, and those of the Son another, and those of the Holy Spirit another: for salvation is one, power is one, faith is one." In Catechesis 7, no. 7, "We have been transferred from servitude into the adoption of the Father by grace, through the Son and the Holy Spirit." In Catechesis 17, no. 5, "Indivisible is it and discordant, and the single dispensation of salvation toward us, which exists from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; or, as some manuscripts have it, which exists from the Father through the Son in or with the Holy Spirit: which is the same thing." And in Catechesis 18, no. 29, "The Father is Life, who through the Son in the Holy Spirit [CXXXVIII] pours forth heavenly gifts." Some manuscripts have: "The Father is Life, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or with the Holy Spirit, etc." You see the fellowship of action noted by the particles of equality.
5. Fifthly, he distributes the divine characteristics to the persons without distinction, and endows them with equal power, with the incomprehensibility of nature, and with the infinity of knowledge. Since he teaches in Catechesis 8, no. 5, from the authority of the Psalmist, that all things are God's servants, he excepts the Son and the Holy Spirit from that word "all things," whom he teaches all things serve along with the Father. "All things," he says, "are servants to Him: but His one and only Son, and His one Holy Spirit are outside of all things [that have been] posited; and all those things that are servants, through one Son in the Holy Spirit serve the Lord." He clearly understands "all things" to be creatures; and elsewhere in Cat. 10, no. 5, and Cat. 14, no. 21, he establishes the title of master and king on the authority of the creator; and consequently, the opposite condition of servitude is founded on the subjection and dependence of created matter. When, therefore, the Holy Spirit and the Son are exempt from servitude, nay rather, all things serve them; both are exempt from the number of creatures. Cyril asserts that the divine nature is comprehended by itself alone, and is not comprehended by any created thing. See primarily Cat. 6, no. 2 et seqq.; Cat. 9, no. 3. But what he teaches concerning the incomprehensible nature of God and the Father in the cited passages, the same he hands down in many places concerning the Son and His eternal birth, but especially in Cat. 11, no. 14 and 12; he does likewise B concerning the substance of the Holy Spirit in Cat. 16, no. 5 and 24; and in almost the same words as he had spoken concerning the eternal generation. But as he teaches that the incomprehensible nature of both is most highly known and comprehended by the divine [nature] of each, so too do they know. Cat. 6, no. 6, when he had proven that angels see God more excellently some than others, yet none perfectly; he adds, "One can see as is fitting, the Holy Spirit together with the Son, for He searches and knows all things, even the deep things of God, just as certainly the only-begotten Son knows the Father as much as is fitting together with the Holy Spirit." And he subjoins the reason, since each is a participant in the paternal divinity; Cat. 7, no. 11, "The angels see the face of God, each one according to the measure of his own order and place: but the pure contemplation of the paternal splendor, properly and sincerely, is reserved to the Son together with the Holy Spirit." Cat. 11, no. 11, he proves at length that the mystery of divine generation is incomprehensible to earth, heaven, men, angels, and the entire created nature, καὶ πᾶσα γεννητὴ φύσις. But the first knowledge of this he grants to the Holy Spirit, no. 12, "Is there anything else that knows the deep things of God except the Holy Spirit alone who spoke the divine Scriptures? But neither has the Holy Spirit spoken in the Scriptures concerning the generation of the Son from the Father." Then to the Son, no. 13, "He who begat alone knows Him whom He begat, and He who was begotten by Him knows the begetter." Therefore he distinguishes both by a long interval from generated or created nature.
6. Finally, from one nature of the Three, from the [one] operation, from the consessus (co-throning), and from the infinite separation from the state and mode of creatures, there follows one glory of the three, one worship to be rendered. Cat. 6, no. 1, "Let the glorification of the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit be celebrated indivisibly." For the Father does not have one glory, and the Son another; but one and the same with [CXXXIX] the Holy Spirit. Cat. 16, no. 4, "The Holy Spirit is honored with the Father and the Son, and at the time of holy baptism is comprehended together in the holy Trinity"; no. 19, "The Holy Spirit is a truly precious thing: we are rightly baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Spirit." From this indivisible conjunction of the Son and Holy Spirit with the Father in the baptismal formula, the formula of the Trinity to be glorified was born in the churches, which Cyril is D accustomed to express in almost all the clauses of the catecheses with particles of equality. Cat. 12, no. 17, he forbids the adoration of the Father and the Son to be divided. The reason he uses, namely, that we might not fall into the opposite Sabellian heresy, also applies to the Holy Spirit; whom, for fear of the same heresy, he forbids us to separate from the Trinity, in almost the same words in Cat. 16, no. 4. What more the reader might desire, I do not know, unless perhaps the open profession of the consubstantial Trinity. This you have in the final words of the epistle to Constantius, in which he prays that God would keep the Augustus safe for many years, "glorifying the holy and consubstantial Trinity, our true God." That this reading is uselessly called into question [is demonstrated] in the Proloquium to that epistle, no. 10.
A I have warned. But no one who is of an impartial mind can deny that the full force of that word and opinion is contained in the sentiments of the catecheses adduced above.
7. There is one point that can be raised against the doctrine concerning the Trinity [as presented] from Cyril; namely, that he separated the external actions of the Trinity, from which a separation of nature also follows. The action of creation, for example, he assigns to the Son alone: the Father, he seems to attribute only the command to create and the supplying of the template for the things to be fashioned; to the Holy Spirit, he seems to attribute only the sanctification of things brought into being by the nod of the Father through Christ. His teaching on the Father commanding and providing to the Son the template of things to be created, and on the Son creating, stands in cat. 11, n. 22 and 23, which he clarifies with the example of a king who, wishing to build a city, provides to his son, who B is likewise a king with him, the command and the template of the city to be built; which son then, at the command of the father, builds it according to the template supplied to him: by which example it is concluded that the bringing into being of the world is the work of the Son alone. This was indeed the opinion of the Arians, who said that creations could not bear the action of the Father, and that a mediator of a nature more tempered to the hand was needed. Eusebius of Caesarea sets forth this doctrine at length in *Orat. De laudibus Constant.*, c. 9, and Athanasius refutes it in *Orat. 2, cont. Arian.*, n. 24, and *De decr. Nicæn.*, n. 7 and 8. Furthermore, regarding the Holy Spirit only sanctifying created things, [he says in] cat. 16, n. 3: "He is, he says, the Holy Spirit, the sanctifier of all things brought into being by God through Christ"; [and] cat. 17, n. 2: "He is the sanctifier of all things endowed with reason, which were made by God through Christ." But if I were to concede that this was truly Cyril's opinion, what would follow from it? This, at most: that Cyril did not see one of the corollaries of Catholic doctrine; namely, that of those for whom there is one nature and divinity, there must necessarily be one action that proceeds externally; [and that] he thought there was enough of a foundation in the distinction of the persons, however undivided the nature, for the operations to be assigned to each separately, C [CXL] could be possible. These, I say, are the only things that one could conclude, but not that he overtly overturned the doctrine established regarding the inseparable Trinity, even if we were to grant that he separated the external operations of the Trinity, although for an altogether different reason and cause than the Arians and Eusebius. For they, on account of the majesty of the paternal nature, said that it could neither debase itself to create, nor could it be sustained by creatures: Cyril, however, alleges this one reason, cat. 11, n. 22, that the Father, wishing to communicate the power and dominion of created things to the Son who is his equal, entrusted the work of creation to him. But nothing forces us to use that defense; and we undertake to prove from Cyril that the Father and the Holy Spirit created together with the Son, just as the same Father and the Son are the authors of sanctification together with the Holy Spirit.
8. And first, indeed, who would believe that the simple nod and command of creating is to be revoked [from the Father]—which Cyril so magnificently pronounces in many places regarding God the Father as the creator of all things, most notably in cat. 4, n. 4, 18, and 22; cat. 6, n. 9 and 12; cat. 7, n. 6, and throughout the whole ninth catechesis; in which places he most diligently refutes the Marcionites, the Manichaeans, and other heretics who denied that this world was the workmanship of Christ's Father. Against them he proves in cat. 7, n. 6 that the Father of Christ is the same as the creator of the world and the author of the Old Testament. Yet they considered the God of the Old Testament to be the proper and true creator of the world: he does not refute this, but strives to obtain that they should also recognize him as the Father of Christ. Secondly, he distinguishes two titles and actions in the Father, one of Father, the other of Creator, cat. 4, n. 4: "There is only one God who is the maker of both souls and bodies; one is the craftsman of heaven and earth, of angels and D of archangels. Who is indeed the craftsman of many things, but before the ages the Father of one only, our Lord Jesus Christ." Note that the Greek word which I have translated as "craftsman" is δημιουργός, which is proper to an artisan and worker touching and forming his work with his own hands; cat. 7, n. 5: "God is indeed by abuse the Father of many, but by nature and truth the Father of one only Son, Jesus Christ." How he is by abuse the Father of created things, namely on account of creation, he explains in n. 8, with two places from the Old Testament: the one from Moses, Deut. xxxii, 6: "Is not he himself your Father, he who possessed you, and made you, and created you?" and the other from Isaiah: "O Lord, you are our Father, and we are clay; all of us are the works of your hands." Thirdly, he teaches in many places that the Father touched the work of creation with his own hands; cat. 4, n. 5: "The heavens are the works of his fingers, and the whole earth is held in his palm": cat. 9, in which the whole discourse is about the Father, n. 15, when he says he is the one who "knit us together with sinews and bones, and covered us with skin and flesh; who stirs the heart with unceasing motion, who has fortified the tenderness of the eyes with the embrace of the eyelids, etc."; cat. 12, n. 26: "It is God who fashions the fetus of men in the womb until this very day." Fourthly, cat. 18, n. 6, he says it belongs to the same one who made us to resurrect us when we are collapsed and dead; just as [it belongs to] sculptors to melt down a collapsed statue into the same form again. That this is said of God the creator in that same place and in n. 3, there is no mention of Christ in the entire catechesis. Fifthly, he teaches that the Father always works, [CXLI] and that the Son works with the Father, homil. *in paralyt.* n. 5: "His Father works always, and he works together with the Father, συνεργάζεται, and of all things, by the nod of the Father, he was the maker." He says the same cat. 7, n. 6. He also says in catech. 6, n. 7, that the Father, while being one and the same, even if called by different names, "emits innumerable operations of divinity," μυρίας ἐκπέμπει τὰς τῆς θεότητος ἐνεργείας. What finally are we looking for with many words? Behold the explicit testimony of the associated operation of the Son and the Father, cat. 10, n. 6: "So that it might be declared that man is not the work of God alone, but also of our Lord Jesus Christ." Let these [examples] from many suffice, so that we may not believe that the Father was left by Cyril without his own operation in creating.
A
9. The objection brought from the example, which Cyril uses, of a king wishing to build a city and entrusting the entire care of the work with a delivered model to his Son, is weak, since Cyril himself confesses that the example is altogether feeble and cannot be accurately transferred to divinity; yet, if the Father contributed nothing in creation beyond a command and a model, it is altogether equitable, true, and perfect. But why Cyril attributed the exemplary cause to the Father and the properly efficient cause to the Son, for one inquiring more diligently, this conjecture occurs, which I gladly submit to the reader's judgment. Marcellus of Ancyra, a certain and undoubted heretic to Cyril, thus expounds his own opinion concerning the creation of the world in Euseb. Caes. *lib. II cont. Marcell.*, page 41: "He compares God, about to found the world, to a statuary delineating for himself the image to be fashioned, who, when he begins to apply his hand to the work, addresses his own reason, by which he composes all things, as a separate person: 'Come, let us fashion the statue.'" If this comparison is taken strictly, the Word, who is the eternal reason of the Father, would be no more distinguished from the Father than the mind and reason of the statuary [is from the statuary], and that which was constructed in the Father would remain devoid of operation. Against this [kind of] doctrine, Cyril perhaps opposes his own example, by which the Son is studiously separated from the Father and demonstrated to be endowed with his own subsistence and operation. But this doctrine of the model, which Cyril demonstrated for the Son, and which is common to him with many Fathers of his age, he had without doubt drawn from the divine Scriptures, and primarily from that saying of Christ, John v, 19: "The Son can do nothing of himself unless he see the Father doing [it]." These words Gregory Nazianzen interprets thoroughly according to Cyril's opinion, *orat. 36*; for having previously excluded that opinion, that the Son only does those things which he has seen already done by the Father, he thus opens his own [view], page 584: *Ή δῆλον ὅτι τῶν αὐτῶν πραγμάτων τοὺς τύπους ἐνσημαίνεται μὲν ὁ Πατὴρ, ἐπιτελεῖ δὲ Λόγος· οὐ δουλικῶς οὐδὲ ἀμαθῶς, ἀλλ' ἐπιστημονικῶς τε καὶ δεσποτικῶς, καὶ, οἰκειότερον εἰπεῖν, πατρικῶς*; Is it not clear that the forms of the same things are indeed designated by the Father, but performed by the Son; not servilely and ignorantly, but skillfully and lordly, and, to speak more aptly, paternally? Hilary explains this demonstration of the model similarly, not as an example of a work already done, but concerning the communication of the paternal will, because, he says, the work of the Father is in the will, *in ps. XCI, n. 6*. Then he adds: "Therefore the Son looks upon the will of the Father as a model of operation; because within the providence of the paternal thoughts, they are formed by a certain predestination of future things." These things [are said] in regard to the aforementioned testimony of Christ; which, examining more laboriously in *lib. VII De Trinitate*, he says in n. 19, that this demonstration is the very substance of his birth to perform works. In the same manner, Basil, in *lib. De Spiritu sancto cap. 8, page 309*, bids us understand the communication of the paternal command and will concerning things to be created in a way that befits God: B namely, as the Son flowing forth from the Father without time. *Θεοπρεπῶς νοῶμεν θελήματος διάδοσιν, οἷόν τινος μορφῆς ἔμφασιν ἐν κατόπτρῳ ἐκ Πατρὸς εἰς Υἱὸν ἀχρόνως διικνουμένην.* The doctrine of Cyril was without doubt the same; the principle of which is that all things were delivered from the Father to the Son eternally in generation, *cat. 10, n. 9*. For when he repeats the title and authority of the Lord in Christ from the title of creator, he says that he received this lordship itself from eternity and naturally, *ibid. and n. 4 and 5*. There is, therefore, no demonstration in Cyril of the works to be done that argues for a separation of the Son from the Father, but rather an intimate and eternal conjunction in one nature.
10. But what, seemingly, is done by the Son from the mandate of the Father, without excluding the Father's action, as I proved above in n. 8, is the voice of all the Fathers, confirmed by testaments of Scripture, "All things were made through him," and the like; and it is consigned in almost all symbols, while they say "through whom all things were made." Before the Nicene Fathers, whose formulas of speaking can sometimes seem less accurate, I will cite none to protect Cyril by their authority. I am going to produce only the more notable and fervent defenders of the catholic faith against the Arians. When the Arians said that the Son created all things by the mandate of the Father, the Fathers did not deny this; but they only repelled the wicked consequences, which were concluding against the equality of the Son from that mandate and creation, in which the Father would have no parts other than commanding. See Athan. *De decr. Nic. n. 7, 9, 12, and 18*, where he says that God uses the Son as his hand and wisdom to have founded all things; and *orat. 2, n. 64*, he teaches that the Word, when he was creating all things in the beginning, tempered himself to the things being made so that they could happen; for they could not have borne his nature, unless he, accommodating himself to them with paternal kindness, had sustained them, and by sustaining had led them to existence: which, indeed, he opposes to the Arians, who asserted that the Word was by his own nature tempered to the things to be created. See also Hilary *in psal. CXVIII, litt. 14, num. 10*, and *lib. IV De Trin., num. 16*; Ambros. *lib. II Hexaem., cap. 5, num. 18*, and *lib. II De Spir. sancto, cap. 1*. Basil, *De Spiritu sancto cap. 16, page 325*, describes in creation the commanding Lord, the creating Word, and the confirming Holy Spirit. Greg. Naz. *Carm. arcan. 8, p. 171*, D *Ἦν ποτε, ἦν ὅτε κόσμον ἐπήξατο Νοῦ λόγος αἰπὺς, ἐσπόμενος μεγάλοιο νῷ Πατρός* — "There was once, there was once when the great Word of the Mind established the world, obeying the mind of the great Father." See Cyril of Alexandria, *Thesauri lib. XXIX, page 255*. St. Maximus the Confessor, *quaest. 2 in Scripturam*, in divine works attributes *εὐδοκίαν* (good pleasure) to the Father, [CXLIII] *αὐτουργίαν* (the very execution of the author acting through himself) to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit the substantial complement of both, namely, of the good pleasure with the Father, and of the execution with the Son. From these and infinite others which I omit, it can be concluded that the common opinion among the Fathers was that there was something peculiar to the Son, hidden from us, in creation, although [it is common] to the three persons.
DISSERTATION III.
Chapter II. The divinity of the Son is proven more specifically from Cyril.
A 13. Having established the doctrine on the Holy Trinity which we set forth from Cyril, the divinity and equality with the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are proven by the same act. Yet there are specific testimonies regarding each one in Cyril, which it is worthwhile to collect and present here; so that, to the extent that his opinion diverges from the Arians and Pneumatomachs, whose communion is itself the object of this study, it may be demonstrated. I shall begin with the Son. He not only accurately, copiously, and clearly set forth, explained, and proved the catholic doctrine concerning the divinity of the Word, but also most diligently pursued and rooted out all the offshoots of Arian impiety. And first, indeed, he studiously distinguished the Son from creatures, having refuted by name the blasphemous decrees of the Arians on this matter, and asserted that [the Son] is truly and properly begotten, and is the natural Son of the Father. Thus in Catechesis 11, n. 17: “Lest, thinking to confer honor upon the Son, we call Him Father; or, while thinking to honor the Father, we suspect the Son to be one of the created things.” Cat. 15, n. 9: “But now there is a fall; and some proclaim paternity for the Son, while others dare to say that Christ was brought into being from things that did not exist.” Cat. 11, n. 14: “And, as has been very often said, the Father did not by any means bring the Son from non-existence into being, nor did He adopt into sonship Him who was not, but being the eternal Father, He eternally begat one only Son in an ineffable manner.” On this account, he studiously distinguishes in the Father two actions and two relations: the one of the Creator toward all things brought forth from nothing, the other of the Father and begetter toward the Son alone. We cited two testimonies for this in the preceding chapter, n. 8, from Cat. 4, n. 4, and Cat. 7, n. 5. He admits in the Father a generation that is true and proper, by which there exists not an adopted, but a natural and proper Son. Cat. 11, n. 2: “When you hear of the Son, do not think of an adopted son, but a natural Son, the only-begotten Son”; and n. 4, “Again, when you hear of the Son, do not think that the term is used only abusively, but that He is truly a Son, a natural Son, without beginning; not raised from servitude to the rank of adoption, but a Son begotten from all eternity.” He establishes a great difference between the adopted sons of God and Christ: 1st, that the adoption of men is temporal, but the Son’s birth is eternal: B 2nd, that the former become sons of God by word and grace, the latter by nature. “They,” he says in the same place, “received by the voice and word of God an adoption which they did not have. But He, when He was not something else, did not become something else; but He is the Son of the Father, born from the beginning, existing superior to every beginning and the ages.” N. 9, speaking of the adopted sons of Paul: “He, who was not a son by nature, is made a son by discipleship: but that One is a natural Son, the true Son. Not as you, O you who are to be illuminated, are now made sons of God, but by adoption through grace... but Christ was not so born from the Father: and he proves this, because whereas at the time of baptism God can say of each of us, ‘this is now made my son,’ of Christ He said...”
14. I come finally to the Holy Spirit, to whom I do not approve that either sanctification alone or that exclusively by Cyril is attributed. For, first, he proves that his own parts are to be preserved for the Holy Spirit in creation, because although in Cat. 12, n. 26, he attributes to the Son the formation of the flesh He assumed in Mary, in Cat. 17, n. 6, he seems to attribute it to the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Mary. He confers the same upon the Holy Spirit as the agent of the transformation of the gifts proposed on the altar into the body and blood of Christ, Cat. 21, n. 3; Cat. 23, n. 7 and 19. The Fathers teach that this very operation pertains to the supreme omnipotence of the Creator over the things subject to Him; and Cyril himself attributes this to the Son in Cat. 22, n. 1, and to the whole Trinity in Cat. 19, n. 7. To omit that the Holy Spirit, according to the doctrine of Cyril, enjoys dominion over creatures in common with the Father and the Son, Cat. 8, n. 5, the right of which dominion is acquired by the act of creation alone, from the same, Cat. 11, n. 21. That, however, he attributes the gift of sanctification to the Father and the Son, just as to the Holy Spirit, is gathered from all the closures of the catecheses, in which he prays for the sanctification of the hearers from the Father. See first Procat. n. 17; Cat. 3, n. 16; Cat. 6, n. 36; Cat. 14, n. 30; Cat. 15, n. 33; Cat. 18, n. 35; Cat. 20, n. 8, and Cat. 23, n. 23, which he concludes thus: “May the God of peace sanctify you wholly.” Yet it must not be denied—not by Cyril alone, but by all the Fathers, nay, even by Sacred Scripture—that sanctification is attributed to the Holy Spirit as a proper and special effect, while they say that through Him charity is shed abroad in our hearts, pious thoughts are infused, our infirmity is aided, the soul is purged from sins: these and many other things are treated most magnificently by Cyril_in the whole of Catecheses 16 and 17. C He attributes to Him the impression of the characters of holy baptism and confirmation, the guardianship of the soul, the gift of adoption: he refers back to Him the sanctification of the baptismal water, Cat. 3, n. 4, and the holy chrism, Cat. 21, n. 3, and the power of exorcisms, Procat. n. 9, Cat. 16, n. 18, 19, to omit infinite other things; and such is the doctrine of the other Holy Fathers. From which, most grave theologians have not unworthily thought that they could conclude that, even if they confess the sanctification of souls to be common to the three persons, nevertheless something peculiar to the Holy Spirit intervenes in it, so that He alone sustains in Himself the cause and form of this sanctification as it were. You may see Petavius discussing these things most learnedly and copiously in book VIII of *De Trinitate*, c. 44 et seqq., *Dogm. Theol.* vol. II.
* Matth. III, 17; XVII, 5.
This is my Son, which he explains more fully in Catechism 3, no. 14: "In you also shall the Holy Spirit descend, and the paternal voice shall be heard from above, not 'this is my son,' but 'this has now become my son.' Of Him alone is it said: 'In the beginning was the Word,' etc., for to Him fits the word 'is,' since He is always the Son of God; to you, however, 'has now become' fits; because you have the status of son not by nature, but you obtain the title of son by adoption: He is eternal, but you acquire grace by progress." For this reason Christ said in a completely different way that God is His Father and our Father. Cyril observes in Catechism 7, no. 7, that Christ did not say "I ascend to our Father," but, by making a distinction, He first declared what is proper to Himself, "to my Father," which was, of course, by nature: then He added, "and your Father," which was by adoption. He repeats the same in Catechism 11, no. 19: "Lest you think that He is the Father of the Son in the same way as He is the Father of creatures, He did not say 'I ascend to our Father,' lest a commonality between creatures and the Only-Begotten be introduced; but 'my Father and your Father,' He says: 'mine' in one way, according to nature; and 'yours' in another, according to adoption." Wherefore He commands that the name of Father be taken properly with respect to the Son. In Catechism 7, no. 5, he says: "God is therefore the Father of many, indeed, abusively, but by nature and in truth the Father of one only begotten Son"; and he strictly forbids in no. 3 that we should take away the paternal dignity from God, who imparts the power of begetting to all. Behold the Son entirely separated from creatures; behold the true Son of God, drawing divine nature from the true Father by true generation.
13. But that no impediment to the true and perfect divinity of the Son might exist in this divine generation, he teaches three things: 1st, that this generation requires no interval of time and is perfect from eternity: 2nd, that there is no imperfection in that which is generated, nor is there any obstacle to perfection. Catechism 11, no. 8: "When God and Father begets, neither ignorance nor deliberation is in the middle... to say that He deliberated with times, and that the Father was subsequently made, is of the same impiety. For God was not previously existing without children, and afterwards became a Father in time, but He always has the Son; A cf. no. 7, In the begetting of bodies it is necessary for an interval of time to intervene, but indeed no intermediate time is found in the generation of the Son from the Father; and in Catechism 7, no. 5, 'He did not attain Fatherhood through the succession of times, but exists as the Father of the Only-Begotten eternally.' For He did not exist alone without offspring and afterwards, with a changed intention, became a Father; but God has paternal dignity before all substance and before every sense, before all times and ages, in which He delights more than in all other titles. And just as the Father is from eternity, so is the Son from eternity; for as he says, no. 4: 'The name of Father is by its own naming the Father of the Son' B and he subjects to the mind... as soon as the Father is thought of, we think of the Son in the same act. For nothing at all stands between the Son and the Father. Catechism 11, no. 14, nor did He beget after deliberating with Himself, but He begat eternally, and much faster than our words and thoughts, as is indeed agreeable, He begat... When it is a sermon about divine power, the generation is devoid of time, and in Catechism 11, [on] 'Today I have begotten thee' *: That word, 'today,' he says, is not recent, but eternal: 'today' is devoid of time, [CXLVI] before all ages. See catechism 4, no. 7. Just as it is devoid of time, so also is it devoid of all defect, the same generation by which the Son went forth perfect from eternity. Catechism 7, no. 5, he says of the Father: 'He was not made Father by passion and change of Himself, not by embrace, not from ignorance, not having suffered flux, not diminished, not altered. C The perfect Father begat a perfect Son, giving all things to Him whom He begat.' He warns in Catechism 11, no. 7, that in human and earthly generations, that which is generated is born imperfect, and acquires progress and increase in time: on the contrary, however, he says, the Son of God was born perfect; for what He is now, that He is also from the beginning, born without a beginning: and he adds the reason: 'Do not accuse the Generator of any infirmity; for if He begat an imperfect one, which reached perfection with the accession of time, you accuse the generator of infirmity; if that which time later bestowed, this, by your opinion, the generator did not give from the beginning'; no. 13: 'Neither is the generator diminished in anything, nor is anything lacking to the one generated... not begotten in times, D but begotten before ages; not grown by progress, but born this very thing which He is now'; no. 19: 'The Father... begetting God, is neither himself stripped of divinity, nor has he himself lost anything diminished or changed; nor does he who is begotten have anything lacking: perfect is He who begat, perfect is that which is begotten; God is He who begat, God is He who is begotten.' And all these heads Cyril opposes to as many impious opinions of the Arians, as we have studiously observed in our notes.
14. The effect of true generation is that that which is born is in all things and primarily by nature similar to the begetter. Hence Cyril concludes that the Son, because He is begotten of the Father, is similar to the Father in all things; true God and true Lord, just as the Father is true God and true Lord. Catechism 4, no. 7, 'Believe... in the one and only Son of God... God begotten of God, life begotten of life, light begotten of light, similar in all things to the begetter'; catechism 11, no. 4, 'The Son of the Father was born from the beginning... The Son of the Father is similar to the begetter in all things, eternal from the eternal Father, life begotten of life, and God from God'; no. 18, 'In all things the Son is similar to the begetter, life begotten of life... and God from God, and they do not differ in any thing in the marks and characteristics of divinity.'
* John 1, 1. 6 Psalm 11, 7.
A And finally, [num.] 8 and 9, 'He begat him, God true, before all ages.' If God is the Father, He begat a Son like unto Himself, God true. In the Jerusalem Creed, it was held that Christ is God true; this article he explains at length and proves. Thus he says in Catechesis 11, n. 14: 'We believe in the only-begotten Son of God, God true; for God true does not beget what is false.' N. 17: 'Therefore the Son is God true, having the Father in Himself, not changed in the Father.' He affirms that this is the true divinity, to which nothing is lacking, in these words in Catechesis 4, n. 7: 'Nothing is lacking to Him for the dignity of divinity.' He proves the truth of the divine nature in Christ by His generation; for since it is true and proper in God, just as each one generates someone like himself in nature, so the true God generates the true God. This, of course, he opposes to the impiety B of the Arians, who, although they could not take the name 'God' away from the Son, at least denied that He was God in a true and proper sense. Furthermore, since there is one true divinity, it is necessary that the Son of God is also one with the Father. [CXLVII] Therefore, in num. 16, explaining that saying of Christ, 'I and the Father are one,' he assigns a fourfold unity of the Father and the Son: of divinity, of kingdom, of will, and of works; against the manifold division of the Arians. Speaking of the first, he says: 'One, on account of the dignity of divinity, since God begat God.' He asserts that the very same divinity resides in both in these words, n. 18: 'There is nothing by which the marks of the deity differ in the Son; and whoever has been judged worthy to see the divinity of the Son, the same has been raised up to enjoy the Begetter.' This one divinity is derived, so to speak, from the intimate immanence of the Father in the Son; he says in n. 17: 'The Son is therefore God true, having the Father in himself;' which he had proved in num. 16, by one testimony of Isaiah and another of Christ, from which he had concluded: 'You see God the Son, having God the Father in Himself.' On account of this immanence of the one in the other, it follows that they are not two principles, but one, namely the Father, who pours His whole self into the Son. Which he says in num. 14: 'Neither are there two principles, but the head of the Son is the Father, [who] is the one principle; for the Father begat the Son, God true.' And as Christ is true God, so is He true Lord. Catechesis 10, num. 4: 'He is called Lord not abusively, as those who are among men; but as having a natural and eternal lordship.' Num. 5: 'Since He is Lord according to truth, He did not acquire what He is as Lord by any progress, but has the dignity of lordship by nature.' See also num. 9, where he teaches that the lordship of the Son is received from eternity. From this he also refutes in many places the heresy which taught that Christ was not Lord and King from eternity and by virtue of His generation, and did not sit at the right hand of the Father, but that this was acquired in time through progress. See Catechesis 4, n. 7; Catechesis 11, n. 17; Catechesis 14, n. 7 and 30. C And he also has, equal with the Father, the proper marks of the divine nature. First of all in the judgment of the Fathers is eternity; nor did the Arians think that they could more effectively cast the Son down from divinity than if they removed His eternity; nor did Catholics think they could defend the divinity more robustly than by vindicating that eternity. The whole struggle of the Catholics against the Arians rested almost entirely on this. You will not easily find anyone who has inculcated the eternity of the Son more studiously and more abundantly. I have already brought forward many of his testimonies in num. 14. Here are certain others among the many. Catechesis 14, num. 17: 'And let us never say: "There was when the Son was not."' N. 5: 'He is the Son of David at the consummation of the ages, but the Son of God before all ages without beginning. And that indeed He assumed which was not begotten of the Father. And that which is according to David is subject to time, and is handled, and has a lineage that can be recounted; but that which is according to the deity is neither subject to time nor place, nor has a kind that can be recounted.' N. 20: 'He did not begin to be when He was born in Bethlehem, but before all ages... Do not look at Him who was just born from Bethlehem: but adore Him who was begotten of the Father from eternity. Do not allow anyone who says that the Son has a temporal beginning: for the principle of the Son is one who knows no time, who lacks a beginning—that is the Father.' Afterwards [CXLVIII] he proves that Christ is an eternal King, and enjoys eternal glory with the Father. In a word, he establishes everything in the Son as eternal: His nativity, His lordship, both of which were proved above; His seat at the right hand of the Father, Catechesis 4, n. 7; Catechesis 11, n. 17; Catechesis 14, n. 27 and 30; finally, His priesthood, Catechesis 10, n. 14; Catechesis 11, n. 1. D Another attribute of the divine nature is that it comprehends itself by knowledge, and can be comprehended by no creature: he establishes that the Son is equal to the Father in both. Catechesis 4, num. 7: 'Nothing is lacking to Him for the dignity of divinity, and He knows the One from Whom He was begotten, just as He Himself is known by the Begetter;' we have brought forward other testimonies in chapter 1, n. 5. And just as he affirms that the nature of the Father is incomprehensible to all creatures, Catechesis 6, n. 3, 4, 5; so he proves that the generation of the Son is likewise incomprehensible to all creatures and known only to the Trinity, Catechesis 11, n. 11, 12 and 13. In which place, after having discussed many things on this matter, he adds: 'Do not be ashamed to confess ignorance, since it is common to you with the angels. He who begat alone knows Him whom He begat, and He who was begotten of Him knows the Begetter.' Just as he also asserts that God the Father is invisible to mortal eyes, Catechesis 9, num. 1 and 2, so he proves that the nature of the Son is invisible by almost the same arguments and words, Catechesis 12, num. 13 and 14, saying that it was fitting that the Son should hold out human flesh as a veil to His deity, lest we should perish by the brightness of His presence. It belongs to God alone to be in all places, to be contained by nothing, and to see even the more hidden things. Catechesis 4, n. 5; Catechesis 6, n. 2.
7. He attributes the inspection of one’s thoughts to the Son (Cat. XIV, 30): “Who sits above, and is present here with us, beholding the composition and the firmness of faith of each one. For because He is now absent in the flesh, do not therefore judge that He is absent also in the Spirit; He is present in the midst, hearing what things are said concerning Himself, and seeing what you think within yourself, searching the reins and the hearts.” He could not have doubted His omnipotence, he who attributes to Him the work of the creation of the world in so many places. He commends His intimate power in the performance of miracles by the invocation of His name, in the casting out of demons, the healing of diseases, the taming of those barbarian in their savagery, and the converting of them to the faith, in many places, such as Cat. IV, 13; Cat. X, 19; Cat. XIII, 3 and 40. It remains only that, if the Son is uncreated just as the Father is, true God and Lord, united to Him in one and the same divinity, He should also be adored with one and the same equal worship as He is. Such also is the opinion of Cyril. Cat. XI, 17: “Let one Father be adored through one Son, nor let the adoration be divided.” Cat. X, 12: “If any one desires to be pious toward God, let him adore the Son; otherwise the Father will not admit his worship.” We have cited other places in Chapter I, n. 6. All these testimonies which I have brought forward above, even if they were not explained by Cyril as lucidly and copiously as he does, should be taken in their natural and obvious sense. For these were not disputed subtly with the learned, but simply laid out for the raw candidates of the Church, who were to use each word as it sounds. For they did not hold two ideas and notions for these words—God, generated, Son, adoration—but one of common and vulgar significance. When they heard “God,” they understood a unique and supreme deity. When they heard “generated,” they conceived of one who consisted of the Father’s substance; [CXLIX] when they heard “Son,” one who by nature was related to the Father; and the one who was proposed to be adored, they honored with the highest worship, which is owed to the one and true God. Cyril knew this thought of his auditors, and that he completely accommodated and framed his discourse to it cannot be doubted.
CAPUT III. Those things which can be objected against the divinity of the Son from Cyril are examined.
16. Those who had suspicion of Cyril’s faith among those like Theophanes were accustomed to bring forward only these two points: that, writing to the Arian emperor Constantius, he had extolled him with undeserved praises; and that he had been silent on the word “consubstantial” (homoousios) in his catecheses. We have diligently examined and refuted the first complaint in the preface to the admonition to the letter to Constantius, n. 8; concerning the second, therefore, it remains for us to speak here. And first, may it be permitted here to speak of the word simply omitted by Cyril, which, as Jerome says in *Dialog. adv. Lucifer.*, p. 34, was proscribed and removed by the Ariminenses because it was not to be excused as a lapse: “There was no concern for the bishops about the term, when the issue was safe; for it is not in the sound of words, but [in their sense, as Nazianzen well perceived, Epist. 26]. Furthermore, whatever is contained by the word ‘consubstantial,’ Cyril clearly acknowledged and preached. While we declare the Son to be consubstantial with the Father, we understand the Son to be of the same nature and divinity as the Father, and that He was not created from nothing, like creatures, but begotten from the substance of the Father. But since Cyril asserts the Son, as we saw in Ch. II, n. 14, by the power of His generation to be ‘like in all things to the Father, true God from true God,’ could he have even thought of a nature or divinity different in both? Or is there a dual species of divinity, and that too of true and properly-called [divinity]? The principal similarity, which exists between the begetter and the begotten, is of nature; which, with all other similarities also removed, remains alone necessarily by the power of generation. Nor is it properly a similarity, but ταὐτότης (identity), to speak thus, of nature. But if the Son is truly begotten, He is certainly begotten from the substance of the Father; for neither did Cyril have, nor does truth allow there to be, another notion of true and properly-called generation; in which alone, when one deals with God, all defects of human generation are to be removed, as Cyril studiously does. Therefore, what all Catholics understood by the word ‘consubstantial,’ that Cyril preached with the word omitted. But if it was lawful for St. Basil, for certain reasons, while asserting the divinity of the Holy Spirit, to refrain from the name of God, expressing the thing itself by other and equivalent words, although that word is attributed to the Holy Spirit in the sacred Scriptures: why should it be a fault for Cyril to have kept silent, for not without probable cause, on a word that, although consecrated by an ecumenical council, was nevertheless unknown to Scripture? If, in the judgment of Athanasius in *Epist. ad Rufinianum*, the Ariminenses brought forward a congruent excuse for the same word being omitted, why will we say that legitimate reasons for a mere silence were lacking to Cyril? Secondly, therefore, we can assign a manifold cause for this silence in [CL] Cyril. He may have thought it necessary that the catechism and instruction of the unlearned be formed with words taken from common usage, if indeed those were sufficient; nor were words unaccustomed to their ears, which were especially new and had not yet acquired authority by solemn and habitual use, to be mixed in. For this reason, I believe that he abstained from this word not alone, but from others also—nature, substance, οὐσίας, person, hypostasis, etc.—in explaining the Trinity. Furthermore, the meaning of the word ‘consubstantial’ could not seem sufficiently fixed and certain at that time; for there was one explanation of it among Athanasius and the Catholics; another of Eusebius of Caesarea in his epistle to his own, n. 5; another in the mouth of Marcellus and his disciples, since they held warped views on the Trinity—which was no doubt to Cyril. Why therefore should he have disturbed the ears of the unlearned with a word of uncertain meaning? It is added that at the time it was a contentious word, agitated in great disputes in the Church: either, therefore, as it seemed to Theophanes, [he feared] the offense of many who were hostile to this word—
or, as I would rather believe, not wishing to involve himself or his ecclesiastical candidates in these contentions, he abstained from the use of this vocable; for in the contentions of that time, he seems to condemn both sides equally and to hold the heresy in suspicion (cat. 15, no. 7 and 9, and cat. 11, no. 17). But in the following year, namely 349, when Athanasius was passing through Jerusalem, he was more fully instructed concerning the whole state of ecclesiastical affairs, embraced the definition of the councils of Sardica and Nicaea, received the word "consubstantial" at the same time, and professed it in his letter to Constantius at the beginning of his episcopacy. We have discussed more on this in his Life.
17. Another point that can be objected to Cyril against the equality of the Son. A Namely, he says (cat. 11, nos. 19 and 20), Christ acknowledges the Father as his God, not only according to humanity, but also according to his superior nature; 2°, he says (same cat., no. 14) that there is one principle, the Father, who is the head of the Son; in the same way (cat. 13, no. 23), "He is the head of all power, who was affixed to the cross, who however has the Father as his head." We cannot deny that God is the head of Christ, but according to his human nature; 3°, he says the Son is subject and obedient to the Father from eternity (cat. 10, no. 9, and cat. 15, no. 30). But the Son, insofar as he is God, is neither obedient nor disobedient to the Father, but is of one will and power with him. From Cyril's own words, it is not difficult to respond that he is affirmed by Cyril to be inferior to the Father only in origin; if, however, this rationale of inferiority is true and not conceived for human use; for the only true and properly spoken subjection is that of the creature to the Creator, which Cyril most distantly and robustly repels from the Son: and in truth, eternal generation constitutes a necessary equality between the Father and the Son, and truly communicates divinity to the Son, to which, in Cyril's judgment (cat. 6, no. 13), all dependence and inferiority is repugnant. Nevertheless, that the Son is lesser than the Father, or to speak more accurately, that the Father is greater than the Son on account of the Son's origin derived from him, not only the pre-Nicene Fathers with one consent, but also almost all post-Nicene [CLI] fathers did not fear to say, explaining that voice of Christ, "The Father is greater than me," which, however, you will nowhere find in Cyril. All the sayings of Cyril mentioned in the objection are to be explained in that sense of subjection by origin alone: the Catholic sense of which is vindicated not only from Cyril himself, but also by the expression of similar locutions B by post-Nicene Fathers, and is freed from all suspicion. But I come to the individual points.
18. On the first head, we must listen to Cyril himself. "It is God who begat," he says, cat. 11, n. 18, "God who is begotten; indeed God of all, yet attributing the Father as his own God; for he does not hesitate to say, 'I ascend to my Father, etc., my God and your God'." Then he observes, lest we suspect any society of the Son with creatures, that it was not said, "our Father," but "my Father and your Father, my God and your God." Commenting on these last words, he writes: "He says, 'my God and your God,' differently 'mine,' as of the only-begotten Son; and differently 'yours,' as of the created things." Therefore, the true God is the Son of God. Therefore, he did not call the Father the God of the Son in any other way than as the author of his origin. You will perhaps deny this locution to be sufficiently emended and corrected, since God is not usually called the God of anyone except of creatures, and the words of the cited place "my God" are accustomed to be referred by the Fathers to the humanity assumed. I willingly concede that this holds true for later centuries, but in the first three it is common among the Fathers to call the Father the God and Lord of the Son. I will not use witnesses that are least necessary in an open matter; but in the notes to the place which we are examining, I have produced a few testimonies from many by St. Hilary, writing in the same age as Cyril about ten years later. Nor did that locution seem less emended in the following centuries, since Paschasius Ratbertus in the ninth century transferred the same and similar words of Hilary into his own commentaries: for lib. II, *in psal.* XLIV, 8, to the words, "God anointed thee, thy God," he says: "Therefore God the Father who anointed him is his God, because he was born of God into God." But the words of Hilary, lib. IV *De Trin.*, n. 35, are: "God anointed thee, thy God. For that which he says 'thy' refers to the nativity, otherwise it does not destroy the nature (understand: of divinity). And therefore God is his, because he was born of God into God." It is evident (cat. 11, n. 15) that from the same place of the Psalms, C Cyril took the same doctrine. For he refers this testimony to the divine nature of Christ and to eternity; and from it he proves that Christ is God before the incarnation. To the second head, a similar response. That the Father is the head of the Son, because he is his principle and Father: there is a clear assertion of this matter in the objected places of Cyril. But if it was permitted to all the Fathers before and after the Nicene council to say that the Son is the hand and arm of the Father, why will it be a fault for Cyril to have affirmed that the Father is the head of the Son? And he is not the only one who has spoken so. The doctrine of the Alexandrian of the same name is the same in lib. II *De recta fide*, page 131, that Christ is our head as man, but as God has the Father for a head as his principle. Rufinus in *Expos. Symboli* to the second article explains how God is head; [CLII] namely, that the Father is from none, the Son is from the Father. Oecumenius in 1 Cor. ch. 11, verse 3: *Κεφαλὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατήρ, ὡς γεννήτωρ καὶ προβολεὺς καὶ ὁμοούσιος αὐτῷ.* "The head of Christ is God and Father, as his begetter and source, and consubstantial to him."
19. For the explanation of the third head, it is sufficient to adduce the words of Cyril himself. Cat. 10, n. 9, "The only-begotten Son is the Lord of all, but he is the Son of the Father,
A and in doing so, complying with Him [the Father]; Cat. 15, n. 20: "The Son will be subject to the Father (after the judgment), not as if he then begins to obey the Father, for he always does what is pleasing to him from eternity; but because he will also obey then, not offering a compelled obedience, but a spontaneous will to follow; for he is not a servant, so as to be subject out of necessity; but he is the Son, so as to follow out of the sentiment of his mind and out of love." What kind of obedience this is, he first explains, excluding all servile obedience proper to a creature. Next, he says that the Father and the Son are one in will, Cat. 11, n. 16. "One," he says, because there is no dissonance or diversity of opinions. For the wills of the Father are not one thing, and those of the Son another; and more explicitly in Cat. 15, n. 25: "There are not inclinations of the Father and other inclinations of the Son, but one and the same: ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτό." From which it follows that, since the will of both is one, the obedience of the Son consists in the sameness (ταυτότητι) of will and inclination, that is, to speak in scholastic terms, in identity. This will is indeed communicated from the Father together with the substance through eternal generation; for the Father in begetting handed over all things to the Son, Cat. 10, n. 9; Cat. 11, num. 10; and the same act, as communicated by the Father, can be called in a broader sense the Father's command, and as accepted by the Son, compliance and obedience. But it can be rightfully doubted whether Cyril admitted one will in the Father and Son merely by reason of the object and the things proposed to the will, or, as is said in the schools, the things willed—which would not strictly be anything other than a consensus of wills—or by reason of the subject itself and the principle of willing, so that in both there is one will, just as there is one divinity. What Cyril followed does not sufficiently appear. However, that he acknowledged a unity of will can be proved from the fact that in that place, Cat. 11, where he says the Father and Son are one in will, he commends three other unities: of divinity, of the kingdom, and of works. Yet it is clear that he admitted a true and strictly so-called unity of divinity; for there is not more than one true divinity. Likewise, there is also one kingdom for both, not by the unity of things reigned over merely, so that the same things are subject to the kingdom of both; but by the unity of power, because that kingdom is accepted by the Son from the Father from eternity through generation, Cat. 4, num. 7, "From whom he is (and he is begotten from all eternity), B by reason of the mutual properties of the nature of both, he has the royal dignity." This he confirms again in other places. Finally, the works of both are the same; not only in the fact that the works of Christ are not others than those of the Father, Cat. 11, n. 16, but also that there is one architecture of all things, μία ἡ πάντων δημιουργία, with both working at it jointly; just as he says in Cat. 11, num. 23, commemorating these passages of Christ: "The Son can do nothing of himself, unless he sees the Father doing it. For whatever he has done, these things the Son also does in like manner; and again, 'My Father works until now, and I work,'" with no contrariety whatsoever in these who are working.
"For all things of mine are yours, and yours are mine," says the Lord in the Gospels. But if Cyril had acknowledged a distinction of will in the Father and the Son, he ought not necessarily be said to have destroyed the unity of divinity and nature, but only to have thought that fundamental ground, in the distinction of hypostasis and person, was sufficient for a distinction of wills. Moreover, we have shown sufficiently in the notes to the object from Cat. 10, n. 9, that Hilary, Phoebadius, and Paulinus spoke of the subjection and obedience of the Son in the same manner as Cyril.
20. I come to the third objection, drawn from the priesthood of Christ. Cyril speaks thus, Cat. 10, n. 4: "Christ is called [high priest], not anointed by human hands, but from eternity by the Father, superior in rank to the human portion." Cat. 11, n. 1: "Those were types and merely a figure of Christ. But this Christ is the true one, who did not progress to the priesthood from the number of men, but holds the dignity of the priesthood accepted from the eternal Father." But more clearly, Cat. 10, n. 14: "Christ is the high priest, having an untransferable priesthood; who neither began to be a priest in time, nor has another successor to his pontificate. Just as you heard us discoursing on the Lord's day in the assembly on that saying: 'You are a priest forever.' Not having obtained the pontificate through bodily succession, nor anointed with man-made oil, but before the ages by the Father." Yet the priesthood is a matter of a lower place and dignity, all of whose functions are proper to a creature, namely to worship, λατρεύειν, to pray, to offer sacrifice: whereas it belongs to God to receive prayer, worship, and sacrifice. Therefore, both the Arians, to diminish the dignity of the Word, attributed the priesthood to the Word himself, not to the assumed humanity; and the Catholics transferred it with full force from the Word to the man. See Athanas. orat. 2, cont. Arian. n. 7; Epiph. haeres. 69, n. 38. So great was the consensus in the fifth century regarding the fact that the priesthood, according to the inferior nature, is fitting to Christ alone, that when Cyril of Alexandria had said in his ninth anathema that the Word was made our pontiff, Nestorius charged him most heavily as if it were contumelious to the dignity of the Word, and Cyril defended himself by admitting that the pontifical dignity adheres to the assumed nature, and was attributed to the Word only by C communion. Nor can you easily find anyone after our Cyril who said the priesthood of Christ was eternal.
21. That this opinion of Cyril, arising from an inaccurate notion of the priesthood and therefore contrary to true theology, is deserving of excuse rather than defense, we concede of our own accord. Of which excuse there will be these three heads: 1º that this doctrine in no way lessened or harmed the majesty and divinity of the Son; 2º that he received it from more ancient Fathers, and that authors held it after him, upon whom no suspicion of violated dignity of the Word can fall.
A “Dei unius,” etc. The author of the *Apostolic Constitutions*, book VIII, chapter 46, says: “First, therefore, by nature the high priest,” τῇ φύσει ἀρχιερεύς, “the only-begotten Christ... who became man,” etc. Methodius in his *Symposium*, oration 1, number 13, calls Christ the arch-prophet, the archangel, and the arch-priest. It is a well-known opinion of Origen in book V, *Contra Celsum*, page 386, and in *De Oratione*, number 50, that while he denies that our prayers ought to be directed to Christ himself, but rather to the Father alone through Christ as a priest to offer them, he denies that the Son is more than a priest by his own nature, and no reason prohibits that he confers the priesthood upon the very nature of the Word. Eusebius of Caesarea explicitly holds the doctrine concerning the eternal priesthood of Christ and proves it at length in book I of his *Demonstratio Evangelica*, chapter 10, page 38; in book IV, chapter 15, page 174 et seqq. up to page 180, and page 194; and in book V, chapter 3, page 223; and in book I of his *Historia Ecclesiastica*, chapter 4. But the reasoning and opinion of our Cyril are separated by a great deal from the cause of Origen and Eusebius. I know that the industry of learned men has labored to show that the correct opinion regarding the divinity of Christ was championed by both, and I desire that both be well defended; but even their defenders cannot deny that less accurate modes of expression, difficult to explain, escaped both of them, by which the majesty of the Word might appear diminished—modes of expression for which you will find nothing similar in Cyril.
23. I come to writers of later Arian times. St. Anthony, epistle 2 to the Arsenoites, in *Bib. PP. Lugd.*, vol. IV, page 79: “The whole choir of the saints gathered in one sought the goodness of the Father concerning our Savior, that he might tread upon the earth for our salvation, for the sake of all: insofar as he was our great and faithful high priest and true physician, who alone could heal this enormous plague. Whence also by the will of the Father he emptied himself of his own glory, and being God, he assumed the form of a servant,” etc. Diadochus in his little book *Against the Arians*, published at the end of the Origenian *De Oratione*, number 5, page 171: “He performs the priesthood as Christ, administering love in the rite of love as the Word.” Ἱερεύει δὲ ὡς Χριστὸς, τὴν ἀγάπην ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἱερεύων ὡς Λόγος. The interpolator of the Ignatian epistles, ep. to the Magnesians, number 4, says of Christ that he alone is a high priest by nature, μόνος φύσει ἀρχιερεύς, and in the ep. to the Smyrnaeans, number 9: Θεὸν καὶ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν πρωτότοκον, καὶ μόνον τῇ φύσει τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀρχιερέα. “God and Christ Jesus, the firstborn and the only high priest of the Father by nature.” From the *Apostolic Constitutions* cited above he expressed this opinion of Christ as high priest by nature, which to me sounds like nothing other than that he is a high priest by his own, and not by an assumed, nature. I have reserved Ambrose for the final place, for the reason that he opens to us the fountain from which he himself, and perhaps others—at least some of the authors mentioned above—drew this doctrine. Thus, however, he says in *De Fuga Saeculi*, chapter 2, number 13: “Who is this great priest, if not the Son of God, the Word of God, whose
we have an advocate before the Father, who is free from all voluntary and accidental offenses; in whom consist all things that are on earth and that are in heaven? For all things are held together by the bond of the Word. This he expressed following Philo, *De profugis*, p. 466: "We say that the high priest is not a man, but the divine Word, A free from all transgressions, not only voluntary but also involuntary... For the Word of the Existent, being the bond of all things, holds together all the parts, and binds them fast, and prevents them from being dissolved." We say that the high priest is not a man, but is the divine Word; because he is free from all sins, not only voluntary but also involuntary. Of this one, then, he calls God the Father, and after a few words adds: "For the Word of the Existent, since He is the bond of all things, contains and binds together all parts, and prevents them from being dissolved." Ambrose, in the same book, cap. 5, n. 16: "Accept that He is the prince of priests; the great Father swore regarding Him: 'You are a priest forever.'" B Rightly "forever"; for while all others are temporal and under sin, this One possesses an inviolable priesthood. This, therefore, is the Word, who dwelling above the heavens illuminates all things; whence He is also written to be anointed naturally by God the Father, because "He is the true light that illuminates every man coming into this world." This is the Word of God in whom is the great priesthood, whose vestments Moses describes in that garment of the prince of priests as intelligible, because by His own virtue He clothes the world and shines in all things as if clothed in it. Philo, in the place already cited: "Because the head has been anointed with oil; I say, the leading principle is illuminated with a bright light, so that it is deemed worthy to be clothed in the garments. The most ancient Word of the Existent indeed clothes Himself with the world as a garment." C Therefore He is anointed with oil. Doubtless He has the mind and reason illuminated with a shining light, so that He might be deemed worthy to have put on garments. For the Word, being more ancient than the world, clothes Himself with the world as a garment. Philo teaches the same opinion concerning the Word as priest also elsewhere, as in the book *De somniis*, p. 597: "For there are two temples of God: one is this world, in which the high priest is His firstborn, the divine Word." That Ambrose, as is evident, expressed his opinion from Philo, and so also Origen, Eusebius, Justin, and the author of the *Apostolic Constitutions* drew from the same source, it is permissible to suspect. But why do I turn over old things to excuse Cyril? I remember reading among the interpreters of this age and of our own, who are most approved, and from the number of Catholics, the same doctrine concerning the eternal priesthood of the Son before the incarnation, read at the verse of the Psalm: "The Lord has sworn, etc.," and at the Epistle to the Hebrews, cap. VII, who felt that this opinion is reconciled excellently with His divine majesty. D 24. Cyril could not be unaware of some of these testimonies of the ancients: whether he took his doctrine from them, or whether he formed it for himself, he seems to have followed the authority of two testimonies of Scripture in particular, or to have confirmed his mind by an opinion received from elsewhere. The first is from Psalm XLIV, "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness, etc." He understood these words not prophetically and about a future time, but historically: and since they were written before the incarnation, from this he proves (cat. 11, num. 15) that Christ is God before the incarnation and from eternity. From this he deduced that Christ was anointed from eternity, and from this he considered the appellation of Christ to be the name not of an assumed humanity, but of a superior nature. In which matter he had not only almost all those of the earlier times, but also many authors of his own age agreeing with him, as we have proved in a long series, in catechesis 10, num. 14, note 2. Moreover, he assumes it as a certain and indubitable thing that Christ is so called from [the] priesthood (cat. 10, num. 4, 11 and 14), nor was he mistaken in that matter. Furthermore, he believed that both the gifts of king and priest were signified conjunctly by the anointing from which He is called Christ, and by His very name (cat. 10, num. 11), and that is the voice of almost all the Fathers. Since, therefore, he strongly and copiously argues that Christ is King from eternity, cat. 4, num. 7; cat. 11, num. 21; cat. 14, num. 27 (which title, however, is commonly attributed to Christ as man), he judged that the same was to be felt concerning the priesthood. The other testimony by which he was led into this opinion is that worn-out one from Psalm CIX, "You are a priest forever," etc., on which words, discussing them in the meeting on the Lord's Day, he had a copious disputation regarding that argument, as he himself testifies, cat. 10, num. 14. And since he seems to recall to memory, while adducing some testimonies from the Epistle to the Hebrews, those as if from a former disputation; I have judged it very likely that Cyril explained the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the meeting, in which these things are read, verse 5: "Christ did not glorify Himself to become a pontiff, but He who spoke to Him: 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you.'" As in another place He says: "You are a priest forever," etc., which place he recites (cat. 10, num. 11). Cyril understood this opinion of Paul in such a way that Christ was then constituted pontiff by the Father when He said to Him: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you," which sense I would readily concede to be the Apostle's. But the words, "Today I have begotten you" (which indeed, in my and the opinion of many, Paul adapts to the incarnation in this place), Cyril judged to have been said of the eternal generation, and so he explains (cat. 11, num. 5); therefore he gathered by the authority of David and Paul that the Son of God was simultaneously begotten and made pontiff. To omit that he thought the passage: "You are a priest forever," as written before the incarnation, should be understood concerning that time and consequently concerning all eternity. For such is his custom of arguing about the dignity of Christ from the Old Testament.
CAPUT IV
25. The divinity of the Holy Spirit defended by Cyril.concerning the doctrine of the Holy Spirit should have preceded his catecheses by twelve years, the rise of the Pneumatomachians having occurred. But the Arian heresy, being much more insulting toward the Spirit than toward the Son, provided Cyril with a sufficient occasion to assert His divinity. A clear profession of this matter is found in cat. 4, n. 7, expressed in these words with which he begins the seventh dogma concerning the Holy Spirit: "Believe also in the Holy Spirit: and have concerning Him the same sentiment which you have been taught to have concerning the Father and the Son." But we admit that the force of this reading is greatly diminished by another, simpler reading: "and have a right sentiment concerning Him"; this occurs in many manuscripts and is less laboured by the suspicion of emendation. We have nevertheless retained the former, as being conformable to the Cyrillian doctrine, even if perhaps it was not pronounced by him. But, trusting in the abundance of other arguments, we are not unwilling to let that one be set aside. And first, indeed, Cyril separates the Spirit by a long interval from creatures, whether he includes Him within the Trinity, to which nothing alien or created is to be mingled; or he exempts Him from the general service of all created things, they themselves also rendering service to Him as to a Lord; or he attributes to Him an intimate comprehension of the Father and a knowledge of the divine generation—both of which are denied to any created thing—or he joins Him to the Father and the Son in divinity, presence, operation, and worship: of all these things we have brought forward certain proofs from Cyril in the first chapter of this dissertation. But those peculiar to this place must be produced. Cat. 16, n. 25: B "None of the things brought into being, that is, of created things, in the style of Cyril, is equal to Him in honor; for all the generations and hosts of angels, gathered together, hold no comparison or equality with the Holy Spirit." All these things are covered and obscured by the supremely good power of the Paraclete. For they, indeed, are sent into ministry, but He even examines the deep things of God. He says, cat. 11, nums. 21 and 23, that all created things, by whatever name they may be called in heaven, are made through the Son and are subject to His power. He does not include the Holy Spirit among them, but as one endowed with equal power, he calls Him the sanctifier of the things made by God through Christ, cat. 4, num. 16; cat. 16, num. 3; cat. 17, num. 2. He says that He is a participant of the paternal divinity with the Son, and therefore understands God with perfect knowledge, cat. 6, num. 6. He is adorned with the glory of the divinity with the Father and the Son, cat. 4, num. 16, and thus he speaks of Him, cat. 16, num. 3: "The Holy Spirit is therefore a supreme power, a divine and unsearchable something," and cat. 21, num. 3, he says the divinity of the Holy Spirit is present at the sacred chrism. "Becoming an active agent of His divinity by the infusion of the Holy Spirit." The chrism is the presence of the Holy Spirit, proof of His divinity, an efficient reality. Finally, he says that the deifying power belongs to the Holy Spirit, the one who sanctifies and deifies all. Which, indeed, belongs only to God. Who may C demand a clearer sentiment concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit? You will not wonder at all that this is attributed by Cyril to the Holy Spirit, when he teaches that He, like the Son, proceeds from and consists of the very substance of the divinity. He says, cat. 16, num. 24, "And the Father indeed gives to the Son, and the Son communicates to the Holy Spirit." Each communication is of the same kind and nature. However, that first communication from the Father to the Son is beyond doubt to be understood as regarding the eternal communication of substance through generation; and this can be the only argument, because he proves that communication in the cited place with these words of Christ: "All things have been delivered to me by my Father"; which he constantly refers to eternal generation, cat. 7, num. 5; cat. 10, num. 9; cat. 11, num. 10. Therefore, he attributes a similar origin to the Holy Spirit from the Son, when he says that the Son transfers to the Spirit those things which He Himself received from the Father. And he proves this communication of the Son with the Spirit in the same place by these words of Christ: "He shall glorify me, because He receives of mine"; which the ancient Greek Fathers as well as the Latins understood concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Son. And just as Cyril confesses the Son to be like the Father, so he confesses the Spirit to be like the Son. For cat. 21, num. 1, noting that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ, he says that the like rested upon the like. Which similarity, on the part of Christ, can only be understood in respect to the divinity. This proves the sublimity of His nature and His perfect similarity and equality with the Father and the Son, because just as there is one Father and one Son, in the same manner there is one Spirit; for from this unity it happens that to individual persons belong their own proper characters, to which nothing either outside the Trinity or within the Trinity itself is similar, and that no person is superior to another, each one obtaining for itself its own proper character. Whence Basil, *De Spiritu sancto*, c. 18, brings forward this unity of personal property, also convenient to the Holy Spirit, as an argument for His divinity. But Cyril often and most gravely inculcates this, that there is one Holy Spirit, just as there is one Father and one Son. See cat. 16, num. 3 and 24; cat. 17, num. 2; cat. 4, num. 16.
27. That which is proper to one God, Cyril attributes everywhere to the Holy Spirit. First, it belongs to God alone, since He depends on no one, to act from supreme power. This Cyril urges and inculcates everywhere and with the greatest zeal: thus cat. 17, n. 9, D remembering that He descended upon Christ at the time of baptism, he notes that the descent proceeded from His own motion, an "auto-kinetic descent"; thus cat. 16, n. 14, proving that the Holy Spirit subsists by Himself, with the cited place of the Acts, "The Holy Spirit said, Separate for me Paul and Barnabas," etc., he subjoins: "You see the Spirit living, separating, calling, and sending with power," in an authoritative manner, just as he had said concerning the Son, cat. 11, num. 1.
The Word which speaks and says, etc. The Word full of power. For this reason, he represents the Holy Spirit everywhere as the author of all good things on earth and in heaven, and the dispenser of his gifts according to his will. See cat. 16, num. 12, 22, and 23.
Secondly, it is proper to one divine nature to be present in all places through immensity, to behold all things, even the hidden thoughts of men, and to work effectively in human hearts, by illuminating the mind and applying the will to good works. Furthermore, Cyril teaches that the Holy Spirit is everywhere present with the Father and the Son, in the places cited in chapter 1; and furthermore, he speaks thus, cat. 16, num. 22: "Consider how many of you are sitting here now: He works conveniently for each one, and standing in the midst, he sees the composition of each one; he sees also the thought and the conscience, and whatever we speak and whatever we agitate in our mind." He had said the same thing concerning Christ, cat. 14, num. 30: "Who sits above, and is present here with us, beholding the composition and the firmness of faith of each individual." Here he is present in the midst, hearing what is said about him, and seeing what you are thinking within yourself. B Then Cyril, in the aforementioned place of cat. 16, having asserted the presence of the Holy Spirit in the midst of the audience, bids the hearers to embrace the whole world with their mind, and to contemplate the Holy Spirit, who inspires and works good works in all things in all places, whatever is done by men. After num. 23, he commands them to ascend into the heavens, and to contemplate in their mind the same Spirit as the prefect, teacher, and sanctifier of all the angels existing in the various heavens. Elsewhere he teaches that he governs the Church, cat. 16, num. 22, and that he has wrought so many miracles through the apostles and deacons, cat. 17, num. 21, etc.; that he seals souls in baptism, fills the baptismal waters with the power of holiness, renders chrism holy from a common element, and by his supervention and touch transforms the eucharistic bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; so that you may recognize the omnipotent power in him, which he also clearly professes in cat. 16, num. 22, in these words: "A great and omnipotent thing among gifts, *pantodunamon en charismasi*, and admirable, is the Holy Spirit."
3° Of the divine nature, it is a property that supreme unity, singularity, simplicity, and immutability should be conjoined with a manifold and diverse operation. Cyril attributes this as proper to God the Father, cat. 6, num. 7, where he says that he, although he is of uniform substance, *monoeide ten hupostasin*, nevertheless emits countless operations of divinity; he teaches similar things concerning the Son, cat. 10, num. 5. But he confirms this same thing concerning the Holy Spirit broadly and copiously, using almost the same words he had used when speaking of the Father. Since, just as the Father is one, and the Son is one, so he says that the Spirit is also one. Cat. 4, num. 16: "Learn that this Holy Spirit is one, indivisible, multipotent; who, while he effects many things, is himself not divided." He says, cat. 16, num. 3, "Since he is one, and uniform, and individual, *en on kai monoeides kai adiaireton* — granting to each one according to what it wills, and operates many virtues," which he commemorates in a long order, cat. 16, num. 12. He repeats the same, num. 25, and cat. 17, num. 3, 4, and 5.
Fourthly, to grant remission of sins, to sanctify, and to reward the just is the work of divine power alone. Cyril attributes all these things to the Holy Spirit. Sanctification, indeed, is the character proper to his person. But cat. 14, num. 22, he says that the apostles received from Christ the power of forgiving sins in the power of the Holy Spirit; cat. 16, num. 17, num. 15, he says this concerning the Holy Spirit: "He is also about to come to you in a way; and while he cuts down and consumes your sins like thorns, he is about to make the precious ground of your soul more shining." The Holy Spirit also, in the opinion of Cyril, burns the characters of both baptism and confirmation into the soul, grants the gift of adoption, and renews and imprints the characters and form of the Son of God in our soul, cat. 12, num. 1. Finally, cat. 17, num. 13, he accumulates these titles upon him: "Custodian and sanctifier of the Church, moderator of souls, pilot of those who are tossed by the storm, illuminator of those who wander, arbiter of the battle of those who contend, and crown-giver of those who conquer."
Fifthly, that God inspired the Scriptures to Cyril, and is the author of both Testaments. One place will suffice from cat. 4, num. 33: "These things teach us that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are divinely inspired—for God is the one author of both covenants, who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ who appeared in the New." He attributes the inspiration and writing of the Scriptures to the Holy Spirit as the acting authority. The same, cat. num. 16: "One is the Holy Spirit who has spoken in the law and the prophets, in the Old and New Testament." Cat. 11, num. 12: "What else is it that knows the deep things of God, except the Holy Spirit alone who spoke the divine Scriptures?" Cat. 16, he said of himself also whatsoever he wished; and num. seq., "The Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets concerning Christ, and descended after the advent of Christ," etc. Finally, cat. 17, num. 29, he attributes to him the institution of the New Testament. The same Holy Spirit, who by the consent of the Father and the Son stirred up the New Testament in the Catholic Church, freed us from the burdens of the law that were difficult to bear, etc.
28. I fear that such a mass of arguments might seem to the reader inopportune, and seem to be accumulated without necessity in a matter that is open and constant, lest he think that the divinity of the Holy Spirit is poorly approved by him from Cyril. To all these things, the greatest strength is added, because you can find nothing in Cyril that pertains to lessening, even in appearance, the majesty of the Spirit. One thing can be objected: that in cat. 16, num. 21, he says the Holy Spirit intercedes for us before God, and in cat. 17, num. 10, teaches that he concurs with his prayers for the remission of sins and the generation of spiritual sons; since intercession is an argument of an inferior nature, or at least implies a diversity of wills, whereas the Holy Spirit, united in will with the Father, admits intercessions with him, not to him. But [the] lun...
[LATIN COLUMN] 197 DISSERTATION III. 198 accepts intercessions with Him, does not direct them to Him. A But in the first place, Cyril simply relates the words of Paul and this intercession of the Spirit, which affirms Him, nor is he to be considered as having subjected any other meaning to them, beyond that truly most certain one, whatever it may be, which is contained in the Apostle’s testimony: namely that, as the Fathers interpret it, since He forms groans and prayers in men, He is considered to groan and request [these things] Himself. This interpretation can be accommodated to another passage from cat. 17, whose sense is most uncertain and obscure, insofar as the discussion there is about the Spirit, but not about the humanity of Christ. But let us grant that the Holy Spirit, according to Cyril’s doctrine, intercedes of Himself before God; what follows from that? This intercession would no more detract from the majesty of the Spirit than the opinion—by which He imputes the priesthood to Christ eternally as the Word—diminishes the dignity of the Son. He truly thought it sufficient, while saving the unity of nature, to also differentiate causes and places in the personal distinction of the wills. Furthermore, it is clear doctrine of Cyril that the Holy Spirit, just as the Father, must be prayed to and receives prayers, for he speaks so often in his prayers of the solemn invocation of the Spirit in the Church. He says in cat. 3, n. 3, that simple water acquires the power of holiness through the invocation of the Holy Spirit, Christ, and the Father. Cat. 19, n. 7, [states that] the Eucharistic bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ through the invocation of the Trinity; and making mention of only the invocation of the Spirit, he repeats this in cat. 21, n. 3. He himself invokes the Holy Spirit, cat. 16, n. 25; cat. 17, n. 34.
CHAPTER V.
Cyril’s opinion concerning the sins of the angels.
29. Concerning angels and demons, we have received a few things that must be held with certain and undoubted faith: some things, whether from ancient Church tradition or from an opinion consonant with faith and reason, have at length obtained such authority through long use in the Church that we all agree on them with almost one accord; other things, however, are left to opinion and disputation. Hence, the opinions about angels vary so much among both ancient and more recent theologians: many of these [opinions], drawn from apocryphal books or from the sources of pagan philosophers and especially the Platonists [CLXII], although they have had many and noble supporters, have at length fallen through their own vanity and futility; others, built upon the collapsing foundations of ill-considered philosophy, have now been exploded and ejected by better judgment; finally, others are freely debated on both sides with a confession of our ignorance. But what Cyril’s opinion was concerning the nature of angels and demons, and whether they are corporeal or not, concerning their number, their orders, and diverse perfections, and the abodes which they in- A habit, etc., we have pointed out in our notes where the occasion allowed. One thing, because it required a more prolix discussion, we have deferred to these dissertations; namely, that which the author says in cat. 2, n. 10, that God also grants to be possessed by the faithful B angels. “We do not know,” he says, “how much He has granted to the angels as well; for He grants it to them, since He alone is the only one without sin, who cleanses us from our sins, Jesus.”
30. I observe a fourfold opinion among the ancients concerning this matter. The first, which we now all hold as certain and uniquely true, supported by sure reason and sufficient authority, is this: that the good angels, after they resisted the depraved example of their rebellious companions by a faithful use of grace, having attained the reward of their perseverance C in the sight of God, and having been gifted with perfect beatitude, could no longer fall nor sin, and they themselves knew this most certainly. We know from sure assertions of the Scriptures that the angels enjoy the presence and vision of God; and it is established by the same authority, and consigned in the voice of the Church in her solemn prayers, that they most faithfully and constantly fulfill the commands and wills of God. Finally, that they cannot sin is shown by the very state of the beatific vision, which cannot be reconciled with the power of sinning by the judgment of right reason. Cyril agrees with us on the first. For he concedes that the angels also enjoy the contemplation of the divine face, cat. 6, n. 6, and cat. 7, n. 1. Concerning the second, he partly agrees and partly dissents. For he teaches that the will of God is fulfilled by D the angels in the heavens as a certain and ascertained fact, cat. 23, n. 14, interpreting this petition of the Lord’s Prayer: “Thy will be done as in heaven so in earth,”(1) as if we are asking that just as the will of God is done in the angels, so it may be done in us. But since he admits sins in them, light ones indeed and venial, he must necessarily confess that the will of God is sometimes omitted by them. But how he reconciles the state of beatific vision with sin itself, not just with the power of sinning, is nothing to us.
31. The second opinion of Origen, or the one attributed to him (for this is not a discussion of this place); namely, that whether angels or demons have free will, [he taught] first that good angels could fall and demons could be made: he teaches this explicitly in lib. 1 De princip., cap. 5 and 6, and lib. 2, cap. 3; second, that the demons themselves, after they had undergone proportionate punishments and had traversed various stages of progress, would return to their original state, lib. 1 De princip., cap. 6. See also tom. XI, in Matth. p. 332. But concerning the devil himself, he affirms in lib. 1, cap. 8, that he is in such a state that he is more unwilling to be recalled than unable; but in lib. 3, cap. 6, he asserts that he is also to be recalled; [CLXIII] t. XVIII in Joan. p. 254, he thinks that some of the demons, struck with awe by the power and divinity of Christ, fled to Him through faith and repentance. Here [he speaks] of the salvation and restoration of
(1) Matth. 6, 10.
A Migne’s doctrine that the error of the demons has long since been proscribed and ejected from the Church is firm. Regarding the devil, Cyril declares clearly in Catechesis 4, no. 1, that he will never return to where he was, but that he carries an inflexible heart like an anvil, and possesses an induction of mind that knows not how to repent for the future. What is to be thought of the devil, the same is to be held of the demons, whom Cyril portrays everywhere as his servants and satellites, most faithfully obeying him; and since he defines the torments of the damned as eternal and without end, Cat. 18, no. 19, he is to be considered to have held the same thought regarding the demons with stronger reason. But some Fathers seem to have incautiously sprinkled into their books that Origenian notion regarding the future purgation of demons and their salvation through Christ. Among them, in the first place, Greg. Nyss., *Catech.*, cap. 26, not even excepting the very inventor of malice, namely, the devil. See also *De anima et resurr.*, vol. II, pp. 643 and 644: I pass over many other passages of this author. The author of the *Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul* under the name of Ambrose also asserts in *Ephes.*, cap. II, vers. 10, that demons are invited by ecclesiastical preaching to abandon the assent to the tyranny of the devil, and he implies that in some it has succeeded so that they cease from error. Jerome B in *Ep. ad Ephes.*, c. IV, vers. 16, has these words: "In the restoration of all things, when Christ Jesus shall come to heal the body of the whole Church, now dispersed and lacerated, everyone, according to the measure of faith and knowledge of the Son of God—who is said to be known because he had known Him previously and later ceased to know—will receive his own place and will begin to be what he had been. Provided, however, that not according to another heresy all are placed in one age, that is, all are reformed into angels; but each member may be perfect according to his measure and office, for example, that the runaway angel may begin to be what he was created, and the man who had been cast out of paradise may be restored again to the cultivation of paradise." The same author, in lib. 1 *in Epist. ad Galat.*, cap. V, vers. 22, says that nothing of reasonable creatures perishes forever before God. I believe the reader is astonished by these things. See also Didymus in *1 Petri Epist.*, cap. 1. I will note the singular opinion of the author of the *Commentary on Isaiah* under the name of Basil, p. 258, namely that the devil perhaps, before the accomplished fall of man, had a place for repenting and recovering his former state, but none thereafter.
[32.] If I return to the first head of the Origenian doctrine concerning good angels, whom he thinks can deviate from their state through sin. Among other sins by which he thinks they can be contaminated, he especially numbers this: if they have offended any of the little ones who believe, or if they have performed the care of human salvation committed to them more negligently. He says, vol. in *Matth.*, edit. Erasm., p. 325: "Invisible powers who have offended any of the little ones who believe are punished by the assumption of a body subject to corruption, weighing down the soul in the business of this age: in which, after they have paid the penalties, they obtain what is useful to them." *Hom.* 35 *in Luc.*, p. 283, he says: "If through the care and industry of the angels the salvation of men committed to them is prepared; but if C through the negligence of them a man has perished, it is not left unpunished; for according to the merit of them the angels are, whether always or never, whether little or more, they will contemplate the face of God." *Hom.* 20 *in Num.* he teaches that the guardian angels will be represented with us at the judgment of God, about to undergo judgment regarding the care of our salvation entrusted to them; which he endeavors to prove from the things described in the Apocalypse, ch. 11, and from the accusations of those who are set over the churches of Asia, and the threats made against them through Christ. See also the homily of the same on *Ezekiel* v, p. 110; *hom.* 24 *in Num.*, p. 295; *hom.* 13 *in Luc.*, p. 255. Jerome transcribes this teaching of his in *Michaeae* cap. VI, vers. 1, and uses the same proof from the Apocalypse, and concludes this disputation with these words: "In the judgment of God, to the angels (to whom, as he says above, the care of human affairs was committed) the charge will be referred, if they have not done all things that pertained to their office." And although he brings forward other interpretations for explaining the prophet's place proposed to him, he puts this one forward as his own, in which he may rest first. But in this the opinion of Cyril differs from the Origenian, that Origen deprives angels who have poorly performed their office of the divine vision, according to the gravity of the fault; but Cyril seems to acknowledge only light faults, which God might easily pardon, nor does He punish by the withdrawal of His sight. For they will not undergo the judgment of God for such faults, whom Cyril represents as witnesses and ministers of the judgment always, never as those to be judged in it. He says they will be the future satellites of Christ coming to judgment, *cat.* 15, no. 1 and 22; that they will call all men to judgment with their trumpets, and will studiously collect them from all places, no. 19, 21, 23; that they will surround sinners with their armies, so that they cannot escape, no. 22; they will be the future witnesses of the judgment, no. 24, representing the books from which we are to be judged, written by themselves, *cat.* 4, no. 24; *cat.* 15, no. 23; *cat.* 19, no. 5. He also describes the angels at the time of judgment as shining with remarkable brilliance, *cat.* 16, no. 23; all of which proves that those sins in which angels, in Cyril's judgment, are sometimes implicated, are freed from the censure of the general judgment.
33. The third opinion is of those who teach that the angels were confirmed in grace and the pursuit of good either not at all, or only late. To this can be called back that opinion, held by so many writers in the first four centuries of the Church, who, while they confess that the devil fell from the beginning and before the sin of man, teach that demons were made from good angels only a little before the flood, and that they lost the happiness of their state because they were corrupted by the love of women. These, as is known to all, are of great number and grave authority in the Church. Justin Martyr, *Apolog.* 1, p. 44; Athenagoras, *Apolog.*, p. 27; Irenaeus, *lib.* IV, cap. 16, no. 2, and cap. 36, no. 4; Clement of Alexandria, *lib.* D *Paedag.*, cap. 2, p. 222, and *lib.* 1 *Strom.*, p. 450, and *lib.* V, p. 550; Tertullian [in his work] *De*
idololatr.*, cap. 9, and *De velandis virg.*, cap. 7; Origen, *hom.* 15 *in Jesum Nave*, p. 353, and *lib.* IV *cont. Celsum*, p. 226; Commodianus, no. 4; Lactantius, *lib.* II, cap. 14; Sulpicius Severus, *lib.* I *Hist. sacræ*; Ambrose, *lib. De Noe*, cap. 4, n. 8 et 9; *Apolog. David*, cap. 1, n. 4; *in ps.* CXVIII, *serm.* 8, n. 58; *lib.* I *De virginibus*, c. 8, n. 52 et 55; Nazianzen, *carm.* 3, p. 64. A Our Cyril, however, did not allow himself to be deluded by this absurd opinion, who acknowledged that demons were truly corporeal and gluttons for sacrifices, in agreement with almost all the Fathers; but he teaches that they, together with the devil, fell from the beginning, having been seduced by him, in these words (*cat.* 2, n. 4): *This one falling, drew many with him.* Whence he is accustomed to call demons, as imitators and satellites of the devil and subject to him, evil spirits or evil powers.
I come to others. Saint Ignatius the martyr declares sufficiently in his *Epistle to the Smyrnaeans*, no. 6, that the good angels had not yet attained a fixed state at the time of Christ’s advent in the words: Μηδεὶς πλανάσθω· καὶ τὰ ἐπουράνια, καὶ ἡ δόξα τῶν ἀγγέλων, καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες ὁρατοί τε καὶ ἀόρατοι ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσωσιν εἰς αἷμα Χριστοῦ, κακείνοις κρίσις ἐστίν· ὁ χωρῶν χωρείτω. “Let no one be deceived. Both the heavenly things and the glory of the angels, and the rulers both visible and invisible, if they do not believe in the blood of Christ, there is judgment for them also. He who can receive it, let him receive it.” B Gregory Nazianzen in *carmine arcano* 6, p. 169, having agitated the question whether good angels are impeccable, determined this: φύσιν ἀγγελικὴν εἰς κακίαν δύστροπον εἶναι, that the angelic nature is difficult to turn to evil; not daring to say ἀτρεπτον, inconvertible. Likewise *orat.* 34, p. 560, he speaks of angels with hesitation: πρὸς τὸ χεῖρον ἀκινήτους ἢ δυσκινήτους, “immobile or hardly mobile towards the worse.” But in *oration* 38, p. 617, he says he is restrained by the fall of Lucifer from calling them ἀκινήτους, immobile, for he adds: πείθει δέ με μὴ ἀκινήτους ἀλλὰ δυσκινήτους, “it persuades me that they are not immobile but hardly mobile, and to suppose and say these things, where the one who for his brightness was the morning star, became and is called darkness because of his pride.” Therefore he did not consider them confirmed in good from that time. There exists a memorable passage of Synesius, *epist.* 57, p. 199: “If an angel could have been so used to men for over thirty years that no contagion of evils from matter could redound upon him, why was it necessary for the Son of God to descend?” I know also the opinion of the unskilled theologian. Jerome, *lib. in Galat. Epist. ad cap. vi, vers. 1*, says: “Paul knowing that, except for the Trinity, every creature, even if it does not sin, can nevertheless sin.” The author of the *Dialogues on the Trinity* under the name of Athanasius, *Dialog.* 1, n. 24, p. 487, when he had proposed to himself the question whether angels can sin, answers that they can; and he proves it because some of them sinned formerly. Nemesius, *De natura hominis*, cap. 41, *Bibliothecæ Patrum Græco-Lat.*, *tom.* II, p. 547, distinguishes immaterial natures into two orders and says that those which are closer to God by the excellence of their nature remain unmoved, although they are of free power; C but those which are occupied with human affairs around the earth, he says are more mutable. In the same way Saint Maximus, in the *scholia to the book De cœlest. hierarch.*, to cap. 11, p. 157, says: “The angelic powers, the superior ones clearly, by a vehement will have contracted a certain habit toward the good, by which it happens that they cannot fall: but the angels, that is, the lowest and those occupied about the world, can perhaps be perverted to evil.” Τοὺς δὲ ἀγγέλους, τουτέστι τελευταίους, διακόσμους, ἐνδέχεσθαι ἴσως καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον τραπῆναι. Saint Ephrem, in his *reprehensione sui et confessione* (Latin edit. p. 602, Greek p. 86): “God established their natures, understand of men and angels, and perceived them, as being mutable, to be in need of mercy; for He knows they subsist by a more abundant grace: for nature, that it may subsist, He has measured out a participation of Himself. But saving for them more abundant gifts, He reserved them. According to the powers of each, He granted the faculty of understanding, lest He should provide them an occasion for pride. What they could take, He gave; what they could not take, He pardoned.” There are those who have thought that the good angels attained firmness and immobility in the good by the advent of Christ. Hippolytus of Portus, or whoever is the author of the fragments against Beron and Helix collected by Anastasius and edited by Sirmond, says in fragment 2, that Christ made God in the flesh, ἵνα καὶ τὰ κατ' οὐρανοὺς ἅγια τάγματα τῶν νοερῶν οὐσιῶν στομώσῃ πρὸς ἀτρεψίαν τῷ μυστηρίῳ τῆς αὐτοῦ σωματώσεως. “So that He might also strengthen for inconvertibility the holy orders of intellectual substances in heaven by the mystery of His incarnation.” Nicetas, in *oration 42 of Gregory Nazianzen*, note 2, proposes this opinion: “Good angels, who before the resurrection of Christ could with difficulty be moved to evil, attained through it that they cannot be moved even by the help of grace.” One may collect from Cyril’s deep silence on this matter that nothing from the merits of Christ reached the angels according to his opinion. I will speak a little later about the benefits of Christ to the angels according to the opinions of various people.
34. Finally, the fourth opinion of our Cyril is that he teaches that good angels, without danger to their state, sometimes slip into certain light sins, which God easily pardons. He signifies that he was brought to this opinion by that general maxim, that one alone is free from sins, who cleanses our sins, Jesus. Innumerable testimonies of the Fathers can be produced who define that only God or Christ is void of sin. Clement of Alexandria, *lib. Pædag.*, cap. 2, and *lib.* III, *cap. ultimo*, calls only Christ ἀναμάρτητον, which he understands as the vacuum of sin. The same is asserted by Ephrem *De secundo adventu*, Gr. p. 355, and Origen *hom.* 3 *in Cantic.*, p. 616; Theodoret, *Quæst.* 9 *in Num.*, p. 144. Most of these seem to have spoken only about men; though when they use a general judgment, what prevents some, like Cyril, from being thought to have extended it to the angels also? But the testimonies must be produced which...
reach the present and the future, and even those of past A ages, and which profit not only this human order but also the celestial powers. Moreover, it is not unknown to me that in Origen’s style "celestial" and "celestial powers" signify not only the good angels, but also demons. But nothing prevents us from using the ambiguity of the testimony, especially since we otherwise know that he admits sins even in the good angels.
33. Didymus does not desert the doctrine of his master Origen. In his Commentary on the First Epistle of Peter, ch. 1, he has this: "Just as all rational beings have their essence through the Son of God, so by him the salvation of them all is effected. For since they do not have holiness substantially but acquisitively, as they are creatures, the purification was rightly made concerning all things that possess goodness in this way, whence even the more sublime beings receive correction. 'For Jesus has pacified by the blood of his cross, *whether things on earth or things in heaven*.'" The angels have been subjected to him... for just as men who abstain from sins are subject to Christ, so the superior rational beings, corrected from the spontaneous faults which they perhaps had, are subject to him, with the complete dispensation having been held for the salvation of all. Jerome follows the same doctrine and [CLXVIII] helps us in the interpretation of Didymus and Origen in his Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 1, ver. 22: "Why, he says, everything, that is, angels, thrones, dominions, powers, and the other virtues, which have never been contrary to God, are B subjected to his feet, seems obscure. It can therefore be answered that there is no one without sin, and the stars themselves are not clean before God, and every creature fears the coming of the Creator. Hence the cross of the Savior is described as having purified not only the things on the earth, but also those in the heavens." See the same in ch. 2, ver. 16. Olympiodorus in his catena on Job, pp. 149, 150, on that text of Job iv, 18, according to the LXX: "If he does not trust his servants, and has contemplated what is crooked and evil against his angels"; he has this: "Angels are not without reproach, for they too are of a mutable nature." *The angels are not blameless, for they too are of a mutable nature.* Even with respect to divine perfection, not even they themselves possess fidelity and firmness in all things as true and sincere servants and ministers of God. And Symmachus expressed this meaning when he translated: "In his servants he will find inconstancy, and he will discover vanity in his C angels." Ignorance is near to sin. Indeed, very many of the Fathers have thought that the angels, until the coming of the Lord and the evangelical preaching, were versed in the ignorance of the greatest things, which they finally learned whether from Christ or from men preaching. Among these things are the incarnation, or at least its mode, the passion and resurrection of Christ, his ascension, and the calling of the nations; I mention these only because they are sufficiently known to the learned.
36. From all these things which have been discussed, some corollary is to be gathered. First, that this opinion concerning the sins even of the good angels [was held] by many among the Fathers
support for having had advocates. Secondly, that it was formed from many sentences of Scripture; in particular, from the testimony of Job mentioned in that way: and again from another, chap. xv, ver. 15, which in the LXX is read thus: *If he does not trust his saints, and the heaven is not pure in his sight:* which Symmachus translates: *Behold, in his saints no one is immutable, neither is heaven devoid of spot; how much more man.* But in the Alexandrian codex the latter part of the verse runs thus: *And heaven is not pure in his sight, and the stars are not exempt from reproach.* Origen, Jerome, and many other Fathers followed a reading that is either identical or very similar to this. To the same opinion concerning the sins of the angels set over the custody of man, the already lauded Origen and Jerome not obscurely insinuate themselves, being led by the reproaches of the angels contained in the Apocalypse; and in order that they might acknowledge sins in all creatures to be purged by Christ, they made use of certain words of the Apostle which signify that the redemption of Christ and the apostolic preaching benefited heaven and earth: namely, Colossians 1:20; Ephesians 3:10, etc. The general opinion also about all creatures being presented before Christ in judgment caused them to include the angels in the judgment as well. Finally, that general maxim, that only God and Christ are exempt from fault, carried the most weight. Thirdly: Concerning this somewhat tolerable view of the light and venial sins and evils of the faithful angels, Origen and others who followed him too incautiously built up many absurdities; which our Cyril most prudently avoided; so that he kept that opinion [CLXIX], which is now generally considered false, within very narrow limits, and freed it from almost all errors contrary to Scripture, tradition, and right reason.
CHAPTER VI. Of original sin.
37. One of the principal doctrines of the Christian faith is original sin, which, asserted by the express testimonies of the Scriptures, consigned to the most ancient ceremonies of the Church, and endowed with the constant tradition of the Fathers, no Catholic has ever been able either to bring into doubt or even to be ignorant of; since, as Augustine observes (lib. *De peccato originali*), our salvation consists in the case of two men, by one of whom we were lost, and by the other we were redeemed. But it happened that to Augustine himself, while arguing against the Manichaeans, and to Cyril, while attacking the same adversaries, some things appeared to have been poured out against the doctrine of original sin. Before we discuss those difficulties, it is useful to represent his whole doctrine on this subject. What the Church teaches regarding this matter is that all men are born dead as regards the life of the soul, and are in need of a new birth; that because of sin, the one cause of divine wrath, they are odious and hostile to God; that they have need of a reconciler and liberator; that they live under the power and empire of the devil; and that they are alien to salvation, and unless the remedy of baptism intervenes, these are excluded from the kingdom of heaven without any hope. Whoever has taught these things, even if he does not name original sin, nevertheless holds the whole matter of original sin; and if, defining sin as a free and voluntary transgression, he pronounces that men are born without sin, the whole question will be one of name and term. Furthermore, Cyril defended all those heads most gravely and copiously, defining even all men, none excepted, as dead because of sin.
38. For he explains the ruin of the human race because of Adam's sin in such a way that he says we were deceived by it, dead, fallen, blinded, made lame, in sum, dead. For in Catech. 2, having commemorated, n. 4, the fall of the first parent and his ejection from paradise, he immediately adds in n. 5: "What then, someone might say, have we perished being deceived; is there no salvation thereafter? We have fallen; is it not permitted to rise again? We have been blinded; is it not right to recover sight? We have been made lame; is there no hope of walking rightly someday? In sum, I will say, we are dead; is it not permitted that we should rise again?" He confesses all these effects of the first sin, he only denies that it is an incurable evil. In another place he represents all men in the world as dead in sins, pining away through the famine of ignorance throughout the whole world, bound in the chains of sins, held by sin. Thus in Catechesis 15, n. 1: "What then with regard to those in the inhabited world who are dead in sins? Those who are famishing in ignorance throughout the whole inhabited world?... What with regard to us all, who are bound by the chains of our sins?" He says that we are all bound by the chains of our sins, which he repeats again, so that he may exclude no one at all; for he says that Christ has delivered all who were held under sin, and has liberated the whole world [CLXX] of men, or all men dwelling in the world. "He freed all who were held by sin, and redeemed the whole world of men."
I confess that here he refers most particularly to actual sins and sins of commission. But that no one might be excepted from the ruin which the author deplores, he often says that the whole race has perished. Cat. 12, n. 5, he presents the devil as insulting the fallen human being after Adam's fall, "The enemy rejoiced over the one who had fallen through envy," which, so that it may not be understood of Adam alone, he adds that it would not have been right that, with man left in this ruin, the devil should be permitted to rejoice forever. "Didst thou wish the enemy to remain rejoicing?" In the same catech., num. 15, he says that the whole human race is bound by sin, "humanity is a sinner." He says, num. 7, that sin is the greatest wound of the human race, "the wound was greatest... the wounds of humanity." That our race, going to its extreme destruction, was not despised by Christ and was moreover healed, he rejoices, number 8, "He did not despise our race as it was perishing." Furthermore, the wounds of the human race are nothing else preeminently but sin, which he expressed sufficiently in the previous testimonies; and he definitely pronounces in cat. 2, n. 1, where he says: "Sin is a dire thing, and most atrocious disease of the soul, iniquity..."
which cuts its nerves and brings upon it eternal fire.
39. Secondly, cat. 13, n. 33, he pronounces generally that all men were enemies to God because of sin, and therefore were sentenced by God to death. "We were enemies of God through sin, and God appointed the sinner to die." Since, therefore, no one is immune from death, he also deemed no one innocent of sin. He then asks what God had to do; whether, to preserve the firmness of His decree, He should utterly destroy all men? Or, by His kindness, change the sentence? He says that He found a way by which, while the sentence of death remained, men might be saved: namely, that Christ took upon Himself the punishment of sin—that is, death—and thus, through His superabundant righteousness, which is greater than the sins of men, appeased God. Behold, all men are reconciled by the benefit of Christ, who died for the sins of men. He does not speak here of the death of the body, from which Christ freed no one, but of extreme death and the punishments of Gehenna. Thirdly, that Christ liberated and redeemed absolutely all men is Cyril’s certain view. Cat. 13, n. 1, "He redeemed the whole world of men"; n. 4, "Jesus suffered truly for all men"; num. 6, "Do you know why the benign Lord did not decline death? Lest the whole world—perhaps entirely, or 'in general' as other books have it—perish in its sins." Behold Christ, both as having died for all and as having died for sins alone; all, therefore, were liable to sin. In the second number of the same catechesis, he says that the first man brought universal death, "the first-formed one brought global death," yet Christ, when He had given Himself as a price for men, "offering Himself as a ransom," dissolved God's wrath. This universal death is not of the body alone: for Christ freed no one from that; it is the death of the whole man, a death without any hope, by which man perishes utterly [CLXXI]. Death is inflicted by the wrath of God on account of sin, as we observed in the second argument.
40. Fourthly, A that all men before baptism are under the power of Satan is a doctrine of the whole Church, attested by exorcisms, insufflations, and other ceremonies, by which the demon is driven from those to be baptized, both in soul and body. No one has expressed the effects of these prayers more clearly than Cyril. Procat. n. 9, describing the power of exorcism, says that while a man is being exorcized: "The hostile demon flees, and the soul, purified from sins, obtains salvation"; and defines above that the soul cannot be purified without exorcisms. Concerning the exorcized oil, with which those to be baptized were anointed over the whole body before they were immersed into the font, he says at cat. 20, n. 3: "This exorcized oil, through the invocation of God and prayer, assumes such power that it not only purges as if by burning the vestiges of sins, but also drives away all the invisible powers B of the adversary." These ceremonies were applied as much to little ones as to adults. But Cyril does not commemorate any other effect of exorcism and anointing than that sins should be purged and demons driven out; in the same cat., n. 2, he says to his auditors that before their baptism demons had dwelt in their members. "The opposing powers were lurking in your members." But man is only delivered to his enemies by God through sin; this is what cat. 2, n. 11 signifies, when he says that David, though previously protected by his own righteousness, after his sin had enemies ready to invade him, had not repentance anticipated it; indeed, he specifically states in cat. 7, num. 12, that men deliver themselves to the devil by their own will. Fifthly, he teaches that no one, even if instructed in good works, attains eternal life and the kingdom of heaven without baptism, with the sole exception of martyrs, who are baptized in their own blood. But since Cyril has admitted no middle place between Gehenna and the kingdom of heaven, which is evident from cat. 1, n. 2, in which he places those on the left with the flock of goats, it is necessary that he consigns all who have been devoid of the font of regeneration—even those who died wanting baptism through no fault of their own—to Gehenna. Yet he decrees exclusion from the kingdom of heaven and condemnation to Gehenna only for those in cat. 18, n. 20, and cat. 15, n. 23 and 24, who bear the marks of sins in soul and body at the judgment. It remains, therefore, that all whatsoever who depart without baptism are, by Cyril’s doctrine, deformed by the marks of sins.
41. Sixthly, finally, the effect of baptism is often described, and in all those places he lists the remission of sins as either the sole or the primary and principal fruit of baptism. Procat. num. 16, he accumulates many names or titles of baptism, which almost all uniquely resound of the remission of sins: "Baptism," he says, "is a ransom for captives, the remission of sins, the death of sin, the regeneration of the soul, a luminous garment, a holy and indissoluble seal, a vehicle to heaven, the delights of paradise, the cause of obtaining the kingdom, the gift of adoption." The first four appellations pertain directly to the remission of sins. It is easily proven from Cyril's doctrine that the others look to it as well. Baptism is a luminous garment, namely, of the new man having been put on, C in place of the old man [CLXXII] who was corrupted according to the desires of error, in whom the hostile powers were dwelling and nesting, cat. 20, n. 2; it is a holy seal, which is granted to the sheep to be placed on the right at the judgment, so that they may be discerned from the goats, who are to be placed on the left, with the roughness of sins, shaggy and horrid; cat. 1, n. 2, it is a vehicle to heaven, paradise, and the kingdom; which places are closed to us solely by sin, cat. 1, n. 2; cat. 2, n. 4; cat. 17, n. 15. Finally, it secures adoption, by which we are made children of God from children of the devil, cat. 7, n. 13 and 14. Hence he explains all the ceremonies of baptism as if they pertained to the remission of sins. By exorcisms, the soul is freed from the demon and purified from sins.
teaches in catechesis 9. He interprets the renunciations A as if we were renouncing the tyranny of the devil, to whom we were spontaneously subject; laboring under the burden of sin (cat. 19, n. 8), and covenants entered into with Satan and hell (n. 9). He regards the stripping off of clothes preceding baptism as a symbol of the old man being put off with his deeds (cat. 20, n. 2), which old man is nothing else but the dominant cupidity; in which matter the very form and reason of sin consists. He says that the anointing with exorcized oil is given for the purpose of purging the traces of sins and driving away demons (ibid., num. 3); he interprets the triple immersion and emersion as representing death and new life (num. 4), and says in cat. 3, n. 12, that we descend into the water as dead to sins, and ascend quickened in justice. Furthermore, baptism was given not only to adults, but also to infants, and nothing of the customary ceremonies was omitted in their baptism. Therefore, these infants also obtained the remission of sin, which, apart from original sin, was none other.
42. Some things can be objected to this doctrine of Cyril. First, his definition of sin which he brings forward in catechesis 2. For there, arguing about the origin of evil and inquiring what sin is, he establishes that sin consists in the transgression of the free will and an evil choice. "Evil," he says (n. 1), "is a shoot of the free choice and voluntary inclination of the mind. For that we sin by our own free will and choice, the prophet plainly says," etc.; n. 2, "What then, after all, is sin? Is it an animal, or an angel, or a demon? What thing is the creator of this? It is not an enemy, o man, who invades you from without, but an evil fruit growing from yourself." Secondly, in catechesis 4, num. 19, he pronounces that the soul, when it comes into the body, is devoid of sin. "Learn this also, that before the soul came into this world, it never sinned; but since we come into the world without sin (ἀναμάρτητοι), we now sin by our free will." He clearly states that the soul, before it sins by the use of free will, is άναμάρτητον, free from sin. Thirdly, in catechism 2, n. 4, he teaches that the devil did not sin by some necessity of nature, otherwise the very cause of sin would revert to Him who made him such. Moreover, the nature of original sin is such that from our very birth and conception we are bound and constrained by the necessity of sin. Therefore, this fault, in Cyril's judgment, would have to be transferred from us to God Himself.
43. However, there is no lack of an appropriate answer to these difficulties. For we can use the same refutation against the first point that Augustine used to refute the Pelagians when they objected to him those definitions of sin that he himself had brought forward in his books against the Manichæans: "Sin is nothing else than the will to retain and admit what justice forbids, and from which it is free to abstain." And: "Sin is to such an extent a voluntary evil, that it is by no means sin unless it is voluntary." Augustine responded that he had defined the sin that is only sin, but not the punishment of sin; B truly, that first sin of Adam—the fountain and root of all others, for which alone we should have been concerned, when the very nature, cause, and origin of sin were being sought—this sin, to which we are all subsequently bound, was clearly free and was committed by no necessity. This is the sum of the Augustinian response, which is expressed more fully in *Opus imperfectum*, book 1, ch. 104 et seqq., and in *Retractationum*, book 1, ch. 13, n. 5; ch. 15, nn. 2, 3, 4, 6, and ch. 16, n. 2, and elsewhere. Now, the cause of Augustine is the same as that of Cyril. Both argue against the Manichæans; both inquire into the very origin of sin and evil; both speak more securely before the Pelagian heresy was born. I fear, however, that this response is to be applied to Cyril; for the whole dispute between him and the Manichæans was about the sin which we call actual. The Manichæans seem to have been entirely ignorant of the Church's doctrine concerning original sin; for you will nowhere see it objected by them to the Catholic Church, which they would not have omitted had they known it. Therefore, since they said that evil was necessary, they did not have regard for the sin of origin; but they referred to those voluntary evils by which human nature is deformed, and those sins which they themselves did not deny arise from the human will. But they said that the will of wicked men was forced to sin either by the vice of the very nature formed by the princes of darkness, or by the necessity of the stars of birth, or by the hard and ineluctable necessity of fate. It is no wonder, then, if those Fathers who refute them spoke only of those sins about which the whole controversy revolved; nor did any other of the Fathers argue against them in any other way than did Cyril. The second head of the difficulty C is also not hard to dissolve. It concerns that opinion of the Platonists, which Origen is thought to have followed, by which they believed that souls, having existed long before they were bound to bodies, had fallen into voluntary sins, for which they had incurred the wrath of God, and in punishment for which they had been relegated into these earthly bodies. Rightly does Cyril assert that the soul comes into this world free from any sin of evil choice, and that it becomes guilty of the divine law only when it freely applies its will to evil and, having been given the body for the exercise of good works, basely abuses it to pleasure and sin, cat. 4, num. 23. Finally, regarding the third head of the objection, there is a vast difference if the devil were created evil by nature, and the cause of the sin of the first parent of man, which was vitiated and corrupted. If the devil had been created evil, that would be the fault of no one but his author and creator; but man himself is the artisan of his own ruin, since he rushed into the destruction foretold to him, while God, who did not will it, forbade it with severe commands and held forth threats. D
CHAPTER VII.
Concerning the helps of divine grace, their necessity, their gratuitous and prevenient bestowal, their efficacy, and their distribution or withdrawal.44. Some writers, with the previous pages [CLXXIV]
of divine grace, their necessity, their gratuitous and prevenient bestowal, their efficacy, and their distribution or withdrawal.
44. Some writers, having observed Cyril speaking of baptismal grace, and noting that he says that God awaits our own will to confer benefits upon us, and does not bestow His grace unless He sees a sincere purpose, etc., without having sufficiently explored and weighed the author's purpose and mind, have not hesitated to immediately classify Cyril among the semi-Pelagians, or at least among the precursors of that heresy. If they had read the author in his entirety with due attention and meditation, they would readily have admitted that almost no Father thought or spoke more accurately concerning grace. I will accurately represent his entire doctrine on this primary article of Christian teaching, which I shall reduce to these four heads: the necessity of grace, its gratuitous and prevenient bestowal, its efficacy and power, and finally its distribution or withdrawal.
Of the necessity of grace, Cyril's opinion. It is easy to approve, having run through all kinds of good deeds, the opinion of Cyril that divine grace is necessary for all works of piety. To begin with the knowledge of God: having said (Cat. 6, n. 6) that no one except the Son and the Holy Spirit has a perfect and complete knowledge of the Father, he teaches that this is communicated to men by both, according to each one's capacity. "God," he says, "is seen by the Son as much as is appropriate, and He reveals Him with the Holy Spirit and through the Holy Spirit, as much as each is able to receive." Concerning the diverse opinions of men about religion, he denies that anyone can attain to correct doctrine and express it accurately without divine grace. In Catech. 6, n. 1, after he has warned that the devil tries, by way of perverse doctrines simulating the truth, to suppress the one true faith, he says: "We therefore have need of divine grace, with watchful thought, and eyes that see acutely, lest by eating tares for wheat through ignorance we fall into error." Wherefore in Cat. 16, n. 1, about to speak of the Holy Spirit, he begins as follows: "We have truly need of spiritual grace, that we may discourse upon the Holy Spirit"; and warning that it is a grave danger if anyone, either from ignorance or from an assumed piety, should think ill of Him, he concludes in n. 2: "It is therefore the grace of Jesus Christ Himself to grant both to us that we may speak without defect, and to you that you may hear intelligently: lest, of course, while hearing one thing, you might wrongly conceive another in your mind." Indeed, so that the prolixity of the speech might not bring boredom to the listeners, and that He might Himself powerfully continue the same, he asks for the protection of the Holy Spirit in these words (n. 25): "May He of whom we speak grant strength to each of us, both to us who speak and to you who hear." About to adduce the testimonies of the ancient covenant concerning Christ's passion, he commands (Cat. 13, n. 8) that the listeners themselves search out many more things in the Scriptures through their own zeal and prayer poured out to God; then, about to continue the prayer, he says: "May He (God), having been entreated by your prayers, grant both to us who speak, to tell, and [CLXXV] to you who hear, to believe." Behold, he acknowledges faith to be the gift of God. He affirms the same, and joins hope with it, in Cat. 14, n. 30: "May He grant unto you all (many manuscripts and old editions have 'to you [plural]') to believe in Him who rose again, and to look for Him who has ascended and will come again." He acknowledges again that perseverance in faith, and faith itself, are granted by God, Cat. n. 17: "But God is powerful... to preserve him who is sincere, but to make him who is a hypocrite a believer. For God can make even an unbeliever a believer, if only he provides Him with a heart." Against this doctrine concerning the gift of faith, one thing may be opposed, which he writes in Cat. 5, n. 11. After he has distinguished between a twofold faith—one of dogmas, which consists in the assent given to proposed truths, and another of miracles—he speaks of them thus: "Have therefore that faith which depends upon you, and is borne toward Him (God); so that you may also receive from Him that which operates above human powers." In the same sense he had said above, num. 9: "You have something from yourself, namely the faith of dogmas; but you receive from Him something by which much is sustained, namely the other faith of miracles." The answer is seen by the reader for itself. The faith of dogmas depends upon us; since it consists in the free assent of the will, if this consent, of which we are masters, is removed, it cannot exist. It is not so with the gift of miracles, which Cyril calls faith in miracles, united to the faith of dogmas. For that gift is in us without us. It is a divine largesse and operation in us and through us, depending solely upon the will of God; over which our will has no authority, as it does over its own acts. Although the faith of dogmas depends upon our consent, it does not follow from this that it depends solely upon it, nor that we suffice unto ourselves for the forming of this assent.
45. The prayer is also an exercise; he attributes this also to the Holy Spirit working in us, Cat. 16, n. 20: "He is called the Paraclete, because He consoles, urges on with exhortation, and lifts up our infirmity; for we do not know what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with ineffable groanings," namely, before God. Then, depriving human strength of the very confession of faith and the endurance of martyrdom, he adjudicates it to the power and authority of the Holy Spirit acting in us alone, with these words: "Martyrdom is imminent, torments on every side, fire, and swords, and beasts, and a precipice, but the Holy Spirit suggests, saying: 'Endure the Lord, etc.' He depicts for man the kingdom of heaven, He points out also the paradise of delights." This is not a simple illumination of the mind, but a powerful excitation, full of strength, and efficacious. For he adds: "And the martyrs, though necessarily present before the judges with a bodily countenance, yet in virtue and power were already dwelling in paradise, and they despised those hard things which are seen." He proves his thesis concerning the help of the Holy Spirit necessary for martyrdom in n. 21, from the testimony of Christ, Luke XII, 11: "When they shall draw you to the synagogues, the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very hour what you ought to say." Then he adds: "For it is impossible to endure martyrdom for the testimony of Christ, unless one endures it through the Holy Spirit. For if no one can say the Lord Jesus Christ except in the Holy Spirit, etc."
A Such prayers are of so much greater importance because, being taken from the custom and style of the Church, they represent not Cyril's alone, but the mind and sentiment of the whole Church regarding the necessity and efficacy of divine aid; and our prayer, as Augustine observes, will be vain and derisory rather than true and sincere, if we ask from God that which He has left to the power of our own free will. Here also there can be a place for the petitions of the Lord's Prayer, whose force and meaning Cyril explains in _Cat_. 23, n. 11 sqq. For he says, n. 12, that it is requested of God that His name be hallowed in us: which happens when we are sanctified, and through sanctification perform worthy works; n. 14, that just as God’s will is done in the angels who perform God's will, so it may be done in us upon the earth; n. 17, that we be not overwhelmed by temptation, but escape generously and bravely; n. 18, that we be delivered from the devil. To the same category can be referred the acts of thanksgiving. B He says, _Cat_. 23, n. 5, "We ought truly to give thanks, because when we were unworthy, He called us to such and so great a grace: that when we were enemies, He reconciled us; that He deemed us worthy of the Spirit of adoption." Behold our vocation, reconciliation, adoption, the gifts of God granted freely to the undeserving. But why do I delay, proving from Cyril, point by point, the duties of the Christian life, that they are accomplished by the aid of divine grace? Thus he enumerates everything, _Cat_. 16, n. 12, "The sinful soul, deemed worthy through penance of the gift of the Holy Spirit, bears the fruits of justice." And although He is of one and the same mode, He nevertheless operates multiple virtues. For He uses the tongue of one for wisdom, illuminates the mind of another with prophecy, imparts to one the power of casting out demons, grants another to interpret the divine Scriptures. He strengthens the temperance (or alternatively, purity) of one, teaches another what pertains to mercy or almsgiving; teaches one to fast and endure the exercises of the ascetic life, another to despise the comforts of the body; prepares another for martyrdom. What the Spirit does upon coming into the soul of a man, he explains in n. 16, "He comes to save, to heal, to teach, to admonish, to strengthen, to console, to illuminate the mind first of him by whom He is received, then also those of others through his works"; C and n. 22, "Look upon the bishops, presbyters, deacons, monks, virgins, and the rest of the laity of every nation: and see the great director and president and dispenser of gifts; how in the whole world He confers purity on one, perpetual virginity on another, mercy on this one, the study of poverty on another." And these things are clearly sufficient to make it understood that, in Cyril's view, there is no good that does not proceed from God's aid. Which indeed are clearly confirmed by many other testimonies, whether to be adduced by me below, or omitted on account of their excessive abundance.
Of the gratuitous and prevenient bestowal of grace.
47. The most important grace is that which is also contained in the name, in that it is gratuitous, and granted to the undeserving by the sole kindness of God: so that by no merits
of man is it compared, but it prevents the human will itself: and it is prevented by no preparation, study, or pious desire of man; so that if a man merits and acquires later and more ample graces by the progress of piety, that merit itself was bestowed upon us by preceding graces, and effected in us. Whence it comes to pass that the whole work of our salvation is owed to divine mercy, and eternal life, although granted under the title of justice to the merits of good works alone, is itself also grace; since the merits by which [CLXXVIII] it is obtained are gratuitous gifts of God. Our Cyril both acknowledged and preached all these things. For, in the first place, if grace is necessary for the perfecting of every good work, as we have just proven from Cyril, it follows that grace is not prevented by any good works, and does not fall under the category of merit, since nothing else can merit it except good works themselves. Furthermore, every merit is acquired by faith and prayer; and God seems to have suspended all His gifts upon prayer, as Cyril himself teaches in his Homily on the Paralytic, no. 4, and as we have proven this point in nos. 44 and 45 of this chapter, that faith and prayer are themselves the fruits of grace. But now, the explicit testimonies of Cyril concerning the gratuitous giving of grace which prevents merit must be brought forward. We have already brought forward the passage from Cat. 23, no. 5, where, explaining the words of the Liturgy, "Let us give thanks to the Lord," he says that we ought to give thanks because, when we were unworthy, He called us to such great grace; and when we were enemies, He reconciled us and made us worthy of the Spirit of adoption. In a similar way, explaining the response of the people, "It is meet and right," and opening up its force: "When we give thanks," he says, "we do a thing that is meet and right; but He, acting not justly, but beyond what is just, has bestowed benefits upon us and made us worthy of such great gifts." Therefore, it is a work of mercy alone, granted to the undeserving, that which has led us to justice and salvation. Wherefore, in the aforementioned no. 46, he confesses with two passages from Cat. 18 that it is by His own grace that God leads us to eternal life. And that I may begin from the very beginnings of salvation, he refers it to the one power of the living and triumphant Crucified One, as to why those who were about to request baptism gathered for the catechesis, Cat. 15, no. 40: "May this very thing, that you are here now, persuade you of the power of the Crucified. For who has brought you now to this assembly? What soldiers? By what bonds were you compelled? What judgment of a judge has now urged you on? Truly, the salutary trophy of Jesus, the cross, has compelled all to come hither." He notes in the Procatechesis, no. 5, that many who approached baptism deceitfully and with wicked intentions were caught by the hook of Christ and obtained salvation through the Spirit. "I pull the bait," he says, "and I receive one who comes indeed with an evil purpose, but who is to be saved by good hope. Where you were coming, and what kind of net was taking you, you perhaps did not know. You have fallen into the ecclesiastical nets, to be caught alive, that you may not escape. For Jesus is catching you with a hook." (I indeed understand the passage thus, though it can also bear this sense: You have come through mere A mental induction: but I admit you nonetheless, hoping that with our labor and the grace of Christ, your evil state of mind having been cast off, you will be turned to better things.) Cat. 16, no. 19, commemorates many examples of preventing grace: "If at any time, as you sit, a thought of chastity or virginity occurs to you, it is the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Has not many a girl, already prepared for the bridal chamber, fled, taught by Him about virginity? Has not a man, often conspicuous in palaces, spat upon wealth and dignity, taught by the Holy Spirit? Has not a youth, usually, upon seeing a fair form, compressed his eyes, turned aside from the sight, and escaped defilement? Whence did that happen, you ask? The Holy Spirit taught the youth's mind. There are so many desires of avarice in the world, and yet Christians seek voluntary poverty: why? Because of the intimate [CLXXIX] instruction of the Holy Spirit." Concerning the pious thief, Cat. 13, no. 31, after having recounted and explained the prayer of the pious thief to Christ, full of humility and repentance, he exclaims in these words: "What power, O thief, illuminated you? Who taught you to worship the crucified One who was being mocked and was with you?" He answers: "O eternal light, which illuminates those lying in darkness!" Then he introduces Christ speaking thus: "I have come that I may pasture in the gardens, I have found the lost sheep, I take it upon my shoulders; for it believes."
48. The objections that are made, or can be made, against Cyril concerning the power of preventing grace are easily refuted. First, he says in the Procat., no. 1: "To those who love God all things work together for good." God is liberal in bestowing kindness; yet He expects each one's sincere will: therefore the Apostle added, "to those who are called according to His purpose." When a sincere purpose is present, He makes you to be called; no. 8: "God requires nothing else of us except a good disposition of mind." Cat. 1, no. 5: "As those who are about to enlist as soldiers examine the ages and bodies of those to be chosen; so the Lord, making a choice of souls, inquires into their wills: and if anyone harbors hidden hypocrisy, He rejects him as unfit for true military service; but if He finds a worthy one, He most readily confers grace upon him." And further . . . "For just as there is need of work for those using a writing pen or a weapon, so also grace has need of the work of those who believe." Secondly, concerning the grace of the Holy Spirit, he says that it is prepared to give itself to all if they are willing to receive, to knock, and to wait until we open the doors to Him. Cat. 16, no. 19, concerning the Holy Spirit he says: "Let us only open the doors to Him; for He goes around seeking the worthy, and seeking whom He may endow with His gifts"; and no. 22: "Just as light illuminates all things with one projection of its rays, so also the Holy Spirit illuminates those who have eyes. For if anyone, being blind, is not at all gifted with grace, let him not blame the Spirit, but his own incredulity." Cat. 17, no. 19: "The Holy Spirit does not respect persons; for He does not look for dignities, but for the piety of the soul . . . only let each one make himself ready to receive the heavenly grace." Thirdly, God and B C D
A to confer grace, expects certain beginnings from us, and that having once granted grace, He has left it to our own will to preserve it—by these testimonies it will perhaps seem that he has thought so. Procat. num. 17: "It is mine to speak, but it is yours to set about the work, that is, to join your will and diligence to the things commanded. But it is God's to perfect." And below, saying that God can make a faithful man from an unfaithful one, he adds: "if only he provides Him a heart." Cat. 1, num. 4: "It is His (God's) indeed to plant and to water, but yours to bear fruit; it is God's to confer grace, but yours to receive and keep it." Cat. 17, n. 35: "It is ours to testify, but it is yours to take heed"; and num. 37: "What then, beloved, is it to guard grace?"—which I would prefer to translate thus, out of wonder: "How great a thing it is, how useful and profitable, to guard grace!"—the preservation of which brings us such great goods as have just been described. "Be ready to receive grace, and once having received it, do not cast it away." The meaning of these testimonies must now be thoroughly opened.
49. As for the first argument, there is no difficulty in the testimonies cited. It is not speaking here of the first grace that comes to man [CLXXX] but of baptismal grace, which is granted by God only to those who have truly converted, and are believing, penitent, and worthily prepared by a long exercise of good works. This is evident to one reading the Procatechesis and the first Catechesis even perfunctorily, and considering the intention of the holy Father in both discourses. He is addressing men who have entered a new state and are seeking baptism, who, according to the custom of the Church, were to be purified through the hard labors of the whole season of Lent and prepared for baptism: to them he explains the necessity of this preparation, which is such that while those who are worthily prepared are heaped with countless goods, those who are ill-disposed bind themselves to irremediable evil. To this pertains whatever is contained in either discourse concerning the preparation to be brought to grace. Of the grace, however, which they call actual, there is neither mention, nor was there room to speak. The preceding words, which treat of the calling to baptism and the giving of names, and the subsequent words, which threaten the lot of Simon against him who approaches by deceit just as he did—who was indeed washed in body, but not baptized in soul—prove this to be the meaning of the first testimony. That calling to baptism, to which all things cooperate and work together for good, proceeding from a good and confirmed purpose of the one approaching, is to be most strictly distinguished from that by which Cyril says we were called when we were undeserving and enemies, to the faith and the subsequent graces, in the testimony from cat. 23, num. 5, and others which we remembered in the preceding number. The meaning of the second testimony from num. 5 is the same as the preceding; for it speaks clearly of the laver and the remission of sins given through it. The same may be said of the third from cat. 1, num. 5, in which the discourse is of the regeneration of the soul through baptism, and the holy seal of baptism. B To the second argument, an almost identical response is to be applied. For the third testimony mentioned in it, from cat. 17, n. 19, speaks clearly of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to be received at the time of baptism or confirmation, and the meaning of the two former ones can be the same. But even if it were a question of the simple grace of the Holy Spirit, the truth contained in these is one to be called into doubt by no one; namely, that a Christian adult, who is either baptized or has known the mysteries of our faith, is not lacking in the grace of the Holy Spirit except because of his own fault and infidelity. For if he were to ask for the gifts of the Holy Spirit from faith, in suppliant prayer, they would not be denied him. But it is the role of the preventing grace of the Holy Spirit to teach us how to pray, in what way it is necessary to pray for those who are ignorant, as Cyril himself asserts, cat. 16, num. 45.
However, it is clear that it concerns believers; these alone he had in his audience. If these are deprived of the grace of the Spirit, he bids them accuse their own infidelity: of which reproach he is immune who has never heard of God. It is not, therefore, a question here of the first grace through which we merit the following ones, but of those subsequent ones which God has bound to the merit of faith, prayer, and good works: which merit itself, moreover, proceeds from God, who causes us to merit. There is nothing more of strength in the third argument. In the testimonies adduced there, Cyril describes what our duty is, not because he thinks it is in our power without divine aid. He says that it is the duty of preachers to warn correctly; of the listeners, to do what is commanded. [CLXXXI] But in how many places, mentioned above at num. 44, did he say that it is the work of divine grace, both that the sacred herald may teach rightly, and that the auditor may understand rightly, and that he may assent to what is understood? If it is in our power, without grace, both to do what is commanded, and to bear fruit, and to preserve the received grace, why does he, at the end of almost all the catecheses, pray for this grace to God for his listeners, that He may make them mindful of the things heard, and docile to them (cat. 6, n. 33), and cat. 15, n. 33, that they may return the fruits of the Holy Spirit (cat. 17, n. 38), that He may guard their souls, and preserve their virtues? (cat. 14, num. 30). All of which testimonies I have recited in full, num. 46. What is said in the first testimony of the third argument, that it is God’s to perfect, is to be understood not of the first grace, but of baptismal grace. Likewise what is said in the second, that it is God’s to plant and to water, and to confer grace, the meaning is that God confers many things upon us in baptism and by the grace preventing before baptism, which we must preserve and increase by our fidelity, yet with God assisting. When Cyril says that God can make a faithful man from an unfaithful one, if only he provides Him a heart, he does not mean this: that man must first offer a docile heart before God acts—for how can man commit his heart to God unless from some beginning of faith?—but that man must not resist God working in him, and that he must obediently yield his own free consent, without which nothing can be done; which, nonetheless, itself
is also a product of divine grace, as will be demonstrated in a moment.
On the efficacy of divine grace.
50. Since all theologians agree that, for grace to be efficacious and not empty and unfruitful in its effort to reach a good outcome—as so often happens—human cooperation must be added, and that free consent of the will which man can, if he chooses, always deny and suppress; the question arises whether grace awaits that cooperation and consent, or whether by its own overwhelming power it expresses and forces them out; whether it does only this for us, that we are able to act, or whether it causes us also to will to act and in reality to act; whether its task is completed by simple excitation and movement, to which the will then adds its own assent, or whether it inclines even an unwilling and resisting person so that he wills and assents; in a word, does the will determine and apply grace, or does grace determine the will? To me, the matter has always seemed defined by the Scriptures, which teach that the human heart is inclined by God in whatever direction He wills; that God works in us both to will and to perform, that He writes His laws in our hearts, causes us to walk in His commandments, gives us a new heart, and causes us to do what is pleasing before Him. This is also taught by the prayers of the Church, which asks of God that He give and cause us both to be able to and to love what He commands, that He compel our rebellious wills, infuse the affection of His love, insert the love of His name into our breasts, grant the spirit of thinking and doing what is right, cause us to ask for what is pleasing to Him, and to hold a will devoted to Him and to serve His majesty with a sincere heart; by all of which not only the possibility of action, [CLXXXII] but the will and the act itself are requested from God. I add that from the councils, where it is decreed that by grace it is provided to us that we love to do and are able to do what must be done; that God orders man to will, but works also to will; that He orders him to do, but works also to do; that God does not await our will to be purged from sin, but even causes us to will to be purged; that our merits are gifts of God, since every merit is acquired through the will's free consent to the grace that excites it; and from the Roman pontiffs, who laid down that God works in the hearts of men and in free will itself, so that holy thought, pious counsel, and every good movement of the will comes from God; that He acts within us so that we both will and do what He wills; that it is a gift of grace that we are obedient and humble to grace itself. Finally, from the opinion of Augustine, which was the doctrine of the whole African Church and approved by the Roman and all other Churches; who indeed demanded that Pelagius, in order to be considered a Catholic at last, confess that grace by which the magnitude of future glory is not only promised, but also believed and hoped for; and not only is wisdom revealed, but it is loved; and not only is what is true and just suggested to everyone, but it is also made persuasive; which embraces by its own gift not only the possibility, but the will and the action itself—that is, that we truly will and do what is good—which do not exist in man except when he wills well and acts well. I would wonder if this divine doctrine, the foundation of all Christian prayer, hope, and humility, could have been unknown or opposed by the ancient Fathers, and especially the Greeks, as the common opinion asserts. I truly hope that I have detected this in Cyril with no obscure arguments.
51. Indeed, they prove this by those testimonies brought up in no. 47, by which Cyril orders everyone to give thanks to God, because, though he was unworthy and an enemy, he was reconciled to God and deemed worthy of the grace of adoption. For since, as faith teaches, we merit subsequent graces by the use of prior ones, and adults procure their own justification through prayers, labors, and good works; if that good use of graces is not given by God, but is added to grace through free will; first, thanks are not truthfully given to God for the whole work of our justification, and they are owed only by half; second, it is false that God reconciles to Himself us, who were enemies and unworthy, through the grace of adoption; it is false that, when He does us a benefit, He does more than what is just; on the contrary, in the granting of the remission of sins, a worthy and just thing would be done by Him. Since the author also teaches in Cat. 18, n. 20 and 31, that we attain eternal life through the grace of God: which is nevertheless given according to the diverse merits of works; it must be that the merits themselves, which proceed from our assent, are given through grace. The power of grace, which makes us willing out of unwilling, is also proved by that hook mentioned in Procat. no. 5, by which Jesus catches to life those who were thinking of no such thing and were affected by contrary impulses of the soul. Those words from Cat. 13, no. 40, have the same force, by which Cyril recalls his listeners to the virtue of the Crucified, because they had assembled to hear the word of God and to seek baptism, [CLXXXIII] drawn by no bonds, compelled by no force, but led and gathered into one by Christ acting in their hearts from heaven. When in Cat. 16, no. 19, he narrates the sudden impulse of the Holy Spirit for the flight of a wedding, or a man's sudden withdrawal in palaces from sight and riches, or the compression of a young man's eyes at the sight of a beautiful form, and the turning away from a dangerous gaze, or the voluntary poverty of Christians surrounded by so many examples of greed; does he not represent the Holy Spirit not merely as teaching and exciting, but as applying [the soul] to the work itself, as the author of good will, and as the one who bestows and gives such contrary affections of nature? Say the same concerning prayer, which is so entirely an effect of the Holy Spirit, while we are absolutely ignorant of what or how we ought to pray, so that the Spirit Himself is said to intercede.
A Likewise, he records in Catechesis 16, n. 20, that the Holy Spirit bestowed power upon the martyrs; although they were living on earth, he says they were already established in paradise by his virtue and power—two testimonies which we have cited above (n. 45). That God provides not only the very possibility of a good work, but also the will and the action itself, is argued by Cyril through his prayers, in which he entreats his audience that God may grant them to believe in Christ and to await His second coming (Cat. 13, n. 8; Cat. 14, n. 30). These testimonies were related at n. 44. That God might keep them pleasing to Himself, grant them enmity against the devil, make them worthy of the heavenly kingdom, and keep them unconquered by temptations, and that He might send forth the Holy Spirit so that they might yield the fruits of the Holy Spirit and walk in newness of life—the testimonies for this matter are described in full at n. 46. Nothing of these things can happen without the consent of the will; or rather, all these things are pious affections and determinations of the will, fulfilled in effect. When these things are requested of God, He is acknowledged as the author of pious affections and inclinations of the will.
52. The same matter exists regarding the infusion of a good will and the removal of evil, since an evil will cannot be cast out except by the introduction of a good one. Cyril acknowledges that an evil will and impulse of the soul are removed by God (Cat. 6, n. 30). Referring to what is said about God blinding the unfaithful, he notes that it is not incongruously explained in this sense: that God blinds and removes their depraved thoughts. "Blind," he says, "the thoughts of the whoremonger, his rapacity and his thievery, and the man is chaste." Blind the thief's *pornika noēmata* (lascivious thoughts), *to harpaktikon kai lēstrikon* (his rapacious and thievish nature), and the man has attained salvation. The Latin words do not sufficiently express the force and power of the Greek terms; for these signify that whole depraved character and deliberated propensity and adherence to evil, by which the man who is a whoremonger is distinguished from the chaste, and the thief from the just. To remove this from a man is the work of God. Similar is that which Cyril says: that the cross, or the power of the Crucified, has removed from the proud, savage, and idol-crazed gentiles their depraved B affections and implanted contrary ones. This, he says (Cat. 13, n. 40), the trophy of the cross conquered the Persians and tamed the Scythians; for the Egyptians, in place of wild beasts and dogs and manifold error, it bestowed the knowledge of God. Similarly, he recalls to the virtue of Christ (Cat. 10, n. 19 [CLXXXIV]) that the Persians, the Goths, and all those converted from the gentiles for the sake of Christ—whom they had never seen with carnal eyes—did not hesitate to face death. He proves the resurrection of Christ (Cat. 4, n. 18) by many arguments, but especially by the efficacy of Him who rose, which continues even to this day, *toun anastantos energeias* (the energy of the Risen One). In this efficacy he includes the power of His name to drive away demons and to dispel diseases; but he especially enumerates the conversion of the world (Cat. 14, n. 14). He says that the soldiers who were conscious of the resurrection, having been bribed to hide the truth, remained themselves hidden and obscure; but those, he says, who received it brought it out into public light. He recalls to the same virtue the fact that He both rose Himself and raised the dead, and raised up those who would both preach His resurrection and believe and confess it. In Cat. 4, n. 14, he convinces that Christ truly lives and has ascended into heaven, from the fact that He is adored by the whole world; and in Cat. 13, n. 1, that the cross, by a great and supernatural grace and power, raised those who were dead in sins throughout the whole world, fed those pressed by the famine of ignorance in the whole world, liberated those bound by the chains of sins, illuminated those blind from ignorance, and loosened all who were held under sin. All these things clearly signify an efficacious action from the omnipotence of God in hearts and their mutation, which entirely pertains to the glory of the cross. He says in Cat. 10, n. 16, that the name of Christ has seized the entire earth, *periedraxato*, by its own proper force; and inquiring why, when the Jews were limited to the boundaries of one region, Christians have been propagated to the ends of the earth, he adds the reason: "For that which is announced is the name of the only-begotten Son of God." Now, the conversion of the universe is not a thing to be wondered at. This argument could be reinforced by many similar testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers.
53. Cyril everywhere displays and describes the Holy Spirit as being in His gifts and power, just as He distributes to each one as He wills, and in His operations acting as the Omnipotent one and with supreme authority, and creating good things in men by Himself. C Cat. 16, n. 22: "A great and omnipotent thing in gifts, and admirable, is the Holy Spirit." When he then enumerates His effects in men, as he does also in the same catechesis, n. 12, in the same place and in the same series and order, he recounts both the works of the virtues which He inspires in us and the gifts of miracles which He works in us; so that we may recall both to the same genus of power and efficacious operation—although the former depend upon us on account of free consent, while the latter are purely His operations, according to his teaching, Cat 16, n. 11. Having described in two catecheses, here and there and promiscuously, the various effects of the Holy Spirit in both Testaments—whether they pertain to the conversion and instruction of human morals or to miracles and things done supra-nature—he thus concludes the discourse in Cat. 17, n. 34: "From all these, and from many more which have been passed over, is commended the [CLXXXV] *energetikē* (efficacious), the subsistent, sanctifying, and efficaciously acting virtue of the Holy Spirit, to those endowed with intelligence." He had enumerated, of course, the innumerable effects of the Holy Spirit, accomplished by His supreme power and efficacy. Those which pertain to the conversion of the human heart are the only ones that concern the present matter: some we have commemorated before; others are still to be added, for it would be too long to recite them all. In Cat. 17, n. 15, regarding the apostles sanctified by the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, he says: "They received the saving fire, which, exterminating the thorns of sins, renders the soul bright." This to you
A I confess should be understood primarily concerning sanctifying grace. However, since the thorns of sins are evil affections and habits, these, without what they call actual grace, cannot be removed and exterminated from an adult. He notes, n. 17, that through the gift of tongues, the sentiments of minds were restored and united by God, whereas in the Babellian division of tongues there had been a confusion of spirits and a division of wills. He says, n. 20, that the grace of the Holy Spirit worked effectively in Peter and in all the apostles together—`χάρις ἐνήργησε` [grace worked], which he repeats six hundred times later, and applies in the following sections to the seven deacons and to Paul. He defines this operation of grace with a threefold effect: first, an interior one, by which, of course, firmness and patience were inspired in the apostles; second, an exterior one, in the performing of miracles and in convincing or terrifying those who resisted sacred doctrine; third, finally, one that is exterior and interior at once, namely, the converting of hearts to the faith and the composing of the morals of believers into a holier discipline. He recounts those three effects indiscriminately, and refers them to the same power and action of the Holy Spirit working effectively. I shall mention a few things from these that pertain to the first and third. Indeed, he teaches, n. 21, that Peter stood after Pentecost with the eleven in the power of the Holy Spirit, and lifted his voice in fortitude, and with the spiritual net of his words caught three thousand souls; and that such grace operated in them that of those who had crucified Christ, many believed and persevered in the apostles' doctrine and prayers. In the same power, after the lame man was healed at the gate of the temple, Peter and John, with the spiritual dragnet of doctrine, caught five thousand believers at once, and rebuked and convinced the high priests. So much grace of the Spirit was operating through them in those who had believed that their heart and soul were one, and there was a common use of goods, with the possessors selling their estates and religiously offering the proceeds. To the same cause he refers, n. 23, the fact that they fearlessly rebuked the princes of the priests; and, having been beaten with rods, departed rejoicing, nor did they cease to teach and preach Christ. Of Paul he says, n. 26, that the Holy Spirit worked in him, and made him, who had once been a persecutor, a herald and a good servant: `Τὸν ποτέ διώκτην, κήρυκα καὶ δοῦλον ἀγαθὸν ἀπειργάσατο` [He turned the once persecutor into a herald and good servant], who endured a thousand labors. He enumerates, n. 30, the labors, preachings, and patience of Paul, which he calls his wonderful deeds performed by the operation of the Holy Spirit: `Τὰς ἐκ τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος θαυμασίους αὐτοῦ πράξεις` [His wonderful deeds from the energy of the Holy Spirit]. Among them he includes this: So great was the grace of the Spirit upon him that not only did his touch impart health, but handkerchiefs and aprons brought from his body [CLXXXVI] cured diseases. Moreover, even those who had practiced curious arts brought their books and burned them before everyone: this he considers a greater miracle than the former. He says, n. 34, that by the virtue of the Holy Spirit he went to Jerusalem, B although he expected harsh things there according to prophecy, and preached the doctrine of Christ with confidence. Also, in the midst of judicial tribunals before governors and King Agrippa, he possessed so much of the grace that is victorious in wisdom that Agrippa was moved to say, "In a little while you would persuade me to become a Christian." Finally, he teaches, n. 52, that the same thing which the Holy Spirit worked in Paul and in the apostles, He works in all who rightly believe. All these things, which are read and understood better in the Father's own text in these brief excerpts, abundantly prove that, in Cyril's opinion, the Holy Spirit is the author of the same power and efficacy with which He worked wonders through the apostles, as well as the author of the faith, constancy, patience, etc., and moreover of the conversion and the right sentiments and actions of those who were converted through the apostles.
34. Yet, as Cyril preserved the rights of [human] judgment in his grace, and acknowledged that although a man is anticipated by powerful grace, he is nonetheless the master of his own act, and freely assents to, or sometimes dissents from, grace. Although he constantly teaches that faith is a gift of God, he says it nonetheless depends on us, cat. 5, n. 9, and he decides by law and condition, n. 17, if he has offered his heart to Him. He indicates that the pious thief could have denied consent to the preventing grace, by the words he places in the mouth of Christ, cat. 15, n. 31: "Today you will be with me in paradise, since today you heard my voice and did not harden your heart." A little before, we cited the example of King Agrippa, from cat. 17, n. 31, who was moved so far by the grace of the Holy Spirit working through Paul that he confessed himself almost persuaded to embrace the Christian religion; who, nevertheless, remained in his old obduracy. He posits, cat. 4, n. 21, that the soul is free and of its own jurisdiction; that the devil can indeed suggest, but cannot force beyond the will; that his suggestions are admitted by us if we wish, and not admitted if we do not wish; if sin were committed out of necessity, there would be no cause for which hell was prepared by God; if we did righteous things by nature, not by choice, God would have prepared indescribable crowns in vain; there would be no reward for the gentleness of a sheep, because it is gentle not by the will of its mind, but by nature. From which two things follow: D first, in this state of our nature, we sin or do right with a completely free choice and with the power to do the opposite; and hence our merit or, as they say, demerit, proceeds. Second, in the same state, if we were forced to evil or to good by nature and by a certain blind instinct like that of brute animals, there would be no place for praise or punishment. It is another matter if the discussion were about another state, in which man would do what is right not by a blind instinct of nature, such as that by which we all wish to be happy, but by a most perfect knowledge and a most righteous will, such as was in Christ, and is in the angels and in the blessed [CLXXXVII] man. For, if God wished to make a place for merit in that happy state, what would prevent—
A that Christ, being free in the sense of a proprietary act of paternal love, did nevertheless merit? And the decrees of Cyril regarding freedom, which all defenders of this grace embrace with certain faith and fervently defend against heretics, cannot be opposed to grace as being of itself efficacious. Cyril seems to have placed the efficacy of grace in its superabundance in regard to the resistance of concupiscence. For in Cat. 10, n. 17, asking by what power it came to pass that Paul, who had set out to persecute, appeared three days later in Damascus as a herald, he who before was a persecutor; after much, at the end of n. 18, he answers with these words of Paul himself: "The grace of God superabounded in me." If this superabundance of divine grace had been bestowed upon King Agrippa, who was no more unworthy and no less fervent against the religion of Christ, it would undoubtedly have broken his resistance. Cat. 12, n. 15, when he had noted that the devil is accustomed to use the instrument of the flesh to defeat us, and had proved this by these words of Paul: "I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind," etc., he says that for this reason Christ assumed our flesh, that we might be saved by the same weapons with which the devil was defeating and overcoming us: since the Lord bestowed upon that flesh, which was suffering from defect and infirmity, greater grace by the merit of His incarnation; and he adds: "For where sin abounded, grace did superabound." The force of this opinion is: since we attain salvation by resisting concupiscence, that [success] is owed to the abundance of grace superabounding over the abundance of desire and sin. These things being posited, it is easy to understand how, when weaker grace conflicts with a more abundant and fervent concupiscence, man spontaneously and freely denies his consent to grace, as, for example, the aforementioned King Agrippa; however, when the superior grace inspires a greater will not to dissent, man assents to grace freely and spontaneously, although he can dissent and feels that he can, but does not wish to, just like the pious thief and Paul.
On the distribution or withdrawal of grace.
55. B Cyril would recount many aids conferred by God on the human race for attaining salvation; some of which, I understand, pertain to all men without distinction, others to the faithful, and others more specifically to the just. First, in Cat. 18, after enumerating the various means of attaining eternal life, which are contained in the Gospels, he concludes his discourse thus, n. 31: "Since the Lord is a lover of mankind, He has opened not just one or another, but many entrances into eternal life, so that all, as far as it depends on Him, may enjoy them, with nothing hindering." He teaches that Christ died for all, Cat. 13, n. 1, 2, 3, 4, and n. 28, which he interprets precisely in the sense that, first, Christ did not merely pay a sufficient price for the whole human race, which was at enmity with God on account of sin C and condemned by the sentence of death, but He paid a most superabundant one by His death, and appeased the wrath of God. Thus, this catechism, n. 33 and 2. Secondly, that He sated and illuminated those in the whole world who were pressed by the hunger and night of ignorance, released those bound by the chains of sins, and restored those dead in sins to life: thus, n. 1 and 2. In this sense, he looks not to the sufficiency of the price, but to its application; which he concludes in the Church spread through the whole world and to those believing in Christ; whom the same catechesis, n. 40, calls a world of men believing in the Crucified. Thirdly, he says that, as regards this application of the price of Christ's death through baptism and the Christian faith, all to whom the word of God is brought by the preaching of ministers are called and invited to grace. Cat. 1, n. 1, "The only-begotten Son of God is present, most ready for your redemption: 'Come,' D He says, 'all you who labor,' etc.; Cat. 3, n. 2, the Bridegroom calls all without distinction, because grace is liberal and generous, and all are gathered by the loud voice of the heralds; he himself, however, subsequently discerns those who enter into the nuptials. He indeed demands a nuptial and white garment, that is, those virtues of the soul, which, since it is God's to bestow, Cyril prays to God for his hearers throughout the work of the catecheses. Furthermore, he teaches that as long as the just persevere in justice, the watchful protection and guardianship of the Holy Spirit is present, Cat. 17, n. 37, which he says is the effect of the sacrament of chrism, Cat. 21, n. 7. And he adds in the cited place of the 17th catechesis: "He is about to give you gifts of every kind of grace, if you do not grieve Him through sin." And he pronounces definitely in the testimonies from Cat. 16 and 17, cited above, n. 48, that the Holy Spirit is prepared to bestow all His gifts upon them, provided they open the doors to Him, lay aside the blindness of their eyes through faith, and prepare themselves to receive Him. These things are spoken not of the first grace of the Holy Spirit, but of the subsequent and more ample ones, which are obtained by the merit of faith, prayer, and good works. For to the first and prevenient grace of the same, faith, and prayer, and merit pertain, as we have proved from Cyril. Archelaus says that grace and the light of the Gospel are taken away from infidels because of their unworthiness, because they themselves have closed their own eyes, and he explains in this sense what is said in the Scriptures, that God blinds the thoughts of the infidels; Cyril reporting and approving, Cat. 6, n. 28. He adds: "Where voluntary wickedness is present, there is also the withdrawal of grace, ἀποχὴ τῆς χάριτος." The whole text seems to signify that this is said regarding those who reject the light of truth offered to them from among the infidels. Cyril brings forward two milder interpretations at n. 29: the first is that God blinds and removes the wicked thoughts of the infidels, and by this means imparts salvation to men; the second, that God hides the radiance of the Gospel from the weak and dull hearts of the infidels. Cat. 15, n. 17, exposing the words of Paul: "God will send them the operation of error," that term "will send"
it is supposed that God will not permit those who follow the Antichrist, through his false miracles, to be confirmed in error, unless they have first rejected Christ, who is the truth, and have approved of iniquity—that is, Antichrist. From these things, this opinion of Cyril is gathered: that the faithful are not deprived of the gifts of the Holy Spirit except for a defect of faith, nor do the unfaithful, who reject the offered light, fall into obduration by God’s permission, except as a punishment for their incredulity. Yet the grace [CLXXXIX] of faith and prayer, by which other things are subsequently obtained, is, according to Cyril, a gift of divine munificence bestowed upon the unworthy and the hostile, and granted mercifully by the Holy Spirit, who distributes his gifts as He wills. This gift, while it is effective in many through the superabundance of grace, is sometimes granted to some even while they resist grace by the force of their own cupidity.
B 56. Perhaps I have pursued this more extensively than was necessary; but it is of great importance to the Church to diligently elicit the tradition concerning the weightiest head of Christian doctrine. And if anyone performs this with diligent study and accuracy regarding other Fathers, they will perhaps find that the Greek Fathers do not dissent from the Latins as much as is commonly thought. I confess that before Augustine, those principles upon which the Augustinian and Catholic system of grace is supported and stands were not brought together, explained more diffusely, compared with all their conclusions, and consolidated into one body of doctrine. Yet those same principles existed, consigned in the prayers of the Church, confessed by the mouths of the faithful, and handed down by the preaching of the Fathers.
CHAPTER VIII
*On baptism and confirmation, as distinct sacraments. The power of John’s baptism and the superiority of the Christian [baptism] over it. On the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation, apart from the case of martyrdom; and the validity of baptism given by heretics.*57. We could not discourse upon these four heads, which it was not possible to discuss in the notes with the dignity and abundance of argument [they deserve], so we combine them in this one chapter.
Baptism and confirmation are, by Cyril’s testimony and judgment, distinct sacraments.
Millesius, pressing on the footsteps of his Protestants, in his notes on our Cyril, especially 1 and 2 in the note on Catechesis 21, affirms that the anointing of the holy chrism, which was given after baptism, is a rite of baptism and pertains to it alone; just as was the anointing of the catechumen with exorcized oil, which preceded baptism. But that the chrismal anointing is a sacrament entirely distinct from baptism according to Cyril’s opinion is very easily demonstrated. I shall not here urge the point that Cyril discusses the anointing of the catechumen C only incidentally and briefly in Catechesis 20, number 3, [but] attributes the entire catechesis to the anointing of the holy chrism; for when he promises the mystagogical catecheses in Catechesis 18, number 33, being silent about the former anointing, he regards the latter as a most weighty mystery of Christian instruction to be explained to them.
58. First, indeed, Cyril regards the remission of sins as the proper and principal effect of baptism; but the communication of the Holy Spirit as the peculiar gift of the holy chrism, in which communication he also includes the gifts of grace which, at that time, were commonly enough granted by God according to the faith and devotion of each person’s soul. Yet he separates both graces with a great distinction: both because in that matter he distinguishes greatly between the baptisms of John and of Christ; and then even more by these explicit testimonies in Catechesis 1, number 5: *The remission of sins is given equally to all, but the communication of the Holy Spirit is granted according to the proportion of each one’s faith.* A similar passage is held in Catechesis 13, number 25: *You receive now the remission of your sins, and the munificent graces of the spiritual gift of your King.* He compares the grace of the Holy Spirit in confirmation to a donative given to soldiers by the emperor above [their] stipend; and in Catechesis 17, number 37: *If you believe, you will not only receive the remission of sins, but you will also do things superior to human strength... You will receive as much grace as you are able to take.* He seems to view the grace of baptism as equal in all, but that of confirmation as different according to the diligence brought by each one. All the rites of baptism in the first and second mystagogical catecheses
A 21, n. 6. 4° Cyril seems to attribute the grace of adoption to the chrism as its own. This is suggested by the fact that in catechesis 20, n. 6, he treats the gift of the Holy Spirit and adoption as one and the same thing: since in catechesis 3, n. 14, and 11, n. 9, he says that just as Christ, after baptism and the visible descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him, was declared the Son of God by the Father's voice heard from heaven; so, when the Holy Spirit descends upon us after baptism, the Father's voice will be heard regarding each one, saying, "This one has now become my son": since he denies that the gift of the Spirit is conferred with the baptism of John, he removes by that same act the grace of adoption from it also; concluding its effect to be only and nakedly the remission of sins, catechesis 20, n. 6. By this he finally says, ibid., n. 1, that through the gift of the Holy Spirit, the form of Christ is imprinted in us; through which, having become like Him and being called "Christs" with Him, we attain the adoption which God established in that likeness. These points, however, although they make it highly probable that Cyril assigned the grace of adoption as proper to the sacrament of chrism [CXCII]; B yet they do not fully compel us to say so; for they can be understood as referring to the solemn declaration and obsignation of adoption given through Christ's baptism. For in catechesis 21, n. 1, he teaches that, since we are baptized into Christ, we have put Him on, and have acquired a form similar to Him. But that he teaches we put on Christ in the aforementioned baptism is found in his doctrine in catechesis 19, n. 10, and catechesis 20, n. 2; when it passes to the chrism, one hears nothing more of it. It must be admitted, however, that in catechesis 17, n. 15, he attributes it to the Holy Spirit, that in baptism He cuts down and consumes the thorns of sins, and renders the soul shining and splendid. But nothing forces us to refer this to the grace of the chrism, since it is an effect of regeneration properly pertaining to baptism. Therefore, secondly, the proper grace of baptism is regeneration, and the passage from the death of sin to life. With this effect, and the communication of Christ's sufferings, which bestows upon us the right and hope for a share in Christ's resurrection and glory due to the imitation that baptism bears of His death, burial, and resurrection, Cyril concludes the entire effect of the mystery of baptism, and with this alone he terminates his exposition of its ceremonies in catechesis 20, nn. 4 and 5. He adds, indeed, that [CXC] it bestows the gift of the Holy Spirit and the grace of adoption; but this is to be understood of the right given to us through it to the sacred chrism, which followed baptism immediately, and could in a certain way be comprehended in it; for this, in Cyril’s opinion, is the proper effect of the sacrament of chrism, as will now be proven. The grace which he teaches is conferred by the chrism is indeed different from regeneration, first, the Holy Spirit Himself, whose divinity being present in the chrism itself makes it effective for the Holy Spirit, n. 3—if that scholastic word may be permitted, which alone renders the force of the Greek *ἐνεργητικόν*—then, furthermore, he says that while the body is anointed with the visible oil, the soul is sanctified by the Holy Spirit and life-giving. 2° He says the Spirit is conferred upon us for this effect, that He may arm us entirely against the enemies of our salvation, n. 4, that it may be a safeguard and protection for the soul and body, and may perform the office of a teacher, n. 7; these are certainly effects distinct from regeneration. 3° Since baptism grants a communication of Christ’s death according to Cyril’s mind, he teaches that another communication with Christ is conferred upon us through the sacred chrism; namely, the communication of His anointing, with which He was anointed by the Holy Spirit descended visibly upon Him after baptism. Catechesis 21, n. 1: "To you," he says, "likewise, after you had ascended from the pool of the sacred waters, was given the chrism, the antitype of that with which Christ was anointed: which is the Holy Spirit"; and n. 2: "Just as Christ was truly crucified, buried, and rose again; and to you in baptism it was granted by divine favor that you should be crucified, buried, and rise again together with Him in a certain likeness, so also it happens concerning the chrism. He was anointed with an intelligible oil of exultation, that is, the Holy Spirit..., but you, having been anointed with ointment, have been made partakers and associates of Christ." Behold a society with Christ different from that which baptism confers. The effect of this is the communication of His name, so that we ourselves may be called Christs, n. 1, and we who were previously not worthy of the name of Christians, but only strove for it, attain the truth of this name through the sacred chrism, n. 5, so that we may at last acquire some part in Christ's priesthood, catechesis 18, n. 33; catechesis C ... are abundantly sufficient for the notes and proper characteristics. I do not deny, however, that Cyril, together with very many Fathers, sometimes comprehended confirmation within the action of baptism: either because it is the perfection and complement of baptism itself; or rather because it was conferred at the same time as baptism; and under the name of baptism, taken more generally, whatever accompanied and followed it was included. In the same way and for the same reason, some Fathers encompass the benefits and fruits of the Eucharist also in the action and effect of baptism: which often deceived Albertinus, as he referred to baptism properly so called what was related to the holy communion, given to the neophytes, after baptism and confirmation, in the paschal vigil itself. D *On the efficacy of the baptism of John, and the excellence of Christian baptism over it.* 60. Cyril attributes to the baptism of John the power of being freed from sins and from eternal fire. Catechesis 3, n. 7, he speaks thus of those receiving that baptism: "First they displayed their wounds (through the confession of sins); then He applied the remedies, and conferred redemption from eternal fire upon those who believed": which he endeavors to prove by the authority of Scripture. The same cat. 20, n. 6: "Let no one, therefore, think that baptism consists only in the remission of sins and in the grace of adoption; as was the baptism of John, which conferred only the remission of sins." This is not a singular opinion of Cyril, but he holds it together with the most ancient
and most noble Fathers. Thus Eusebius of Caesarea thinks (Lib. IX Demonst., cap. 5, p. 430, and in Isaiah, ch. xxxv, v. 2); Juvencus (Hist. evang. lib. I, v. 367, and in the beginning of the book); Hilary, who in Ps. cxvii, letter 3, n. 5, A supposes that the remission of sins was given by the baptism of John just as it is through the baptism of Christ; Optatus (Lib. V, n. 5), who also denies that the baptism of John, conferred before the resurrection of Christ, was repeated; Basil (Hom. 15, p. 409, and lib. I De bapt., cap. 2, p. 559); Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 34 (sic), p. 694); Gregory of Nyssa (Homily on his brother Basil, p. 482); Ambrose, who in Ps. xxxvii, num. 3 teaches that through that baptism a man put off all sin so that he might no longer be liable to punishments; the poet Prudentius, in the Hymn of Those Fasting (strophe 15, v. 960); Paulinus (poem 6, v. 263 et seqq.); Cyril of Alexandria (Thesauri assert. 11, p. 106, although he seems to have something to the contrary in John, lib. 11, p. 157); Basil of Seleucia (Orat. 18, p. 103); Peter Chrysologus (serm. 13); the Author of the sermon on the Theophany (among Chrysostom’s works, tom. VI, p. 253); and Titus of Bostra, who says in chapter III of Luke: "The baptism of John, although it had the remission of sins conjoined to it, did not have it from itself, but from repentance." C This author distinguishes here between the power of the sacrament, as theologians say, *ex opere operato* and *ex opere operantis*, attributing to the baptism of John only this latter power of dismissing sins. And perhaps this was also the opinion of some others whose names we have listed above. However, the clear testimonies of many of them, leaving aside this subtlety and making no discrimination, do not allow one to doubt that they believed sins were remitted by the baptism of John in the same way as they are through the baptism of Christ: among these we can count Cyril. Augustine, who defends the opposing view with the authority of very many most ancient and grave Fathers, does not dare to condemn this view and permits it to be followed; only he does not wish for equal power and efficacy to be attributed to the baptism of John as to the baptism of Christ. Thus he says (lib. V De bapt. cont. Donat., cap. 10, n. 12): "If sins were remitted by the baptism of John, what more could the baptism of Christ provide to those whom Paul wished to be baptized with the baptism of Christ after the baptism of John?" Nevertheless, lest anyone contend that in the baptism of John sins were indeed remitted, but that some larger sanctification was conferred through the baptism of Christ upon those whom Paul ordered to be baptized again, I do not argue contentiously. The reasoning of Augustine so moved all the theologians who followed him that that opinion, which adjudges to John's baptism the power of remitting sins, has long since been proscribed in the schools. But in noting the opposite opinion, the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 1, used the same line of reasoning as Augustine. For, when it was not unaware that it had formerly been defended by very grave Fathers, it proscribed in its definition of faith only that which—contrary to the unanimous consensus of all the Fathers, even those who taught that sins were remitted by the baptism of John—was proscribed by the reasoning that the baptism of John held the same power as the baptism of Christ. Certainly nothing is more alien to the opinion of Cyril.
61. For he determines the difference between both baptisms, which exists between their authors, John and Christ (Cat. 3, n. 9): "Why should I say more words about a man? Great is John, but what is he compared to the Lord? Truly his voice is high-sounding, but what is that to the Word? He is good who baptizes in water; but what is that to the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit and fire? The Savior baptized the apostles with the Holy Spirit and fire, when there occurred a sound suddenly from heaven, etc." Here he first outlines the difference between each baptism and the primary prerogative of Christian baptism over the baptism of John—that the former confers the Holy Spirit, while the latter does not. This is taught in Cat. 17, n. 8: "John was sanctified for this purpose, that he might baptize the Lord, not conferring the Spirit, but announcing the One who was conferring the Spirit"; and in Cat. 20, num. 6, concluding the power of John’s baptism to the sole and naked remission of sins, he attributes to Christ’s baptism, as its proper effects, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the grace of adoption (which indeed seem to be taken for one and the same) and the communication of the sufferings of Christ. This gift of the Holy Spirit, proper to the baptism of Christ, seems to me to be nothing other than the grace of confirmation. For that gift is what was granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost, as he himself signifies in the already cited place of the third catechesis [CXCIV]. But, you will say, that gift is foreign to baptism and is a sacrament distinct from it; wherefore it can constitute no superiority of our baptism over the baptism of John. It is answered first: in the comparison of both baptisms, Cyril, adhering to the footsteps of Scripture, looks not only to baptism strictly and properly so-called, but to that baptism accompanied by all its adjuncts and appendages; the confirmation of which is the other sacrament by which it is previously perfected and completed. And indeed, as often as John compares his baptism with the baptism of Christ (Matt. iii, 11; Mark 1, 8; Luke iii, 16; John 1, 33), or Christ in turn compares His with the baptism of John (Acts 1, 5), or Paul compares both (Acts xix, 2, 7), they all establish the primary excellence of Christ’s baptism in the gift of the Holy Spirit, given to the apostles on the day of Pentecost and communicated to us after baptism through the imposition of hands. Second, although the grace of confirmation does not pertain to baptism properly so-called, which is completed by the infusion of water, yet it bestows upon us the right to that same grace and provides for it in a proximate manner, which the baptism of John did not provide. Third, although the grace of confirmation is watched for more specially and principally in the gift of the Holy Spirit, there are nevertheless other gifts of the same Holy Spirit communicated through baptism properly and strictly taken, such as the remission and total abolition of sins, the impression of character, and the reconciliation of adoption.
62. The second prerogative of Christian baptism over the baptism of John is listed by Cyril as the gift of adoption, cat. 20, n. 6. The opinion of Basil is the same: John, he says, hom. 13, p. 409, ἑκήρυττε βάπτισμα μετανοίας... Κύριος κηρύσσει βάπτισμα υιοθεσίας. John preached the baptism of repentance... the Lord preaches the baptism of adoption, and he adds: The former is an introductory baptism, εἰσαγωγικόν. The latter is one of perfection, τελειωτικόν. The former is a withdrawal from sin; the latter is a familial union with God, οἰκείωσις πρὸς θεόν. The same is praised by the author of the sermon on the Theophany, already cited at n. 60, among the works of Chrysostom, tom. VI, p. 253, who introduces John speaking thus: I am the preacher of repentance, he (Christ) is the giver of adoption. I baptize you in water, cleansing you as vessels soiled with the filth of sins; he will pour in the unguent of grace. Ammonius in the catena on John, at cap. III, 26, says that the baptism of John forgave sins to those truly penitent, while the baptism of Christ conferred the remission of all sins, and furthermore the Holy Spirit and the dignity of adoption. D But the question is asked: can the gift of adoption and familiarity with God be separated from the remission of sins, and can the right to the heavenly inheritance be denied to those who have been cleansed from sins? For sins are remitted only by the infusion of charity, I John III, 14, and charity makes us children of God, ibid. v. 10. First, it is not at issue by what right those Fathers separated things joined by nature. They considered them sufficiently separate so that, therefore, they might admit a great interval between both the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ. That is sufficient for recognizing the tradition concerning the excellence of Christian baptism over the baptism of John; nor must a more pressing or strict account be demanded of all such statements. Furthermore, not only did they distinguish adoption from the remission of sins. Thus Isidore of Pelusium, lib. III, epist. 395: Do not think, friend, that baptism has only the power of taking away sins; but that it is also the efficient cause of adoption and divine kinship, and of countless other goods, whether those already mentioned or those passed over. Thus Theodoret, Haereticarum fabularum compendium, lib. V, cap. 18, speaking of baptism: It not only grants the remission of former sins, but also implants in us the hope of promised goods, and constitutes us sharers in the Lord’s death and resurrection, and bestows the participation of the gift of the Holy Spirit, and makes us sons of God. I omit those who distinguished a middle place between hell and the kingdom of heaven; it is known that this was the opinion of many Fathers, as we shall say below at n. 65, so that B they could by their own right separate the remission of sins and liberation from hell from adoption and the right of obtaining the heavenly inheritance; and attribute the former to the baptism of John, and the latter to the baptism of Christ. But Cyril is very far from this distinction of a middle and third place: although Ambrose, who seems to have been a stranger to it, in psalm. XXXVII, n. 3, attributes to the baptism of John only immunity from punishments; and to the baptism of Christ, furthermore, grace—that is, as I understand it and as the sequence of the Ambrosian text signifies—the right to the inheritance of heavenly life. But if we examine both matters thoroughly, although they are now joined by divine mercy, they are nevertheless separated by a great interval. For since under God, the just judge, no one can be miserable unless he deserves it, it is a matter of justice that God should not cast those just and penitent ones who have washed away their sins and have been gifted with their remission into hell; this is the effect of the baptism of John, which dismissed sins, according to the opinion of Cyril and others. But to grant, over and above, a right to the attainment of the heavenly inheritance to those liberated from hell, is a matter of mercy. Although indeed for the just, out of the merit of good works, eternal life is owed out of justice, C that right nevertheless has no foundation other than the divine—and gratuitous—promise which proceeds from his good pleasure. Augustine in psalm. XXXII, n. 9: Let us hold God as a most faithful debtor, because we hold him as a most merciful promiser. However, because the things are separated by nature, they have been joined by God’s will, so that he who has received the remission of sins and the grace of sanctification can, by his own right, as a Son of God, expect the inheritance of eternal life; nor do I think that Cyril or others of the same opinion so separated the remission of sins from adoption that they wished for these to subsist separated and apart: wherefore what they teach concerning adoption having been added to the remission of sins in the baptism of Christ, I would understand not of adoption properly and strictly so-called, which is included in the remission of sins, but of its solemn declaration and sealing. That this is my opinion of Cyril, omitting other matters, is caused by the fact that he seems to make that gift of adoption, distinct from the remission of sins, proper to the sacrament of chrism.
A He indicates not obscurely that he who had received baptism alone without chrism—which happened to those who were baptized in towns or villages by a priest or deacon (Catechesis 17, n. 35)—would have lacked the gift of adoption for so long. Yet he teaches (Catechesis 20, n. 7) that the one who has received baptism alone is grafted into Christ and has become a partaker of Christ's death, having obtained a right to a glorious participation in His resurrection; and that this right cannot exist without adoption. Cyril necessarily had to consider that one who had attained liberation from Gehenna through the baptism of John had acquired a similar right to glory; for since he acknowledges no middle ground between Gehenna and the kingdom of heaven, he must necessarily confess that he who has been liberated from Gehenna is fit for the kingdom of heaven. Yet the prerogative in this matter lies most of all in the right of adoption.
63. I set aside the other prerogatives of Christian baptism over the baptism of John according to Cyril’s mind, which pertain to baptism properly so called. The third, therefore, consists in the imitation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; by which the merit and effect of His passion is communicated to us, so that, grafted into Christ by the likeness of His death expressed in us in the act of baptism, we may obtain the right and hope of also sharing in His glorious resurrection (Catechesis 20, nn. 6 and 7; and Catechesis 3, n. 12); the baptism of John lacked this gift (ibid., n. 6). The fourth is the impression of the character; if the baptism of John had impressed this upon the soul, it would not have been repeated. Moreover, Cyril teaches that the impression of the character pertains to the Holy Spirit (Catechesis 3, n. 3; Catechesis 4, n. 16; Catechesis 16, n. 24, etc.; Catechesis 17, n. 35). Here, then, is the gift of the Holy Spirit, distinct from confirmation, which was denied to the baptism of John and is an effect of baptism properly so called. The fifth prerogative: whereas the baptism of John, in Cyril’s opinion, provided only the bare remission of sins—and therefore there did not follow upon it the removal of the stain of any fault remaining after the sin was forgiven, nor the abolition of the punishment to be paid either in purgatory or in the fire of judgment—the baptism of Christ, and it alone, abolishes all the scars and marks of sins in the soul and body that remain even after healing (Catechesis 18, n. 20); it wipes away the memory of all transgressions before God (Catechesis 15, n. 23; Catechesis 3, n. 15), and man, as if resurrected and conformed to Christ, retains nothing of the old man (Catechesis 5, n. 12; Catechesis 20, n. 2). He seems to attribute this full purgation of sins to the Holy Spirit, accomplished first on the day of Pentecost in the apostles, and then to be accomplished in us in a similar outpouring of the same Spirit (Catechesis 17, n. 15); that we should say this effect also was attributed by Cyril to the baptism of John, nothing compels us: on the contrary, he says it belongs to the baptism of Christ alone (Catechesis 18), since the effect of His death and resurrection is expressly in it, as indicated by citations from Catechesis 3 and 20. Otherwise, it is handled brilliantly B regarding the baptism of John if we attribute to it the same force as our sacrament of penance. But many Fathers, whom we cited at Catechesis 18, n. 20, either plainly deny to this sacrament the abolition of scars, or do not dare to attribute it; and Cyril seems to support their opinion, affirming that this is an effect *only* of baptism.
64. Regarding the total necessity and effect of baptism for salvation, Cyril believed that it opens the entry to the heavenly kingdom to martyrs alone without water. Thus, Catechesis 3, n. 10: "If anyone does not receive baptism, he has no salvation; except for martyrs alone, who receive the kingdom even without water." And n. 4, having adduced the testimony of Christ: "Unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John III, 3); he says that without both, namely water and the Spirit, no one can attain perfection, and he adds: "Neither if anyone is baptized with water but does not receive the Spirit (that is, because of a perverse inducement of the mind; Pro-catechesis n. 2, Catechesis 17, n. 36), does he have perfect grace: nor, if anyone is instructed in the works of virtues yet does not receive the seal by water, is he to enter the kingdom of heaven." I should vehemently desire to understand these things regarding the one who, thinking himself righteous, despises baptism. But in what way, pray, when below he produces Cornelius as an example—who certainly was not a despiser of baptism—could he call one who despises it, but is instructed in the works of virtues, C *εὐάρετος τοῖς ἔργοις* (well-pleasing in works)? When he says in the same Catechesis, n. 10: "If the Son of God was baptized, who can despise baptism while maintaining piety?" Then, in the aforementioned text from n. 4, he admits his judgment is harsh, "Let this speech appear bold, but it is not mine": the harshness of which will be nothing with respect to adults, if the vow and desire for baptism, no less than martyrdom, supplies the lack of baptism. He does not mitigate the harshness of the judgment; on the contrary, he D proves it by the authority of Christ who delivered that judgment; then by the example of Cornelius, who although he was a just man and worthy of the vision of angels, accepted by God through prayers and alms; moreover, after the coming of Peter, sent from heaven, and having been deemed worthy of the gift of the Holy Spirit and tongues and prophecy, and regenerated in soul through faith, was nevertheless ordered to be baptized, so that his body also might be rendered a participant in grace through water. He repeats the reason for this judgment in Catechesis 3, n. 10 and Catechesis 13, n. 21, for a twofold cause: 1st, from the fact that, when Christ’s side was pierced after His death on the cross, blood and water flowed, the symbol of a twofold baptism, and no more. Following the host of the Fathers, he pronounced this; 2nd, from the necessity of the confession of faith; which, while it is made in baptism to the ministers of the Church who ask, in martyrdom is made to the tyrants who ask.
ASuch an opinion has not settled in the mind of Cyril. Writers who are or can be cited to this effect are: the author of the *Recognitions* under the name of St. Clement, lib. I, n. 55, and lib. VI, n. 8; the author of the *Clementine Homilies*, hom. 11, n. 25 and 26; Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 40, p. 652, and his commentator Nicetas on that passage; Gregory of Nyssa, vol. II, *Oration on Those Arriving at Baptism at Different Times*, p. 126; Chrysostom, hom. 24 on John, p. 159, and hom. 62, p. 402, and hom. 3 on the Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, p. 32 and 33; the author of the sermon *On the Man Born Blind and the Thief*, in the same [Chrysostom], vol. VI, p. 441; and the author of the following homily *On the Three-Day Resurrection*, p. 445; Gennadius, *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas*, cap. 41; Fulgentius, lib. I *On the Truth of Predestination and Grace*, cap. 19; in the book *On Faith to Peter*, cap. 3, num. 41; and in the epistle to Ferrandus *On the Baptism of an Ethiopian*, cap. 2; Arnobius the Younger, on Ps. CXXIX; Hesychius, lib. II on Leviticus, on cap. VI, 27; the author of the *History of Barlaam and Josaphat*, cap. 8; Rabanus Maurus, who in lib. IV *On the Universe*, cap. 10, praises and approves the opinion of Gennadius. The same teaching reached the Eastern sects. John, the Jacobite Patriarch of Alexandria, praised by that most illustrious man of vast universal erudition, Eusebius Renaudot, vol. V of *Perpetuity of the Faith*, lib. II, cap. 2, when asked about an adult departing this life without the grace of baptism, responds that even if he had surpassed Jeremiah in prayers, Job in alms, and Abraham in grace of hospitality, he would be cast into the fires of Gehenna. To these could be added those who distinguished only a double baptism of water and blood, such as Tertullian, *On Baptism*, cap. 13; Cyprian, *On the Exhortation to Martyrdom*, p. 168; Jerome, lib. XIII on Isaiah, cap. XLVIII, 21; Prudentius, in the hymn *On the Miracles of Christ*, strophe 29, and *Peristephanon*, carm. 8, verse 15 et seqq. Also those who, although in other places they teach with explicit testimonies that baptism requested is sufficient for salvation, in other places, whether contradicting themselves or not attending to the present question, have put forth general statements about the necessity of baptism of all kinds for salvation. Where those who have departed this light without baptism through no fault of their own should be placed, is not agreed upon by all. Some consign them to Gehenna without mercy. Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssa, and Nicetas, teach that a certain middle place, as of happiness so also of punishment, receives them. Ambrose, lib. II *On Abraham*, cap. 11, n. 84, excludes both infant and adult, if hindered by some necessity from receiving baptism, from the kingdom of heaven; and adds: "Let them have, however, that immunity from punishment; I do not know if they have the honor of the kingdom." In the same order perhaps those can be placed who locate infants who die without baptism in this middle place: such as the author of the *Questions to Antiochus*, quest. 115, vol. III of Athanasius, p. 296; Severus of Antioch, catena on John, on cap. III, 3; [mark: [CXCIX]] Cosmas the Egyptian, lib. VII, p. 295; the author of the *Questions to the Orthodox*.
But Cyril is very far removed. For he knows only two states of men after the final judgment: Gehenna and the kingdom of heaven. See cat. 15, n. 26; cat. 18, n. 19; and cat. 1, n. 2, where he says: "Be numbered among the holy and rational flock of Christ, so that you may obtain the life prepared for you at his right hand as an inheritance." For those to whom the harshness of sins still adheres, B they are set at the left; because they have not approached the grace of God, which is given through Christ in the laver of regeneration. It remains, therefore, that he adjudges to eternal fire those to whom baptism was wanting through no fault of their own.
66. Which opinion I find to be contrary to all his sayings and decrees. First, indeed, cat. 18, n. 31, he establishes: "Since the Lord is supremely loving of men, he has opened not just one or another, but many entrances into eternal life, so that all, as far as it depends on him, may enjoy it without hindrance." But he who is legitimately prepared to receive baptism, and is deprived of it through no fault of his own—he brings no impediment from himself to eternal life, being repentant of sins, seeking baptism, and receiving it as much as is in him. God, therefore, is the only one who hinders that one from arriving at eternal life. Among those, which Cyril enumerates in a long order in n. 50, reasons provided by God for obtaining eternal life, he counts the observation of the commandments, secession from sin, the renunciation of all things for Christ, and faith. And yet it can happen that one has fulfilled all these, who, prevented by death, has departed without baptism. Second, he teaches that the effective desire of doing good works, when we are hindered from performing the works themselves by death and necessity, suffices, and that faith fulfills their place, cat. 13, n. 31, dealing with the pious thief, and thus he introduces Christ speaking about him: "The thief wishes to do just works, but death prevents him. I do not consider the work alone, but I also have the accepted faith." The desire, therefore, of baptism should hold the place of baptism itself; and this is all the more favorable for the cause of a man deprived of baptism through no fault of his own; because he, as the thief, is not just recently converted, but perhaps proved by a long exercise of good works, and instructed in the works of virtues, just as Cyril speaks C of the former excluding the defect of baptism. Third, cat. 5, n. 5, he says that Abraham, when he bound his son to sacrifice him and placed him on the wood, sacrificed by will and merit, with God hindering the execution of the sacrifice. Cannot the merit of martyrdom itself be earned similarly by the will and desire for martyrdom, and by sincere preparation of the soul? Ambrose, lib. *On Isaac*, c. 8, n. 76: "Whose," he says (meaning the death of martyrs), "charity is not unequal, which is equated to the passion of the martyrs, so that it takes away the merit of defaults." This preparation for martyrdom, which contains the merit of martyrdom, we can suppose in a man who is defrauded of the grace of baptism through no fault or negligence of his own; but Cyril does not doubt that martyrdom takes the place...
of the fulfillment of baptism. Fourthly, the merit and power for salvation, whether of received baptism or of martyrdom, Cyril places in the confession of faith, [CC] as we have seen above (num. 64). And yet a man, through no fault of his own, deprived of baptism, could confess the faith either before tyrants or heretics, or whoever was otherwise an enemy of the faith, or by reciting the Creed in the Church before the priests. Therefore, he ought to have the merit of either martyrdom or baptism. These things move me to believe that if Cyril had attended to these principles of his, or had been asked more specifically about the case of a man dying without baptism through no fault of his own, he would have answered that such a man, if he had otherwise worthily amended his sins, would not be devoid of salvation. There can be no doubt about the opinion of Ambrose and Augustine concerning the sufficiency of desired baptism. Yet, there do not occur in Cyril opinions more explicit against that view. Ambrose, *lib. II. De Abrah.*, cap. 11, num. 79: "No one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the water of baptism"; and num. 84: "Unless one has been reborn" etc. He certainly excludes no one—not an infant, nor anyone prevented by any necessity. In *Ps. CXVIII*, serm. 3, num. 14, he distinguishes a triple baptism: the baptism of the Church through water and the Holy Spirit; the baptism of blood; and the baptism of the fire of purgatory on the day of judgment. In *De mysteriis*, cap. 4, n. 20: "The catechumen also believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus. But unless he has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins, nor draw the gift of spiritual grace." Augustine also has many things contrary to his own opinion regarding the sufficiency of the desire for baptism for salvation. *Serm.* 4, num. 9, cap. 8: "Sins pursue catechumens right up to baptism"; *tract.* 13 in *Joan.*, n. 17: "However much the catechumen may progress, he still carries the burden of his iniquity. It is not remitted for him until he comes to baptism"; *De symb. ad catechumenos*, tract. 1, cap. 8, n. 15: "As long as people are catechumens, their sins are upon them"; *serm.* 27, n. 6, he holds it for the hidden judgment of God that a man who lived well as a catechumen has died in a sudden ruin and did not arrive at baptism. *Epistola* 228, being consulted about the flight of pastors in time of persecution, he notes that at that time people were accustomed to flock to the Church especially when some sought baptism, and others, established in penance or conscious of committed sins, sought absolution from sins: then, lest the ministers be missing for this necessity, he bids them to consider, n. 8: "What destruction follows those who go forth from this world either not regenerated, or bound. What mourning for the faithful, who will not have them with themselves in the rest of eternal life." Yet the same man, long before, *lib. IV De baptismo*, cap. 22, n. 29, expressly declares that not only passion for the name of Christ can supply what was wanting from baptism, but also faith and the conversion of the heart; if perchance, in the stress of the times, it could not be provided to celebrate the mystery of baptism. This he could do. There is nothing in the earlier testimonies of Augustine and Ambrose that is expressed more clearly in Cyril. He could, therefore, if he had examined our question more accurately, have departed from his own opinion.
Of the baptism conferred by heretics.
67. Cyril declares this to be null and invalid, and that it is to be repeated in the Church, in num. 7 with these words: "It is not permitted to receive the laver twice or three times... For one Lord, and one faith, and one baptism." [CCI] "For heretics are only rebaptized; since that former baptism was not." In these words two things must be distinguished: Cyril's opinion concerning the invalid baptism of heretics, and the custom of the Church of Jerusalem in rebaptizing them. I distinguish these, I say; for Cyril could have formed a general opinion for himself that the baptism of all heretics was null and void, from the fact that he saw some being rebaptized in his own Church while they were returning to the Catholic [Church]. First, therefore, I treat of Cyril's opinion. It can hardly be doubted that he pronounces a general judgment regarding all heretics; for he uses this testimony—by which that error is truly overturned, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism"—to confirm the same error with Cyprian: concluding that, just as outside the Church neither is the Lord truly worshipped, nor is the true faith found, so too neither is a true and valid baptism to be found. I will not use in this place that defense to excuse Cyril which Theodore the Studite uses in *lib. I ad epist. 40* regarding the Apostolic Constitutions and Basil, when both reject the baptism of heretics: namely, that by the Apostolic canon those are called heretics who have neither been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, nor do they baptize. For I consider this unusual and restricted notion of heresy to be foreign to Cyril; nor do I wonder that he reprobated the baptism of heretics universally. For that plenary council, so much celebrated by Augustine, in which the contention between Stephen and Cyprian concerning the valid or invalid baptism of heretics had been finished, had truly already been celebrated. For whether you call it the Council of Arles or of Nicaea, that obscure council had long since been finished. But it is known that even long after those times many Fathers held the baptism of heretics to be null; whether because the definition of this plenary council was not yet sufficiently known and published in the East, which has been said regarding the Council of Arles; or because it seemed not sufficiently clear and expressed, which pertains to the Council of Nicaea. For since in it the Novatians, as they returned, were ordered to be received without a new baptism (can. 8), it follows that the baptism of heretics is not truly null for the one reason of heresy; but that consequence could have not been heeded; furthermore, there was no lack of place for exception, since the Novatians were everywhere considered more as schismatics than as heretics, and they did not corrupt the valid formula of baptizing either in words or in mind. For it seemed to many that not only that which
A was done in word, but also that which was induced merely by a perverse interpretation, constituted a corruption of the baptismal form, rendering the baptism void and null. It seems that Athanasius thought this, in Orat. 2, n. 42 and 43, saying that many heresies do indeed pronounce the names of the persons of the Holy Trinity in baptism, but because they do not think rightly, the water which they bestow is useless. Optatus, though an African—to which province canon 8 of the Council of Arles strictly applied—had been present at the Nicene Council; I say that Optatus, the Milevitan, in lib. 1, cont. Parmenianum, n. 12, while approving of the baptism of schismatics, expressly rejects that of heretics. But in lib. 2, n. 8, and lib. 5, n. 1 and 3, he seems to approve of every baptism administered in the name of the Trinity, provided there is present a right faith (at least on the part of the recipient, whom he calls a believer, distinguishing him from the agent or minister) in that same Trinity. Since he so zealously requires this faith of the recipient, it seems to align with the mind of the Council of Arles. Basil, canon epistle 1, can. 1, p. 20, while admitting the baptism of conventicles and ordering that heretics be received or rejected according to the custom of the places, consistently rejects that of heretics as null and void, even though they baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Nazianzen, Orat. 40, n. 25, p. 637, approves of any minister of baptism, provided he is formed in the Catholic faith. St. Ephrem, Orat. de S. Basilio, Gr. ed., p. 403, says that when the Arians baptized the infant son of Valens (he was six years old), they baptized with water, not with the Spirit. Epiphanius, in Anacephalaeosi, num. 5, p. 151, says that some from the Catholic side, having formed a private faction for themselves, contrary to the custom of the Church and without the decree of a general council, do not fear to baptize again those who are crossing over to their side from the Arians, B since that matter has not been decided by the judgment of a universal synod. Therefore, he did not consider that the Nicene synod had finished that case. Ambrose, De mysteriis, cap. 4, num. 23: "The baptism of the treacherous does not heal; it does not cleanse, but pollutes." Asterius of Amasea, in Ps. VI (Monum. Eccl. Gr. Coteler., tom. II, p. 61), determines that an infant baptized by heretics is not baptized, but immersed into heresy, and has already suffered shipwreck from the very entry of life. Jerome, although he explicitly defended the baptism of heretics in his Dialogus contra Luciferianos, yet in many places seems to consider it null and void, such as in Ecclesiastes, cap. 7, v. 27; lib. 1 in Oseam, cap. 2, v. 5; and lib. 2, c. 10, v. 10, and cap. 11, v. 4; and in Ephes., cap. 4, v. 6. These are abundantly sufficient to excuse the opinion of Cyril: which he certainly corrected, if not sooner, at least in the year 381, when, in the Council of Constantinople, together with the other Fathers, he decreed in canon 7 that many of the heretics be received without a new baptism. Now a few words regarding the custom of the Jerusalem Church before these times in rebaptizing heretics.
68. Firmilian once represented this Church while writing to Cyprian, just as C the same diversity of opinion regarding the baptism of heretics might also have had a place among those dissenting from the Roman school. It does not matter in which, although this was the subject at issue; and that silence provides some reason to presume the contrary: although Firmilian does not seem to have made use of the example, which would have been easy to hurl back at him. Yet Eusebius, lib. 5 Hist., cap. 2, speaking of the controversy that arose between the Asians and the Roman pontiff concerning the baptism of heretics, says that an ancient custom had prevailed that, for men returning to the Catholic Church, only the imposition of hands with prayers was employed. This he undoubtedly estimated from the custom of his own province of Palestine. But the Apostolic Constitutions, largely expressed for the use of the Churches of Syria and Palestine, lib. 6, cap. 15, reject the baptism of heretics as null. Be that as it may, it is rightly and justly assumed that the Jerusalem Church adhered to the decrees of the Nicene Council; and those whom that Council orders to be received without a new baptism, it did not [CCIII] rebaptize. Few heretics presented themselves in it for conversion who did not use a corrupted baptism. Cyril notes no others converted from the heretics besides the Manichaeans, whom he prepared for baptism along with others (Cat. 15, n. 15), where, turning his speech to them, he says: "Let those who have been converted from the Manichaeans be instructed, and no longer attribute divinity to lights," etc., which does not seem to have been able to be said to those converted for a long time and aggregated to the faithful for a long period. But the Manichaeans had a baptism so differing from the legitimate rite of the Church that it is even a question not easily explained whether they recognized baptism at all. Certainly, their baptism was polluted with such impurity and filth that Cyril says he is prevented by shame even from describing its mode (Cat. 6, n. 33). Since he has the Manichaeans in his sights throughout his entire catecheses and zealously attacks them in every place—which he is found to do with no other heretics—it might be concluded from this that these were almost the only ones seen in the Jerusalem parish at this time. Epiphanius testifies that there were Marcionites in Palestine (hær. 42, num. 1), and Cyril speaks of their conventicles and Sundays (Cat. 18, n. 20), joining them with the Manichaeans. Regarding the Marcionites, it is a doubtful matter whether they changed the customary form of baptism. Basil, epist. 1, can. 1, testifies that their baptism was rejected from the beginning, just as that of the Manichaeans, Valentinians, and Pepuzians; and he says (epist. 2, can. 47) that Marcionites are not received by the Church [of his] unless they have been baptized in our baptism. Hence it is not unfairly doubted whether they used the true formula of baptism. This, in Cyril's opinion, they were very gravely corrupting, if not in words, at least in mind and intelligence: preaching three gods instead of one Trinity (Cat. 16, num. 4 and 1), and separating the Father and the Holy Spirit, in whose name we are baptized, from the Creator of the world and the Spirit who inspired the prophets. This corruption of the baptismal form, according to the understanding, is indeed sufficient to
we have seen at n. 67, the foundation for the re-baptizing of some in the opinion of others. It is therefore no wonder, although it can be proven by no monument, that the Marcionites were re-baptized at Jerusalem. Cyril also mentions the Cataphrygians, or Montanists and Pepuzians, in *Catechesis* 16, numb. 8, whom the Council of Nicaea (can. 19), the Council of Laodicea (can. 8), and the Council of Constantinople (can. 7) command to be admitted with a new baptism; and it is no wonder, if they baptized not only in meaning, but even in words, into the Father and the Son and Montanus, from Basil, *Epist.* 1, can. 1. Cyril often calls the Sabellians by their own name; at times he mentions the error of the Paulianists, but never the name itself. The Council of Nicaea (can. 19) orders the former, and the Council of Constantinople (can. 7) orders the latter to be baptized when returning to the Church. I shall say nothing about the ancient heretics mentioned by Cyril—Simon Magus, Menander, Basilides, the Gnostics, the Valentinians, etc.—whose heresies, almost extinct in that age, still used a baptismal formula that was corrupted either in words or, at least, in understanding. Returning from his various exiles, Cyril undoubtedly received many into the Church; and he encountered many of them who had been baptized by the Arians, the invaders of his Church. But it is not recorded that he initiated any of them with a new baptism; and it must be supposed that he conformed to the law established throughout the whole Church, so that they were received solely by the subscription of the Nicene Council and by the profession that the Holy Spirit is not a creature. That was a precept in the Council of Alexandria held under Athanasius in the year 362, and it was assented to by Paulinus of Antioch; by Basil, *Epist.* 203, p. 222; and by Liberius after the Council of Rimini, as attested by Siricius, *Epist.* 1 to Himerius of Tarragona, can. 7, which, says Siricius, the whole East and West observes. In the year 380, with Melania and Rufinus acting, Cyril reconciled the Pneumatomachi to the Church; both, being bound by the customs of the Roman Church, would have neither approved nor consented to them being re-baptized. At the same time, the same man offered his communion to the schismatic Apollinarians through Gregory of Nyssa; a new baptism was not proposed. From all these things, I believe it is proven and established that the Church of Jerusalem in the time of Cyril, and Cyril himself, did not baptize all heretics returning to the Church, and that it cannot be proven that the others were re-baptized by them, except for those whom the councils either command to be baptized anew or who are known to have used a formula at least corrupted in regard to the meaning of baptism.
CHAPTER IX
Concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and transubstantiation; in which Albertinus's empty sophistries to diminish the force of Cyril's testimonies are refuted; and general observations on the method of responding to Albertinus.
69. The multitude of testimonies of Cyril concerning both Catholic dogmas, and their clarity, is so alien to any deceit, ambiguity, or metaphorical type of speech that even the more sincere among the Protestants candidly admit that they have in Cyril an adversary of their own opinion. One of them is he whom I name for the sake of honor, Ernest Grabe, to whose explanation of the Cyrillian sentiment, however, I cannot assent in all things: regarding which matter I shall have something to say toward the end of chapter 11, numb. 91. Furthermore, such is that antiquity of Cyril and the authority of the Jerusalemite Church that, if it is conceded to the Catholics, the heretics would appear to have lost their cause. For this reason, Albertinus left no stone unturned to snatch Cyril from us, and although he was not ignorant that he was walking in difficult places, he nevertheless assumes so much confidence in appearance—to the point that he boasts nowhere more freely—that he calls all his adversaries blockheads, stupid, and inexperienced, saying they see nothing. He is, to be sure, among those who have no oil within and no meat in the nut. This arrogance has so blinded the eyes of Thomas Milles that, thinking the weapons drawn from Cyril by the Catholics against the Protestants had been abundantly broken by him, he does not respond at all in his notes on the *Mystagogic Catecheses* to those testimonies of Cyril, but orders the true meaning of them to be sought from Albertinus—whose entire second chapter from book two of his *De sacramento*, or rather *Against the Sacrament of the Eucharist*, he appended at the end of his Oxford edition as a splendid supplement. He has also given me an example of defending my own faith and has imposed [CCV] the necessity of not appearing less studious in defending the defenses of Catholic doctrine than he is in attacking them. Therefore, I have deemed it my duty to oppose a necessary antidote to the poison prepared in his edition: and although it is not possible to respond in a brief speech to the long-winded refutation of Catholic arguments by Albertinus, it was not permitted for me to escape that burden. I am not unaware that the cavils of Albertinus have long since been exploded and cast out in books written with extraordinary erudition and force of reasoning, so that scarcely anything could seem to be added to their diligence; and we admit that we have profited much from their industry, and have contributed much culled from them, deeming it a source of praise to follow their footsteps: but their cause is somewhat unlike our own. Placed in a wider field, having to defend the cause of all the Fathers, they—without undertaking an investigation of individuals—brought forth only general principles and arguments, which, applied to individuals, reveal the force of the sentiments set forth by them and cast out all false interpretations. For us, the space is narrower and the labor is in a limited area. For the sentiment of Cyril alone must be opened up, illustrated, and defended for us, out of a more accurate examination of his words and the whole scope and design of his doctrine. Which, God consenting, we hope we have so accomplished that no doubt concerning the doctrine of Cyril regarding transubstantiation can now appear able to cling to anyone's mind. We shall follow the same order as Albertinus. He sets forth for himself, point by point, the arguments transcribed from Cyril in Bellarmine, and subjects his own refutation to them; we, with the same arguments proposed again,
acknowledge A that the bread given in the Eucharist is the very body of Christ. Thus, he supposes it is to be understood that the bread is a type of the body, or a typical body; and he accumulates many passages in which the thing itself which is the type and sign is subjected to the word "type" in its governance: just as it is said, the sign of circumcision, the type of Jonah, instead of circumcision being the sign, and Jonah the type. And he claims that the body of Christ is thus given to us in the type of bread, just as it is said by the Fathers that Christ was given to the fathers in the type of manna, and sacrificed in the image and figure of all the beasts in the Old Testament. He is no more troubled by the fact that through participation in the Eucharist we are said to be made consanguineous and concorporal with Christ. For he contends that the same thing was said by many Fathers regarding baptism: who indeed almost all speak of that in relation to the Eucharist, having received it with baptism. Nor does he find more difficulty in the fact that, the body and blood of Christ having been received and distributed into our members, we are made Christ-bearers. For he denies that it can be said that the true body of Christ is distributed into our members. However, he asserts that pious men are commonly called Christ-bearers, because they bear Christ in their minds. If you object that Cyril says that we should not believe our senses, which tell us that in the Eucharist there is bread and wine, but that faith teaches us it is the Body and Blood of Christ, for what appears to be bread is not bread, etc., he answers that the Fathers in the same way confirmed that one should not stand by the judgment of the senses in the baptismal waters: and that the bread and wine have acquired this, that they are a typical body and blood, which taste does not detect. When finally he objects to himself C that Cyril says Christ the King is received in holy communion and commands Him to be adored: he has it ready to hand, that Christ is received in His sign or sacrament, which is commonly called by the name of the thing signified; and that adoration is accustomed to be attributed to things that are most diverse from God. [CCVII] This is a specimen and example of the Albertinian responses, which we shall explain separately. In the meantime, hold these observations regarding his general method of answering, which may suffice for every response.
70. For first of all, although Albertinus shows himself most confident in his cause, yet sensing the whole power of Cyrillian testimonies, he omits nothing by which he may detract from their entire weight. He burdens Cyril himself with every kind of envy: he accuses him of communication with Arians, of variation in faith and communion, of zeal for impiety, of ambitious contention regarding primacy. Attacking the person of the most holy prelate, he strikes at his writings, and brands the catecheses written in the author's youth as not being without a certain design. He says that the faith of the Roman codices, from which Prevotius edited the Greek catecheses, is suspect to him, and that he fears the frauds of the Danaans and the gifts of enemies. He assumes as a demonstrated and indubitable fact that they are corrupted in various places. He decrees, on his own testimony and judgment, that they possess neither the same style nor the same authority as the Mystagogical [catecheses]. Yet, granting them to be truly Cyril's, he sets out to show that they contain nothing that favors the Catholic cause. I shall say nothing here about the imprudent and frivolous accusation by Albertinus against Cyril, his catecheses [CCVI], and those who edited them; for these things have already been partly refuted and rejected by us in our General Preface, and partly in our dissertations on the life and writings of Cyril: I look only at his method of answering the arguments of the Catholics, which consists entirely in subtlety. When it is objected to him from Cyril that there is no doubt that the eucharistic bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, he answers that it is a mystical and symbolic body, that is, in sacrament and virtue: because, of course, the eucharistic gifts bear a figure of the body of Christ, and communicate to us its virtue and efficacy by their reception: just as the baptismal water and the sacred ointment, in the judgment of the same Cyril, are not bare elements, but contain the power of sanctifying. If you object from the miracle of the conversion of water into wine, that Cyril confirms the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; the answer is ready, drawn from many metaphorical changes common in the mouth of the Fathers. For they say that holy men are transmuted into angels, the impious into beasts; that the souls of the saints are transmuted through righteousness into the divine nature, nay, even that their bodies in the resurrection are transmuted into the spiritual nature of the soul, and into the very divine nature; that Christ, whether in the incarnation or after the ascension, was made entirely God, and that his humanity passed into the divine nature; that the waters of baptism were reddened with the blood of Christ. Albertinus objects to himself that Cyril says that under the type and figure D of bread given in the Eucharist it is the very body of Christ. Thus he sets it down that it is to be understood that the bread is a type of the body, or a typical body; and he accumulates many places in which the thing itself which is the type and sign is subjected to the word "type" in its governance: as it is said, the sign of circumcision, the type of Jonah, instead of circumcision being the sign, and Jonah the type. And he claims that the body of Christ is thus given to us in the type of bread, just as it is said by the Fathers that Christ was given to the fathers in the type of manna, and sacrificed in the image and figure of all the beasts in the Old Testament. He is no more troubled by the fact that through participation in the Eucharist we are said to be made consanguineous and concorporal with Christ. For he contends that the same thing was said by many Fathers regarding baptism: who indeed almost all speak of that in relation to the Eucharist, having received it with baptism. Nor does he find more difficulty in the fact that, the body and blood of Christ having been received and distributed into our members, we are made Christ-bearers. For he denies that it can be said that the true body of Christ is distributed into our members. However, he asserts that pious men are commonly called Christ-bearers, because they bear Christ in their minds. If you object that Cyril says that we should not believe our senses, which tell us that in the Eucharist there is bread and wine, but that faith teaches us it is the Body and Blood of Christ, for what appears to be bread is not bread, etc., he answers that the Fathers in the same way confirmed that one should not stand by the judgment of the senses in the baptismal waters: and that the bread and wine have acquired this, that they are a typical body and blood, which taste does not detect. When finally he objects to himself that Cyril says Christ the King is received in holy communion and commands Him to be adored: he has it ready to hand, that Christ is received in His sign or sacrament, which is commonly called by the name of the thing signified; and that adoration is accustomed to be attributed to things that are most diverse from God. [CCVII] This is a specimen and example of the Albertinian responses to be explained by us. In the meantime, hold these observations regarding his general method of answering, which may suffice for every response.
71. Therefore the first observation: If the interpretation of the words and opinions of Cyril truly represented the mind of the holy Father, and the understanding of his auditors, two ridiculous things, abhorrent from all human custom and diametrically contrary to the nature of things, would follow. First, it is necessary that Cyril, that teacher who was endowed with a singular faculty for explaining our dogmas aptly, briefly, and lucidly—as the fourth catechesis alone testifies—when he had to propose and declare the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Eucharist strictly, simply, and clearly to unlearned neophytes, in this chapter alone became so deserted by his own facility of speaking and explaining, so suddenly became so mute and unskilled, that he could find no words by which to propose his mind and opinion clearly and expeditiously: but against this, he used those words and opinions by which a doctrine entirely alien, and totally opposed to what he had in mind, was announced, so that of our Catholics scarcely anyone...
excels him in expressing and declaring the Catholic dogma in more explicit words than Cyril. What would be easier for Cyril than to say: "You have become partakers of the mystic bread and wine, which have been gifted with the name of the body and blood of Christ; not that they have ceased to be bread and wine (for the senses protest, demonstrating them to be bread and wine as before), but that, sanctified by the prayers of the Church and the advent of the Holy Spirit, they are no longer naked bread and naked wine, but bear the figure of the body of Christ, and contain within themselves the virtue and efficacy of the same for our senses?" What, in this discourse, would be easier or more prompt for even the most unskilled Calvinist? In almost the same way, Cyril clearly and most plainly B proposed the power of the baptismal water, of the exorcised oil, and of the sacred chrism, without any pomposity of words or circumlocution, disputing nothing more about the power and authority of these elements than their condition allowed. But in the Eucharist, instead of that simple discourse which we described above, he is carried into the complete opposite: namely, that after the invocation, he denies that the bread and wine are any longer bread and wine, whatever the senses may protest to the contrary, but affirms that they are the body and blood of Christ, which are ministered to us in the figure of bread and wine: a thing to be believed without any doubt, based on the explicit words of Christ and Paul; and done by the same power by which Christ converted water into wine. How tongue-tied and insane is the Calvinist who would speak in this way? Secondly, if such childishness, or rather such a mental disturbance, is to be supposed in Cyril as a doctor and teacher, then on the contrary, a more wonderful cunning and cleverness must be supposed in his hearers, such that, without being taught by anyone, they would by common consent and conspiracy attach to their teacher's discourse a meaning contrary to what the words suggested, and one conceived with the greatest subtlety. These neophytes were indeed well taught and instructed in the other mysteries of the Christian religion; but they had never heard anything at all about the Eucharist, which was kept most carefully hidden from them, until that very Paschal night on which, having to approach the sacred altar, they had been warned briefly by the catechist, and as much as time allowed, of the manner of the mysteries to be distributed to them, Cat. 18, n. 32. And if Cyril himself provided this C through himself, he seems to have used these words: "In the figure of bread, the body of Christ will be given to you, and in the figure of wine, the blood of the same will be given to you"; cat. 22, n. 3. Moreover, they had heard this formula of the communion administered to them: "The body of Christ," and "The blood of Christ," which signified that what was being offered to them to consume was the body and blood of Christ. To which they were commanded to subscribe by answering "Amen," which is to say, "it is true." Before the catechesis, they had heard the lesson read to them from Paul (1 Cor. XI, 23), in which there is frequent and insistent mention of the body of Christ, with no mention of figure or efficacy. From this, they were certainly ill-prepared to adapt such an interpretation to the Cyrillian discourse as that which I quoted from Albertinus, n. 70. It departs so far from the natural sense of the words, and comprises so much subtlety, that you recognize it not as arising from the matter itself or offered by the meaning of the words to the mind, but as laboriously thought up with study and sagacity to escape the force of the truth. How could these things present themselves to the minds of neophytes, who had not been prepared beforehand by any previous instruction—not to mention one that was entirely contrary—which perhaps cost the subtle and learned minds of our adversaries much labor and study? While Albertinus compares the clear sentiments of Cyril concerning the real presence of Christ, or the transmutation of the elements into his body and blood, with other sentiments of Cyril or the Fathers, which it is acknowledged are to be understood in a metaphorical sense, so that he may prove from this likeness that the former can or must be taken metaphorically as well, Albertinus errs in many things. First, there are many testimonies of Cyril, as I shall show below, which he does not produce because there are no similar ones that must be taken in a metaphorical sense: therefore their force remains whole and entire. Second, he proposes certain locutions as metaphorical which ought to be taken literally. These, for instance, from Isidore of Pelusium, lib. III: "Our nature has been made co-heir of the Only-Begotten, and through participation in the holy mysteries has been rendered con-corporeal to him, and is reckoned into his flesh, and just as the body is joined to the head, in the same way it is joined to him": and other similar sentiments of Cyril of Alexandria and St. Leo D are to be understood literally concerning the commingling of Christ's flesh with ours; and he errs in this, that he transfers to baptism—properly so called—what those Fathers intended to be said of the whole action of baptism, in which the participation of the Eucharist was contained. Third, since the interpretation of every sentiment and saying depends almost entirely on the adjacencies, and a discourse that might otherwise appear ambiguous is made certain and determined to an indubitable sense by the place it holds and by what precedes and follows it; Albertinus tears Cyril's sentiments apart, and by examining the severed parts individually, tries to prove by examples that they can be bent to a metaphorical sense: for instance, that we are said to become con-corporeal and con-sanguineous with Christ; he says this was said by the Fathers about our incorporation into the mystical body of Christ, that is, the Church, through baptism, and that it does not necessarily pertain to the participation of his flesh. That we are called "Christ-bearers," he says the Fathers commonly interpret this word as having Christ borne in the mind through love; that Cyril affirms we become "partakers of the divine nature," he states it is usual for them to refer this to the effect of divine grace inhabiting in us. That we are commanded to take the blood of Christ in a manner of adoration, being prostrate, there is nothing more ambiguous than this word "adoration," which may be applied to angels, to men, and even to inanimate things. But he does not observe that when Cyril says we are made con-corporeal and con-sanguineous with Christ, he asserts that this fact occurs when the body and san-
sanguine of Christ, offered to us under the type of bread and wine, are received. When he says that we become partakers of the divine nature, he says it in the same place after he has confirmed by all arguments and modes of expression that the body of Christ the God is received by us: which series and connection of statements permits no doubt to remain concerning the meaning of any individual one. Thus, also, the mention of adoration joined with the reception of Christ the King determines it entirely to supreme worship. Fourthly, since there are many statements in Cyril and other Fathers which confirm and proclaim the same thing in diverse ways; namely, elsewhere he says that Christ's body and blood must be believed without any doubt A and despite the contrary testimony of the senses; elsewhere, that bread and wine are converted into Christ's body and blood; elsewhere, that Christ the King is received by us, and therefore must be adored, etc. Albertinus opposes to each of those testimonies similar ones that must be taken metaphorically, but which are derived from different arguments; since he could not find a continuity of such metaphorical expressions on one and the same argument. Thus, he answers the first point: as bread and wine are said to be the Eucharist of Christ's body, so the poor are said by the Fathers to be Christ Himself, and Christ to be the rock. To the second, that it is familiar to the Fathers, and indeed to Scripture, to say that carnal B men are transmuted into beasts. To the third, that the Gospel, temples, etc., are said to be adored. But let him prove that those three categories of statements, which with many others are attributed to the one Eucharist, are equally accommodated to one of the examples he himself has proposed; let him show it said, either by the same Father or even by different Fathers, that the poor are Christ Himself in such a way that this, having been pronounced by the very affirmation of Christ, no one is permitted to call into doubt, and to say that the poor are not Christ: although men may appear to the senses distinct from Christ, they are changed into Christ Himself—soul, body, and His divinity, to which the divine omnipotence obeys—to be received C into the house for Christ, and to be pursued with the adoration and worship due to Christ. You might say the same of the other statement, that men are transmuted into beasts: the unchaste, for example, into horses, the irascible into lions, and about similar things which I have brought forward. Nor indeed would it suffice that, for however many statements of Cyril, he should oppose an equal number of metaphorical expressions on the same argument: it would be necessary for him to oppose others that respond to the other statements of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist in the same argument. Since very many Fathers say, for example, that the Eucharist is not a figure D of Christ's body or an antitype only, but the body itself; he should bring forward similar statements of theirs who might deny that the poor are figures, images, or certain representations of Christ, holding His place for us while He is absent: and who might affirm that they themselves truly are Christ. For who does not know that there is a different force in the many statements which in diverse ways propose, declare, and confirm one and the same thing; in which matter there can be no place for figure or translation; another [force] in a certain separate statement which is cast forth, as it were, for the ornamentation of speech, its intelligence being secure and placed in a safe position; yet it cannot be confirmed and inculcated by similar reduplications, without departing either from the truth or from the human custom of speaking? Wherefore, let not Albertinus think he has escaped the force of any Catholic statement when he has opposed to it a figurative expression that is contrary; unless he has then similarly opposed other expressions from the same argument: which we affirm with certainty he neither did, nor could have done further.
73. This will be the third observation: whatever metaphorical expressions Albertinus heaps together [as] examples are useless for the present subject, and can in no way be compared with the Eucharist. For their absurdity and evident impossibility, or the faith and doctrine of the Church present in the minds of the hearers A, which directed the meaning of those expressions, forbade them from being taken literally by the audience: these, when they were taken literally, were immediately challenged and the false interpretation of the figurative statement rejected. Let us bring forward examples. With however much force a Christian orator might declaim that Christ Himself is received in the poor, and although he might adorn and elaborate that statement in many ways: however much he might thunder that irascible men are lions; the rapacious, wolves; the unchaste, horses raging after females; and confirm all these things from the Scriptures: although he might say that just men are made angels in baptism, and indeed even deified: no one will be so imprudent as to interpret all these things according to the rigor of the letter. Say the same regarding these expressions also: B that Christ was once immolated in every sacrifice of the old law, exhibited to the Fathers in the type of manna—could he have added these: that He was killed in Abel, sacrificed in Isaac, sold by the Jews in Joseph? For how could he who did not yet have a body be believed to have suffered these things literally? That baptismal waters are red with Christ's blood; for the senses are the judges of this proposition, which report the contrary. The faith and doctrine of the Church, preconceieved in the mind, forbade other propositions from being taken as they sound; namely, that man is to be transmuted into angels in the resurrection; that the body is to evaporate into a spiritual and ethereal substance, indeed into the substance C of the soul, and to be made divine; that flesh and blood are not to be anymore; that the flesh of Christ is changed into divinity; that His body is endowed with divine qualities; that God is turned into man: for all these things were said piously and innocuously, with faith directing the intelligence, rightly heard and understood by the people. But when heretics have asserted that all these things must be understood in the nearest, obvious, and literal sense, they were immediately rebuked and ejected by the Church. Now, so that there may be a complete comparison between these statements and the one which Albertinus compares with them; let him show that our [teaching] about the real presence and transubstantiation is either equally insane and absurd.
dogmata, so that when they were proposed and asserted by the Fathers in their specific sense, they could come into no one’s mind, and, as soon as it was detected that some were deceived by the outward sound of the phrases and understood them according to the letter regarding our dogmas, they were refuted and held as heretics. Let not Albertinus say—or rather, let him admit—that for eight centuries past, there has been a consensus in the Latin Church regarding the understanding of the Fathers’ words in this manner: the present suffrage of all Eastern Churches, attained at the very least by their explicit testimonies, also stands against him. Not to mention former times, since by documents no less explicit it has been most evidently demonstrated that this was their perpetual faith; for should he accuse so many thousands of men of insanity, he would be betraying his own insanity. The impossibility of the real presence and transubstantiation did not hinder it from being believed, since the adversaries themselves voluntarily admit that it is possible; nor, if they should deny it to be possible, was their judgment the norm for others, who deem nothing to be impossible for God. It remains for Albertinus to prove that those who were first detected asserting the dogmas of the real presence and transubstantiation were reproved by the Church and held in the number of heretics, just as those who took the metaphorical locutions of the Fathers, which he reviews, according to the letter were condemned. But it turns out exactly the opposite: in almost all centuries, those who restricted the presence of Christ in the Eucharist to a figure alone, or were merely affected by a suspicion of this opinion, were diligently corrected or held in the number of heretics. Already in the fourth century, the age of which we treat, Theodorus Heracliotes, in his catena on Matthew, ch. xxvi, v 26, p. 340, and Macarius Magnes, in a fragment edited in Greek by Turrianus in book V of the Clementines, and in Latin by Coccius, vol. II, p. 607, rejected this opinion. In the fifth century, Theodorus Mopsuest., as cited in the catena, p. 350; the Scetiote Fathers corrected this error in a certain monk who was incredulous through simplicity, even after obtaining a miracle, as in Cotelerius, vol. I of the *Monumenta*, in the Apophthegms of Abbot Daniel, n. 7, p. 421, and in Rosweydus, book V of the *Lives of the Fathers*, ch. 18, num. 3. D In the sixth, Leontius, book III *De Nestorianorum impietate*, condemned this tenet which was handed down in secret among them. In the seventh, Anastasius Sinaita most severely attacks and rejects it, even under the name of the Caianite heresy. In the eighth, Damascenus, book IV *De orthodoxa fide*, ch. 14; the Nicene Council, year 787, act 6; Elias Cretensis, in orat. 1 of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, note 161, p. 200, 201. In the ninth, Nicephorus, in *Antirrhetic* 2, Theodorus Studita, *Antirrhetic* 1, *Contra Iconoclastas* num. 10, Paschasius Radbertus, etc. Finally, in the following centuries, both the Greek and the Latin Church held those who recognized only a figure of Christ’s body in the Eucharist as being in a most serious error and treated them as heretics. Therefore, we ought to judge the same of those who twisted the literal sentiments of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist into a figure, and of those who understood at the letter the statements [CCXII] and what was to be understood in a metaphorical sense, and therefore Albertinus’s comparison between such disparated things is not equal.
CAPUT X.
*Arguments are brought forward from Cyril, by which the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and transubstantiation are proven; and they are delivered from the cavils of Albertinus. The first and second argument.*…to these, which I have now prefixed to this disputation, I shall offer observations. But the Catholic doctrine itself must now be asserted from the thoroughly examined words and sentiments of Cyril, and defended from the assault of the adversaries. I shall perform this in order with various arguments.
PRIMUM ARGUMENTUM. It is taken from these words of the 23rd catechesis, by which, after reading the section from the Apostle in I Cor. xi, 25 et seqq., he begins his discourse thus: *This teaching of the blessed Paul alone is abundantly sufficient to make you certain of the divine mysteries, of which you have been deemed worthy, having become of the same body and same blood as Christ. For he had just proclaimed: that on the night in which our Lord Jesus Christ was betrayed, having taken bread and given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take, eat, this is my body. And having taken the chalice and given thanks, he said: Take, drink, this is my blood.* C *Since, therefore, he himself has proclaimed and said of the bread: This is my body, who will henceforth dare to doubt? And since he himself has affirmed and said, This is my blood, who will ever have doubted, saying that it is not his blood?* Our commentary does not require such perspicuous words, but the commentary of the adversaries must be refuted. First, the institution of the Eucharist by Paul seemed to Cyril to be abundantly sufficient, which in the Calvinist opinion falters in the guise of words and fails at the principal head. For there is missing in Paul the necessary interpretation of that manner by which the Eucharist is called the body and blood of Christ—namely, as a sacrament and figure, and through virtue and efficacy. An interpretation is clearly necessary so that we are not led into error by the first and simple sense of the words, and by the doubled and inculcated mention of the body and blood of Christ in the subsequent context of Paul; necessary, I say, since through the defect of this interpretation, almost all Christians have been led by those words of Paul into the sentiment of the real presence and transubstantiation. But Cyril did not deem that interpretation necessary, he who, with all his might, urges and inculcates the contrary. For secondly, he says that we, having been deemed worthy of the divine mysteries, have been made of the same body and same blood as Christ. Which he repeats again in n. 3: *In the figure of bread is given to you the body, and in the figure of wine is given to you the blood, so that when you have partaken of the body and blood of Christ, you may be made of the same body and same blood as him.* In two ways, according to the doctrine of the Fathers, we are made one body with Christ by reason of the double body of Christ. For through baptism, even from the sacred communion...
A of the instruction of their masters, they were accustomed to be ascribed. For he had taught them that baptismal water, through the invocation of the Trinity, acquires the power of holiness (cat. 3, n. 3), that exorcized oil possesses the power to cleanse the vestiges of sins and to drive away demons (cat. 20, n. 3), and that the holy chrism possesses the power of the Holy Spirit, who exists therein through the presence of His divinity. All these things Cyril had taught simply, without any force of affirmation, without any concern to confirm a thing incredible [CCXIV] or to drive away doubt. His hearers, for whom nothing is difficult unless it be from God, had believed them without any trouble. Yet here Cyril, in order to persuade them of a matter in its own nature incredible and subject to doubt, exerts every ounce of his strength. Fourthly, what kind of doubt does Cyril mean to imply is born in minds from the proposition of the eucharistic dogma? Is it that single doubt which Albertinus confesses to arise in the Calvinian B doctrine; namely, whether the eucharistic bread is simple and common bread, or whether it is also mystically and virtually the Lord’s body: that is, in his own interpretation, whether the bread and the cup are signs and virtual sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, which is the only thing he affirms to be taught by Cyril? Another doubt entirely arises in the Catholic dogma; it is that of one saying that the eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ. That is precisely what Cyril rejects: therefore he was affirming the opposite, which is the dogma of the Catholics. Fifthly, but how does he repel that doubt? Nothing is easier or more prompt in the Calvinian view. Apply only the interpretation of figure and efficacy, C and every doubt, if any can be conceived in this system, settles completely. But Cyril, omitting every tempering of a benign interpretation, is entirely concerned that he should confirm that which is doubted—and which is denied by doubting—by the constant asseveration of God Himself, to whom no one ought to deny credence (cat. 22, n. 4 and 6), by His omnipotence in changing natures, and by similar examples (n. 2), by His goodness and liberality toward His own (ibid.), by the testimonies of Scripture (n. 3, 4, 7), by the excellence of the New Testament over the Old (num. 5), and by the supreme power of the Holy Spirit Who works that wonderful conversion (cat. 23, num. 7). Then, inquiring into the very origin of the doubt, he strives to take away all authority from the senses when faith speaks (cat. 22, num. 6 and 9, and cat. 23, n. 20). So great a mass of arguments is useless in the Calvinian hypothesis for proving a thing that is easy in its own nature. D 75. Scarcely any of these things does Albertinus affirm, when he says that the sacred mysteries are the body and blood of Christ, to be understood concerning the sacrament and the power. That this is evident both from Augustine, who writes against Adimantus, cap. 12, n. 3: "The Lord did not hesitate to say, 'This is my body' when He gave a sign of His body," and from Cyril himself, who, when he says that the Lord pronounced concerning the bread, "This is my body," signifies that the sense of His words is this:
A This bread is my body. Leaving aside the testimony of Augustine, which is irrelevant to our subject—and which proves only that regarding which there is no dispute, namely, that the names of things can be imposed upon their signs, whether they contain their realities or exclude them, for in that passage Augustine commemorates examples of both kinds—what is objected from Cyril is trivial. Although the bread is changed into the body of Christ, on account of the external appearance it bears, the former condition it has laid aside, and the sensible effects it produces, it is still called bread even by Catholics themselves in the public prayers of the Church, in the very rite of the most holy sacrament: "Angelic bread becomes the bread of men," etc. For the first reason, angels are called men or young men in the Scriptures; for the second B [CCXV] water, already changed into wine, is still called water when it was drawn by the servants to be offered to the master of the feast (John 2:9), though the servants who had drawn the water knew. In Exodus 7:12, the rods of Aaron and of the sorcerers, having been turned into serpents, are still called rods; just as in verses 21 and 24, the water of the river, turned by Moses into blood, retains the name of river water; and the college of the Apostles, after the fall of Judas, is still called "the twelve" by the Evangelist and by Cyril himself. For the third reason, every kind of food is reckoned under the name of bread in Scripture. For these three combined causes, the Eucharist retains the appellation of bread; and furthermore, it is truly the bread of the soul. But if you inquire of Cyril whether it is still bread after consecration because the former name is retained, he will answer you with these words (Cat. 22, n. 6): "Do not look upon the bread and wine (the eucharistic elements) as bare and common elements; for they are the body and blood of Christ according to the Lord's declaration; do not judge the matter by taste." But if you say that, by the accession of figure and power, with the former nature retained, it is called the body and blood of Christ, you shall hear him say (Cat. 23, n. 7) that these things have been transmuted by the in-flowing C of the Holy Spirit.
76. But that fiction of a figure and power separated from the body and blood of Christ must now be exploded. We freely concede, for it is also a part of eucharistic doctrine, that the Eucharist is a figure of the body of Christ, not only of the natural, but also of the mystical body. Cyril himself (Cat. 23, n. 20) calls the Eucharist an antitype of the body and blood of Christ. But that the figure is something separated from the body itself—this, indeed, would have had to be proven. Let Albertinus demonstrate one of the two: either that no figure was known to Cyril except one which excluded its reality, or that the body itself was separated from the figure of the body. The first is clearly contrary to Cyril, who recognizes baptismal water as a figure of internal cleansing, and the holy chrism as an antitype of the Holy Spirit present therein through His divinity. It must therefore be proven, by Cyril's witness, that the Eucharist is a figure and sign of an absent body of Christ. But the contrary will now be demonstrated by us in many ways; and in the very place where he calls the Eucharist an antitype, he denies it D to be merely a figure. I come to the efficacy. The efficacy which Cyril recognized in the Eucharist presupposes Christ present in the body in such a way that without this presence it would be nothing. For he says (Cat. 22, n. 3) that through it we become associated with Christ in body and blood, which cannot be brought about except by the contact of bodies. See above, n. 73. Second, that we are made Christ-bearers, not by having the spirit of Christ carried within us, but by His body and blood being distributed into our members—the former could exist without the presence of the body, the latter in no way. Third, that we become partakers of the divine nature (ibid.), which the Fathers understand not as a matter of mere will and affections, but of a natural unity; when we receive the flesh into us hypostatically from the Word, and inhabited by the whole Trinity on account of the circuminsession. Fourth, he teaches (n. 5) that by the heavenly bread the soul and body are sanctified, as the bread, that is, the body of Christ, is attributed for the sanctifying of our body, and the divine Word for the soul as natural food. The Word is therefore present to the eucharistic bread, hypostatically [CCXVI] joined to it itself. Fifth, he says that the eucharistic bread is called substantial in the sense that it is ordained and destined for the substance of the soul, to be distributed into our whole framework for the utility of soul and body. He does not here distinguish—as in baptism, where he distinguishes between the water which washes the body and the Spirit which seals the soul (Cat. 3, n. 4), or as in chrism, the ointment with which the body is anointed and the Spirit which sanctifies the soul (Cat. 21, n. 3)—between bread which nourishes the body and the spiritual grace by which the mind is fed; but he teaches that the same bread, the very same thing which sanctifies the body, also assists the soul. This is proper to the one body of Christ, that it has within itself that from which it may reach to both. For, to return to the examples proposed, neither water nor chrism reach to the soul: their effect is completed in the contact and pouring upon the body; whereas in the Eucharist, if the bread were material, its effect would be limited to the nutrition of the body, with a separate power alone reaching to the soul. Sixth, he says that the Eucharist offered in sacrifice, Christ immolated, a victim lying on the altar, presented by us for our sins as a gift pleasing to God, propitiates and renders God favorable whether for the living or the dead (Cat. 3, n. 8, 9, 10). But he teaches that all the power of Christ in propitiating God resides in the united divinity (Cat. 13, n. 2, 3, 20), to which alone the effects assigned to that victim can be attributed. I could add more from the sayings of other Fathers; but this disputation will be contained by Cyril.
77. Albertinus then acts (how ignorant and imprudent, he who would subvert the entire custom of human speech and discourse!) and proposes these two two-membered arguments. When Cyril says that the Lord affirmed concerning the bread "This is my body," or, in these words, as Catholics think, that its consecration has been accomplished...
he supposed it to have been consecrated by Christ before the thanksgiving, or even earlier. But he thinks Cyril followed the second opinion, about which see chapter 12 below. However, in assuming that the first opinion belongs to the Catholic Church's faith, he is mistaken; for nothing has yet been decreed by faith concerning the words by which consecration is performed. He says, therefore: if he were following the first opinion, the pronoun "this" in the proposition assumes, before the consecration has been performed, that the subject stands for material and unconsecrated bread: which barbarous and scholastic locution sounds and signifies the same as material and unconsecrated bread. The sense, therefore, of Christ's proposition as understood by Cyril is, The material bread is my body: which proposition is false for Catholics, but true in the opinion of the adversaries, by supposing it only in sacrament and virtue. Thus the argument is formed. It is this that Christ affirmed to be His body, which was declared by the pronoun "this." This pronoun, when it was pronounced, signified the material bread. Therefore Christ affirmed His body of the material bread (one could argue more briefly: "this" signifies unconsecrated bread, therefore Christ's proposition is: "Unconsecrated bread is my body"). If one follows the second opinion, Cyril understands the Lord to have affirmed His body concerning the bread which Paul says [Ps. CXVII, 20] He took and, after giving thanks, broke; but Christ had taken material bread, not His own body; nor had He broken His own body, but the bread. Therefore, according to Cyril's opinion, Christ affirmed of the material bread that it was His body. He asks us again: did Cyril understand Christ to have predicated His body of the external figure of the bread, or its accidents; or of the substance of the heavenly bread, that is, of His own proper body? If the former, it is false that accidents are the body of Christ. If the latter, it is a tautological and inept proposition, whose sense is: "This body of mine is my body." It is better to cut through this badly tangled difficulty, which overturns the entire use of demonstrative propositions and definitions, with ridicule rather than with sharpness. If someone had warned young Tobias concerning his companion Raphael—"this" or "here" (it does not matter) "is an angel"—I ask, would he have predicated "angel" of the external form of a man assumed by Raphael, or of the angel himself? If the former, it is false that the external form of a man is an angel; if the latter, the proposition is tautological: "This angel is an angel." D I answer: Cyril, along with other men, in Christ's proposition, "This is my body," did not understand the pronoun "this" as referring distinctly to unconsecrated bread, nor distinctly to accidents, nor distinctly to Christ's body itself; but generally and confusedly to the thing present to the senses, which Christ held in His hands and offered to the Apostles, and which, changing its state, was at one time bread, at another the body of Christ; and he formed for himself this sense of the sacred proposition if he thought the consecration was performed by the very words "this is," etc.; "this"—that is, the thing which I carry in my hands, now indeed is bread, but with the enunciation of the proposition, by its own change, it is already my body. If he thought the consecration was performed even before the pronunciation of the words: "this, which a little before was bread, is now my body," changed from bread into that body. It is easy now to apply these things to the proposed arguments. To the first: that Christ affirmed it to be His body, which was declared by the pronoun "this" with a permanent and fixed signification, I grant; with a passing signification, to be abolished after the end of the proposition, I deny. But that this pronoun "this" was declaring, when it was pronounced, material bread, with a passing and to-be-abolished signification, is granted; that it was fixed and permanent, is denied: and thus the consequence is denied. To the second: "That Christ affirmed His own body to be what He took and broke, and which in the meantime underwent a change, I grant; what He took and broke, and which later underwent no change, is denied." But Christ took material bread, which later underwent a change, I grant; which underwent no change, I deny, and the consequence is denied. If one does not answer thus, we can quibble regarding all transformations of things, whether miraculous or natural. Thus I will quibble at the miracle of Aaron's rod transformed into a serpent, which devoured the serpents [CCXVIII] made by the Egyptian magicians, or, if it pleases anyone, those substituted in their place by stealth; Exod. VII, 9, 12. Arguing after the example of Albertinus: "That devoured the magicians' rods which Aaron, holding it in his hand, threw down: but the almond rod, from what is conceded, and not a serpent, was what Aaron held in his hand and threw down: therefore the almond rod and not a real serpent devoured the magicians' rods." I will also quibble at Christ's proposition, Matt. XI, 5: "The blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear, the dead rise again": for neither did the blind see; but those who were blind before, having been made healthy in their eyes, etc. To the third, although "this" in Christ's proposition may not distinctly designate accidents, yet because the body itself can be affirmed of the sign of Christ's body, I respond thus: "It is impossible for the true body of Christ to be affirmed of that which signifies a thing which is by no means Christ's body; I distinguish: which neither is, nor signifies and contains, I grant; which is not Christ's body itself, yet signifies it, I deny." But this signifies accidents which truly are not Christ's body, but yet might signify and contain it, I grant; which neither are Christ's body, nor signify and contain it, I deny; for it suffices indeed that some thing be a sign of another, so that the latter can be affirmed of the former. Nor will Albertinus object, who inadvertently overturns the entire Calvinist hypothesis with that argument of his. For it is permitted to argue against him in the same manner. "The body of Christ cannot be affirmed of that which is by no means the body of Christ." His argumentation assumes this proposition. But a sign of Christ's body exclusive of the same, such as the Eucharistic bread is with them, is not the body of Christ: therefore the body of Christ cannot be affirmed of the Eucharistic bread, a naked sign of Christ's body.
But unless an answer to his argument is given by me. I come to his fourth argument. A tautological and inept proposition is one that affirms the same thing of the same thing. But if in the proposition of Christ, "this signifies the body of Christ," the same thing is affirmed of the same thing: "The body of Christ is the body of Christ." Therefore this cannot signify his body in Christ's proposition. I answer: a tautological proposition is one that affirms the same thing, distinctly known, of the same thing distinctly known—this I concede; but that which affirms the same thing, distinctly known, of the same thing only confusedly and indistinctly known and indicated—this I deny. Moreover, in Christ's proposition, if "this" signifies his body, the same thing, distinctly known, is affirmed of the same thing, confusedly known and indicated—this I concede; otherwise, I deny it. To one indeed not knowing what the Eucharist is, or not knowing it sufficiently, it is said: "This which you see and is present to you, is the body of Christ." If this argument were valid, all demonstrative propositions and definitions would have to be removed from human speech; in which, for this reason, tautology is avoided, because in the predicate is given a distinct notion of the subject, of which notion it was considered that either none, or only a confused and insufficiently explained knowledge, was held. But too much has been said about logical hair-splitting, in which while Albertinus strives to hinder Catholics, he has involved himself more inextricably. In this first argument I have occupied myself at greater length; I will expedite the others more briefly. B
SECOND ARGUMENT.
79. From these words of Cyril, *Cat.* 22, n. 3: "He once changed water into wine, which is akin to blood, in Cana of Galilee: and shall we deem him less worthy of belief when he has changed wine into blood?" To the corporal wedding he was invited, and he performed this stupendous miracle: and shall we not confess that he has much more bestowed his body and blood to be enjoyed by the sons of the bridal chamber (that is, the apostles, Matt. ix, 15)? First, he says plainly that wine was changed into blood by Christ; then, he compares this mutation to the mutation of water into wine: but this mutation is substantial. Therefore also that eucharistic one. But what mutation is acknowledged by the Calvinists, namely, that the bread remains what it is, containing the figure and efficacy of Christ's body and blood in the bread; that, in the first place, is not a mutation, but only the addition of a new quality. Moreover, it is clearly similar, nay even inferior, to the mutation which, according to Cyril's opinion, happens to baptismal waters and the holy chrism through the prayers of the Church; for to these is present the very thing they signify; the grace of the Holy Spirit washing the soul in the baptismal waters, *cat.* 3, n. 4, and the presence of the same divinity in the holy chrism, the antitype of the Holy Spirit, *cat.* 21, n. 1, *ibid.* n. 3, but the body of Christ signified by the Calvinistic bread is far distant from it by the whole distance of heaven. Yet Cyril never described the accession of grace, which comes to the baptismal waters and the holy chrism, by any name of mutation. Finally, lest we understand in the Eucharist a mutation from which the body and blood of Christ are absent, the statements explicit in that very place persist, both concerning the presence of the body and blood of Christ, into which the bread and wine are said to be changed. Secondly, it renders the mutation of wine into blood more credible for this reason, that if water was changed into wine, an element disparate from itself; the other mutation of wine into blood is in a way easier, since between both natures, both natural and mystical, many bonds of affinity intervene. Furthermore, that opposition of wine and blood, and the mention of the relationship of both things, is an argument that it is a question as much of true and natural wine, as also of true and natural blood, into which the wine is changed: for there is no opposition and relationship of natures between natural wine and wine which is blood only by name; it is one and the same nature. Thirdly. Since Christ, invited to a corporal wedding, performed a stupendous miracle for the sake of those who were joined to him by no familiarity, Cyril signifies that it was fitting that he should bestow a more magnificent gift of his divine power upon the apostles, his companions and friends, and participants in his own spiritual nuptials (for these are the sons of the bridal chamber, Matt. ix, 15). In the Calvinistic opinion, it is a greater effect of divine power to change water into wine than to bestow the figure and virtue of Christ's body and blood upon bread and wine. There would therefore be more of divine power manifested in the wedding at Cana than in the Eucharist. That which Cyril says was granted by Christ to the sons of the bridal chamber, however, is the enjoyment, participation, and possession of his own body and blood. These sons of the bridal chamber, friends of the bridegroom, were also friends of the Bride of Christ; whose spiritual nuptials with Christ, according to the doctrine of the Fathers, are consummated through participation in the Eucharist. In which nuptials C they teach that we are made one body with Christ, not by faith alone, but in very deed. Thus Chrysostom, *in Matth.*, hom. 83, pag. 868. See other Fathers cited by us in the note to this passage of Cyril which we are examining. This is the reason why Cyril says the enjoyment of his body and blood was to be granted by Christ to the sons of the bridal chamber. The force of this argument will shine forth more clearly and will be confirmed from the refutation of the objections.
80. Albertinus, by a perverse interpretation of Cyril's words, strives to elude this argument, then by various objections. Thus he relates the words of Cyril: "Invited to the corporal wedding, he performed that work miraculously and paradoxically for the sons of the bridal chamber." He makes the guests at Cana the sons of the bridal chamber, who are the apostles, Christ himself being the interpreter, Matt. 9, 15; and by this interpretation he takes away the force of the Cyrillian argument, by which the holy Father teaches that Christ ought to have bestowed better things upon his apostles and companions than upon the unknown guests at Cana. But I forgive him for having perhaps followed some codex transposing the words τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ νυμφῶνος; which indeed he ought to have indicated at least. To the argument he replies, 1st, from the word of transition into blood, and from the comparison of the Eucharist with water changed into wine, [he denies] the substantial transmutation of wine into the blood of Christ. D
A Fathers everywhere use the same word for transmutation in things which it is certain are not changed in substance, but only in quality. Thus, they say that spiritual men are transmuted into angels, carnal men into beasts, etc., and he accumulates many testimonies of the same kind. Secondly, however, that Cyril compares two things does not mean that one must necessarily call it an equal and exactly precise comparison, since he is accustomed to contend with dissimilar things himself: and besides, that very conversion of water into wine is compared by Ambrose in sermon 19—which is not Ambrose’s—with the resurrection of the flesh, and by Augustine with the mutation of the terrestrial body into a glorious body in blessed immortality. I reply that we do not rest our entire defense on the naked and sole word "transmutation," nor on the naked and sole comparison of the Eucharist with the conversion of water into wine. But that we take the word "transmutation" in its obvious and natural sense, and believe the very similar mutations compared by Cyril were invoked for two reasons: first, because nothing compels us to depart from the literal sense and an adequate understanding of the comparison; B second, because, contrary to all the adjuncts that precede and follow, and which we read elsewhere either in Cyril or in other Fathers similar to Cyril’s doctrine, his words determine his meaning entirely toward a substantial mutation and exclude a merely accidental one. I do not institute an examination of the testimonies which Albertinus adduces to prove that the word of mutation can be accommodated to things changed only by accident; I merely point out that he has compared things that are entirely disparate, and that I have abundantly demonstrated this disparity in the previous chapter in observations II and III, n. 72 and 73, so that it is unnecessary to add another word. Let it be permitted, however, to observe as a sample that he abuses the testimony of Augustine, *contr. Adimant.*, cap. 12, [CCXXI], in which he says: "When man has put on incorruption and immortality, he will no longer be flesh and blood, but will be changed into a celestial body." Albertinus supposes that Augustine understands the words "flesh and blood" as the natural flesh and blood, which he claims are therefore said to be changed because they are augmented by celestial qualities. He is mistaken. C Augustine clearly alludes to the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. xv, 50, "Flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God," which he says does not signify flesh according to substance, but the corruption and mortality of flesh and blood; and the sense of that proposition is that the corruption of flesh and blood, which in reality will be changed by its own abolition, will not be in the kingdom of God. See *epist.* 205, n. 15 and 16. Even when the adversary adduces an example of metaphorical mutation which occurs in the resurrection of bodies, he plays the fool: for there is no mutation more substantial than that which happens in the reintegration of a resolved body, which by the varied lot of its parts has been transmuted into every species of body, back into a human form.
D 81. He replies that only a mutation of quality is acknowledged in the Eucharist by Cyril, based on three testimonies of the same kind; it can be shown from those testimonies that nothing could have been produced more effective for confirming the Catholic faith; it is a wonder if they are overturned. The first is from *cat.* 23, num. 7: "We pray to the benevolent God that He send forth the Holy Spirit upon the gifts laid out, that He may make the bread indeed the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ; for whatever the Holy Spirit has touched, that has been sanctified and transmuted." Cyril would falsely assert that whatever the Spirit touches is substantially changed; for it would follow that baptismal water and the sacred chrism which He touches are substantially changed. Therefore, he signifies in this place only a mutation of quality. I reply that the general sentiment "for whatever, etc.," linked by the causal particle "for" to the preceding words, is alleged by Cyril to prove that the Holy Spirit is rightly invoked for the consecration and mutation of the elements, and that they are truly sanctified and transmuted by his coming; since whatever He has touched is, by His virtue, immediately sanctified and transmuted. But the quality and manner of the operation of the Holy Spirit is determined by the prayer and petition of the Church; such a transmutation as she requests, such He effects; an accidental one in water and oil, because the Church does not ask that they become something other than what they are; a substantial one in the Eucharist, when the Church asks that the Holy Spirit make the bread the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ; which bread and wine cannot be and exist without the demutation of their nature. B The second testimony is taken by Albertinus from these two places: *cat.* 19, n. 7: "Just as the bread and wine of the Eucharist were naked bread and wine before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity; but after the invocation is performed, the bread becomes the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ: so also foods of this kind (meats sacrificed to idols) pertaining to the pomp of Satan, though they are naked and common by their own nature, are rendered profane and contaminated by the invocation of demons"; and *cat.* 21, n. 3, concerning the sacred chrism: "Just as the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Spirit is not common bread, but the body of Christ: so also this holy ointment [CCXXII] is no longer naked, nor, if one might choose to call it so, common ointment after the invocation; but it is a donation of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, the presence of His divinity, effecting the result." And thus he argues after Rivetus: "Such is the mutation of the Eucharist as that of foods sacrificed to idols and of the sacred ointment." These are changed only by the accession of a new quality. Therefore there is nothing more in the Eucharist. With regard to what Albertinus responded to the comparison put before him of water changed into wine at the wedding, and of wine in the Eucharist transmuted into blood, it may be permitted us also to respond here that no comparison of things that are clearly similar and twin-born was instituted by Cyril. (Nor can Albertinus deny this, since in the case of meats sacrificed he admits the presence of the demons invoked, *cat.* 22, num. 7, and in the case of the chrism the presence of the divinity of the Holy Spirit signified through it; Albertinus...
[the page begins with the continuation of a theological argument concerning the Eucharist]
in the Eucharist, the presence of the thing is figured through it.) But just as in the Cyrillian comparison of the Eucharist with the water turned into wine there appears no trace of disparity, so in the two cited passages the dissimilarity of the compared things themselves is contained. He establishes this similarity among all things, that just as sacrificed foods after the invocation of demons, and holy chrism after the invocation of God, are not naked and common foods, nor a naked and common ointment; so the Eucharistic bread and wine after the invocation of the Trinity are not naked bread and common wine. These are common to all. But he does not say that the sacrificed foods and the chrism become another nature; the foods always remain what they are, and the ointment always an ointment. But he teaches that the Eucharistic bread and wine become something else entirely from bread and wine, namely, the Body and Blood of Christ. What he says concerning the consecrated bread and wine, that they are not bread and wine, although the senses state otherwise, he is never so imprudent as to say similarly concerning the sacrificed foods, that they are no longer breads or meats, or concerning the chrism that it is no longer material ointment.
82. The third testimony which he brings forth, he draws from the very place we are examining. *(Called to the nuptials, etc., and shall we not much more confess that He has given His own body and blood to the children of the bridal chamber to be enjoyed?)* Albertinus says that Cyril concludes from the more difficult to the easier. For that formula of speech, *much more*, only has a place in a comparison made between unequal actions; from the more difficult of which, since it is established, it is legitimately concluded that the one which is easier is much more to be believed. Therefore, according to Cyril's opinion, the Eucharistic change was easier than the conversion of water into wine, whereas on the contrary, among Catholics, the former is equally difficult, or rather involves greater difficulties; therefore Cyril does not signify this. As I cannot deny that Cyril sometimes argues from the more difficult to the easier, so it is necessary that this be granted to me. 1° That when Cyril argues thus, he is not accustomed to omit the mention of the greater ease for the sake of strengthening the force of his argument; and then he uses these words: *Much more, how much more difficult?* You have most frequent examples, [CCXXIII] and that one especially mentioned by Albertinus, cat. 2, n. 5: *Or did he who raised the four-day-old, stinking Lazarus, not rather raise you, living, more easily from the death of sin?* See cat. 4, n. 30; cat. 12, n. 28 and 39; cat. 18, n. 3, 6, 9, 12, 13; in all these places he disputes from the more difficult, but with the mention of the greater ease not only made, but also most copiously and weightily inculcated. Why did he omit it in the present argument, where it was no less necessary? 2° Cyril often argues from the equally difficult to the equally difficult. Thus, from the conservation of three days, no less difficult, he proves the resurrection of Christ, and in cat. 12, n. 28, the virgin birth, from the birth of a sterile woman, equally difficult. 3° That he also often argues from the easier to the more difficult. Thus cat. 12, num. 28, from the budding of Aaron’s rod, he proves the virgin birth, cat 14, n. 25, the ascension of Christ into heaven, accomplished by His own power, from the assumption of Enoch externally, and from the snatching away of Elijah, not into heaven, but as if into heaven. And cat. 18, n. 10, the resurrection of the dead, from the monthly restoration of the moon; n. 12, from the budding of Aaron’s rod, and the reintegration of the leprous hand of Moses; 4° Cyril sometimes, having omitted the greater or lesser difficulty of things, argues from the less worthy to the more convenient and more worthy of God, even if that is more difficult. Thus cat. 15, n. 2 and 3, he proves the power of the blood of Christ to bring universal salvation from the cause of universal death in the sin of the first man; from the zeal of Phinehas the priest pacifying the wrath of God; from the blood of the paschal lamb warding off the destroyer; since the operation of human salvation is more convenient and worthy of the Son of God. Thus cat. 18, num. 6, 7, 8, from a certain species of resurrection in trees, in grain, in animals, and in things deprived of reason created for the sake of man, he proves the general resurrection to those endowed with human reason, and for whose sake those things were created; the examples brought forth by him are indeed more difficult, but more congruent and more necessary; 5° Cyril often argues from the easier to the more difficult on account of the greater difficulty of the thing itself, since it is fitting for God to purpose something greater and more difficult. Thus in the epistle to Constantius, n. 3, when he says that it was given to Constantine on account of his piety to find the holy cross, which was a gift from the earth; he says to Constantius, who surpassed the piety of his father, that it was fitting that a greater prodigy of the shown cross be given from heaven; 6° in order to come at last to the argument proposed, Cyril, in the place we are examining, appears to conclude from the convenient and worthy of God, to the more convenient and more worthy of God; or rather from the easier to the more difficult on account of the greater difficulty itself. For if Christ granted the stupendous miracle of water into wine to outsiders, He signifies that He ought to have done something greater and more stupendous for His companions and friends, the children of the bridal chamber; 7° but granted that he concludes from the more difficult to the easier, all that greater ease will depend, according to Cyril's sentiment, on the fact that since there is some affinity of wine with blood, it might seem easier for that to be turned into blood, than for water, which has no connection with itself, to be turned into wine.
[CCXXIV]
CHAPTER XI.
The remaining arguments are proposed and defended. THIRD ARGUMENT. 83. From five points this passage of Cyril is established, cat. 22, num. 3. 1° Wherefore, since we receive them with all-persuasive faith as the body and blood of Christ; 2° for in the figure of bread the body is given to you, and in the figure of wine the blood is given to you; 3° so that when you have received the body and blood of Christ, you may be made partakers of His body and blood; 4° for thus we are also made Christ-bearers, His body and blood being distributed into our members, 5° thus according to the blessed Peter, divine...nature. These things are linked together, and with the preceding words concerning the transmutation of wine into blood by the particle previously prefixed: this connection being observed, the certain and determinate sense of the individual propositions is formed, so that the futile cavils of Albertinus vanish. I have almost nothing to add to clarify the force of the argument or to dissipate his objections beyond what I noted beforehand in this chapter, n. 73, in the second part of the first argument, and n. 76, and in chapter 9, observations 2 and 3, n. 72 and 73. I shall only observe a few things here, untouched by his responses to the first, second, and fourth parts of the argument.
To the first proposition, Albertinus answers that Cyril means the Eucharist is to be taken not as the Lord's own body and blood, but as a mystical and symbolic body and blood. It is strange if a persuasion and conviction of the soul so easy to believe is demanded and commended B *μετὰ πάσης πληροφορίας*, yet he asserts his interpretation consists in these words, Cat. 23, n. 20: "Those who taste are bid to taste not bread and wine, but the antitype of the body and blood of Christ." Albertinus ought to have first proved that "antitype" excludes the thing it signifies. That certainly was not Cyril's estimation, who, when he calls the sacred chrism the antitype of the Holy Spirit (Cat. 21, n. 1), calls it such on account of the presence of His divinity (n. 3), and teachers that the Eucharist is an antitype of this kind in the very place because it is not bread and wine. "Those who taste," he says, "are bid to taste not bread and wine, but the antitype, etc.," whose nature is not to be estimated by the testimony of the senses, but by faith, which excludes every doubt that arises from the contrary signification of the senses. "Do not," he says, "entrust the judgment and estimation of this matter to the gullet, but to faith, which is devoid of all doubt." The antitype in which the King, Christ Himself, is received (ibid. n. 21) is to be adored with body bowed down (n. 22). Finally, the antitype, because it is the body and blood of Christ, is given in the figure of bread and wine; and it is to be received with all possible persuasion for the body and blood of Christ (Cat. 22, n. 3). But he cavils at these words, which contain the second part of the argument, as follows: "In the figure of bread," understand, "in the bread, a figure." He uselessly piles up many examples of similar acceptance from the Fathers: "the sign of circumcision" for "circumcision the sign"; "the type of Jonah" for "Jonah the type." What more? "The sacrament of the Eucharist" for "the Eucharist is a sacrament" would have sufficed. We do not deny that it can be said [CCXXV] "the figure of bread" for "bread which is a figure"; but the question is whether this interpretation fits the place under discussion. He certainly cannot adapt it without rendering this sentiment of Cyril's ridiculous and inept: "In bread, a type, of the body of Christ, wondrously, there is given to you the typical body of Christ; that is, the type of the body of Christ." But he bolsters the same interpretation with various testimonies of Cyril of Alexandria, which, since they have an obvious sense that no sane person would take literally, and therefore should not be compared with the Eucharist, I pass over. I examine only one of them, which he misuses and which is similar to the Cyrillian proposition; Cyril says, lib. III in Joan., cap. 6, pag. 312: *Ἐπιδείξομεν δὲ διὰ πάντων, ὅτι τὸ μάννα τὸ ἀληθινὸν αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ὡς ἐν τύπῳ τῷ μάννα χορηγεῖσθαι τοῖς ἀρχαιοτέροις νοούμενος παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός.* "We shall show through all things in the following discussion that the true manna is Christ Himself, who is understood as being provided to the ancients in the type of manna by God and the Father." But Christ was not actually given to the ancients in manna. Therefore, it does not follow from the opinion of Cyril of Jerusalem that Christ is truly given in the type of bread (which we can understand as "bread, the type"). Omitted is the disparity between the two expressions of the Alexandrian and the Jerusalemite; for the one treats of time preceding the incarnation, in which it could not enter the mind that Christ, not yet existing as man, was being given even then; but the other treats of time following the incarnation: and because all the adjuncts of the one determine it to a figurative sense, and the [CCXXVI] other to a literal one.
Alexandrine himself—who in this very disputation says that manna was a figure of the Eucharist in which Christ is truly and corporally received, by express testimonies on pages 312, 316, 317, 319, and 322—these being, I say, omitted, I state: 1st, that the Alexandrine interprets his own discourse, firstly, by the words cited in the objection from page 312, where he says that manna was a type of things to come; but when the time of truth arrives, the Father gave us the bread from heaven, which was described to the ancients in shadows through the provision of manna. "Since, however, by the provision of manna, to those of old it was depicted as in shadows"—and in the following words on page 319: "Christ himself is revealed to us as the true manna, declared to the ancients as in an image by a type. This manna, the true Christ, was shown to us, being signified to the ancients in an image through a type"—and then when he calls manna a figure of the evangelical doctrine on page 318. Thus, indeed, it was a bare figure of Christ, so that it also figured another thing. Albertinus points out similar locutions in the Jerusalem [catecheses] regarding eucharistic bread reduced to an image and figure. I state 2nd, that the meaning of the Alexandrine in the proposed objection is that by the manna given to the ancients, Christ was foreshadowed; who indeed, as the Word to every rational creature, as the proper and natural food of intellectual substances, was already given then, both to angels and to the ancients for sanctification, page 314, 312; though as man, he was one day to be given in the Eucharist, in order to vivify our spirit and contain the body unto incorruption, and through faith and love dwells in our hearts, page 312; for with the figures of the law ceasing then, the truth itself was proposed to us for food or for delights (I read τρυφήν not τρυφήν, although it is the same thing) and enjoyment, page 316. Namely, Christ, who nourishes us unto long life, both through the provision of the Holy Spirit and through the participation of his own flesh, which imparts to us and inserts into us the participation of God, "through participation of his own flesh, inserting into us the participation of God," page 323. Who finally fills us with all virtue and glory, brought into and hidden within the interior of the heart through faith and perfect charity, page 319. That this is the meaning of the proposed proposition is concluded from the fact that this is the whole sum of the Cyrillian disputation, whose thesis and argument he proposed for himself in the words contained in the objection.
85. No effort is required to refute A that part of our argument, when the body and blood of Christ are said to be distributed into our members, for this is said to apply only to the typical body and blood; and it is not even affirmed by the Catholics themselves concerning the proper body of Christ. We admit that the body of Christ itself is not divided into our members. But following the custom of human speech and the example of all tradition, we deservedly affirm of Christ’s body that which is proper to the species under which it lies hidden: which indeed we could not use unless it were contained under those species. In Scripture, all bodily actions are attributed to angels B which were proper to that ultimate species assumed by them. What? Christ himself declared, "Who is it that touched me?" (Luke viii, 45), when the woman had only touched the edge of his outermost garment, not the hem of an inner tunic. But, Albertinus insists, so that we may not believe that Cyril spoke of the proper body of Christ, it is an obstacle: 1st, that in cat. 14, n. 50, he declares Christ to be absent from us in the flesh; 2nd, that shortly after the words praised in the argument, n. 4, he turns it as a fault against the Jews, because they did not understand the words of Christ, "Unless you eat my flesh," spiritually; but went away offended, thinking that he exhorted them to eat flesh. Therefore, those words are not to be understood literally but spiritually and as far as the sacrament is concerned: nor is the proper flesh of Christ eaten in the Eucharist. Nor do we Catholics believe in such a manducation of the flesh of Christ as they conceived in their minds. Thus Christ composed himself under the figure of bread, that although his body is there, by whose participation we bear Christ in us, we may be compacted into one body with him, and become participators of the divine nature joined hypostatically to this body mixed with ours; yet, let a sensible manducation of flesh be far from us. But that Christ is said to be absent from the earth in the flesh, understand it of sensible and bodily presence; which indeed would abolish the place of faith and the nature of the sacrament.
FOURTH ARGUMENT
86. By these words, cat. 22, n. 5, it is taught: In the New Testament the bread is heavenly, and the cup, sanctifying soul and body. For just as bread is fitting for the body, so the Word is agreeable to the soul, n. 6. Wherefore, do not pay attention as if the bread and wine (in the Eucharist) were proposed as bare (elements). For they are the body and blood of Christ, according to the Lord’s asseveration; for even if sense suggests that to you, let faith make you certain and firm. Do not judge the matter by taste; but persuaded by faith without any doubt, be assured that you have been gifted with the body and blood of Christ. Finally, n. 9: Being taught these things and imbued with the most certain faith that what is seen as bread is not bread, even if it be sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ; and that what is seen as wine is not wine, even if it so appears to the taste, but the blood of Christ, etc. What other formula of words would Albertinus use if he wanted to prove to someone who did not know it that the orichalcum he holds is not gold; that an angel clothed in the external appearance of a man is not a human being? I will explain the force of the argument, which is clear of itself, in a few words. First, that heavenly bread sanctifying soul and body is the divine Word, agreeable to the soul as its proper and natural food. That it concerns the divine Word is proven, both by the conjunction of this sentence with the following one through the particle "wherefore"; and because the mention of the words of God, for which nothing preceding has prepared the mind of the auditor, is foreign to this place. Therefore, the eucharistic bread is the Word of God, truly hypostatically joined to the body of Christ. Second, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are [not] bare D elements...
A that he denies to be such, so that he might affirm another nature entirely according to the Lord’s assertion, namely the body and Eucharist of Christ. Third, he asserts that the Eucharist is not what the senses suggest; that which appears to the eyes and taste: but it is that which seems doubtful from the contrary renunciation of the senses [CCXXVIII]. What the senses suggest, what appeals to the taste and appears to the eyes, is that the Eucharist is material bread and wine; this, therefore, is not it. The thing about which the testimony of the senses makes us doubt is whether it is the body and blood of Christ. For this is the utterance of those who doubt in this catechism of Cyril, n. 1: that it is not Christ’s body and blood: this, therefore, is the Eucharist.
87. I shall conclude with Albertinus in a few words. He says in relation to the second testimony of Cyril cited in the argument—since there are two things in the Eucharist, one being the substance of the eucharistic bread and wine, and the other the sacramental reality of them which consists in their signification—that in no way does Cyril wish the testimony of the senses to be rejected regarding the former part, but only B regarding the latter; which, since it is outside and above the testimony of the senses, which do not arrive at it, he rightly warns that in this part the matter is not to be judged from the testimony of the senses. He confirms this response of his with testimonies from the Fathers similar to the Cyrillian view, as he indeed thinks, who say that the sacrament of baptism is not to be estimated by the eyes but by the mind, and that one should attend more to that which is not seen in it than to that which is seen, etc. Does Albertinus think us obtuse, when he wishes to persuade us that Cyril does not reject the testimony of the senses regarding the visible part of the Eucharist? That is precisely the thing about which he denies that the senses are to be heeded. That part for Albertinus is material bread and wine. And yet this is the very thing which Cyril denies is to be considered the Eucharist, even though it appears so to the senses. Where, in him, is there even the slightest significance of visible bread and wine, and of an invisible figure and efficacy superadded to them? Were there lacking to him words by which he might purely and clearly express a necessary and primary matter? Or was he leaving such a foreign interpretation of his own words to be appended by unlearned candidates? From so many of the Fathers’ views on baptism which Albertinus accumulates, which he contends match the Cyrillian, is there one C in which they deny that baptismal water is water; and though it appears as natural water to the senses, confirm that these are not to be heeded; but that one must believe by the testimony of faith, which is far more certain, that what is seen as water is invisible grace, into which, as once into wine, it has been transmuted by the very ecclesiastical prayer? Albertinus has not distinguished two very different kinds of things: one in which there is something besides and above the testimony of the senses; another which is contrary to that same testimony of the senses. The first is when, besides the matter subject to the senses, there is something else that eludes and surpasses sense. Thus in baptism and chrism, besides the water and the ointment, the Holy Spirit is present. D The other is when a thing subject to the senses is something other than what it seems to be. Thus, orichalcum is not gold, which it seems to the unlearned in such matters, but another species. An angel clothed in the external appearance of a man is not a man, even if to one who does not know it he so appears, but an angel: a peculiar rationale is appropriate for defining each kind of thing. In the first kind, it is not denied that the testimony of the senses is to be heeded; but only that nothing above it is to be heeded; so that nothing is affirmed to be in the thing except [270] what is contained by their testimony; in the second, it is clearly denied [CCXXIX] that one must believe the sense, and what is contained by its testimony is removed from the thing. The definitions of either kind cannot be exchanged: for just as it cannot be said of an angel conspicuous in the appearance of a man that there is an angelic nature in him besides the nature of a man; so of a man, because he has an invisible soul besides his visible body, it cannot be said that he is not corporeal, although it so appears to the senses. Let everyone compare the expressions compared by Albertinus with the Cyrillian ones: he will find the former belong to the first class, the latter to the second. But it must be noted that for things contained in the first class, it is not difficult for men, and especially Christians, to accommodate their faith; for besides the fact that the senses do not resist, they know that there are many things, whether in nature or in religion, which escape and surpass the keenness of the senses. Nor did Cyril in truth labor much to persuade his auditors that the invisible power of the Holy Spirit is present in baptismal water and holy chrism. But in the other class, when the testimony of the senses is contrary to the thing affirmed, we suffer the greatest doubt; for we cannot easily persuade ourselves that what we see is other than what we see. Accurate and superior proofs must be present to the contrary against the senses. Hence Cyril in his entire catechism confirms and inculcates the proposed matter; and by God’s testimony, and His omnipotence, he strives to banish every doubt from the minds of his auditors.
88. To the third testimony of Cyril mentioned in the argument, the adversary responds two things: 1st, that the words, *ὁ φαινόμενος ἄρτος*, which appears to be bread, do not signify, which appears and is thought to be bread, but visible bread; and he gathers many examples of the verb *φαίνεσθαι* accepted in the same sense. I could produce many more of another meaning of the same verb, for that which appears and is thought to be, since the power and signification of this word is twofold. But it can have no other meaning in this place besides that which we attribute to it: unless this ridiculous discourse be attributed to Cyril, that visible bread and material bread is not, although it so appears to the senses. But he says, one must assume it is not common bread. Let him show one opinion among all authors in which it is assumed in a similar place that which was to be expressed. To this example, for instance, that what will be seen as a body in the resurrection will not be a body, even though it appears so to the senses, as the word "carnal" and "earthly" is expressed neither in the proposition itself nor in the adjuncts. But
A second, lest someone should concede that those words of Cyril, *the bread is not bread, and the wine is not wine*, exclude true bread and true wine from the Eucharist, I produce many passages from the Fathers which are to be understood metaphorically, in which that which the thing itself is, is denied of the thing; and when the substance seems to be denied, only the quality is denied; as is said: *Gold does not allow men to be men, but renders them beasts or demons.* *Anger does not allow a man to be a man.* *The virtue of Baptism does not allow men to be men, but makes them angels instead of men.* *When a man is temperate, flesh is no longer flesh, but flesh changed into spirit.* *The body of the regenerate becomes the body of the Crucified.* I except this last passage from metaphorical expressions; for it signifies nothing else than the bodily conjunction of the baptized, after the holy communion, with Christ [CCXXX]. In the others, however, in order to have a perfect likeness with the Cyrilline expression, that Cyrilline word is lacking, even though the sense may declare otherwise. All the adjuncts are lacking by which the Cyrilline proposition, *that bread which is seen is not bread, although it is perceived by taste, etc.*, is determined toward the true exclusion of bread and wine. Otherwise, we have sufficiently disclosed the lack of resemblance of those expressions to the Cyrilline one in observations 1 and 2 of chapter 9.
THE FIFTH ARGUMENT
89. B This is contained in Cat. 23, numb. 21: *Approaching the altar, do not approach with the palms of your hands spread out, nor with your fingers separated; but making your left hand a throne for your right, as being about to receive the King; and in the hollow of your hand receive the body of Christ, answering, Amen. When you have sanctified your eyes with the touch of the holy body, receive it, being careful that nothing of it is lost to you; for what you allow to fall, consider it as taken away from your own members... which is far more precious than gold and jewels.* Numb. 23: *Then, indeed, after the communion of the body of Christ, approach also to the cup of the blood: not extending your hands, but bowing down and in the manner of adoration and reverence, saying, Amen; so that you may be sanctified by partaking also of the blood of Christ. And when the moisture from it still adheres to your lips, touching it with your hands, sanctify both your eyes, and your forehead, and the rest of your senses.* I do not dwell upon the frequent and—almost line by line—repetition of the body and blood of Christ, with no mention of figure and efficacy ever being made; first, I observe that the eucharistic bread, which is called the body of Christ, is called King Christ; for Whom it is fitting that a throne be prepared as for a true king. Truly a magnificent expression concerning a particle of bread, if it were a mere figure of Christ. Christ can be received otherwise than bodily by faith in the mind, I admit: but in the hand, how, except by His body? 2° This *Amen*, at the reception of either species, is the communicant’s response to the ancient and very simple formula of administering communion: *the body of Christ, the blood of Christ.* What does that formula signify, if not the body C and blood of Christ? But by the word *Amen*, which is a word of assent, Cat. 23, numb. 18, and which signifies *be it so* or *it is true*, according to whether it is joined with a vow or a matter to be assented to; the communicant gives his assent to the proposition of the one ministering communion to him. Third, that caution that nothing should fall from the holy bread, which we do not read to be so severely inculcated in the baptismal water, oil, or holy chrism; the comparison of its loss with the cutting off of one's own bodily members; the severe punishments of the Church, and the penances imposed upon those from whose hands the Eucharist had fallen through no fault of their own, or by whose hands the Eucharist had been profaned; these, I say, all clearly demonstrate that it is something more than bread that is mere material consecrated by an ecclesiastical prayer. Fourth, the conjunction of this doctrine with the preceding and [CCXXXI] following ones does not allow one to doubt that the adoration prescribed in receiving the blood and body of Christ pertains to God present in the Eucharist, and is therefore an adoration of supreme worship. Fifth, that precept that the body of Christ be placed to the eyes for sanctification, and that the moisture collected after the reception of the cup from the lips be applied to the forehead and the rest of the senses; truly signifies that a certain inherent sanctification exists in the thing itself, the virtue of which does not depend entirely on the faith of the recipient; the only kind of efficacy in the Eucharist admitted by our adversaries. It is ridiculous to respond with Albertinus that the blood of Christ, since it is contained within His veins, could not wet the mouths and lips of those receiving it: for that which is proper to its species is truly and deservedly attributed to the blood; and otherwise, the particles of the consecrated wine not only contain the blood of Christ, but His entire body, whose quickening virtue for the sanctifying of our body is from its sole conjunction with the Word.
90. I have dealt with Albertinus's objections to this argument. But I must not pass over the objection which, after proposing to himself and dissolving, the adversary undertakes to restore: and it is converted by us into a sixth argument for Catholic doctrine. It is sought from these words of Cat. 23, n. 15, where, explaining this petition of the Lord's Prayer, *Give us this day our supersubstantial bread* [Matt. vi, 11], he says: *This common bread is not supersubstantial. But this bread which is holy is supersubstantial, as if you would say, ordained and instituted for the substance of the soul.* *This bread does not go into the belly and pass out into the draught* [Matt. xv, 17], *but is distributed into your whole frame for the benefit of soul and body.* It is certain that this is treated concerning the eucharistic bread, whatever Albertinus may wish; for the spiritual bread of grace is not distributed into the whole frame and constitution of man, so that it might sanctify the body also along with the soul by its contact. Hence I conclude two arguments. First, Cyril does not deny the Eucharist goes down into the belly...
in such a way that it is divided into our entire frame, and distributed into our members, so that, by bearing Christ, we are made concorporeal and consanguineous with him, cat. 22, n. 3; attributing to the body of Christ, certainly, what is proper to the species; and in that sense he could add, with Justin and Irenaeus, that from the Eucharist our blood and our flesh are nourished by transmutation, that our blood is increased from the blood of Christ, and our body from his body: A which things, as they are appropriately and according to human custom attributed to the body of Christ, though they only fittingly belong to the species covering it, so, unless Christ were contained in them, it would never have been permitted to say so. Cyril therefore denies only that the eucharistic bread descends into the belly, to be digested and fashioned there like common foods, and then go into the excrement. But whatever lot he denies that the body of Christ—the very substance of the eucharistic bread—undergoes, he does not deny regarding the species; since it is evident from experience that there is something in the Eucharist which, like other foods, is digested in the stomach and goes into the excrement: otherwise, he could not have affirmed that the body of Christ is distributed into our members, and that by the Eucharist we are made consanguineous with him, unless the species, under which it is hidden, were distributed into our members and our entire frame, and mixed with our blood. I say therefore [CCXXXII]: the eucharistic bread, considered in its own substance, is neither digested in the belly nor does it go into the excrement: this is evident in Catholic doctrine. But in the Calvinist view it is false that the eucharistic bread, the very substance of this bread, is neither digested in the belly nor goes into the excrement, since it is material bread; nor do the adversaries deny this: yet it is ridiculous to suggest it concerning the figure and efficacy attached to this bread, that it neither goes into the belly nor is cast out into the excrement. Cyril, therefore, was not taking the eucharistic bread in the Calvinist sense, but according to the understanding of Catholics. Secondly, the eucharistic bread by its ordination and institution pertains to the substance of the soul. It possesses the name "substantial" from Cyril and not a few Fathers: the same also, not for the benefit of the soul alone, but also for the body, is distributed into the whole human frame. Not as in baptism (cat. 3, n. 4) and in chrism (cat. 21, n. 3), but in the Eucharist Cyril distinguishes a double part, of which one might pertain to the body alone and the other to the soul: nor does he say that while the body is nourished by the material bread and wine, he assigns to one and the same thing both effects through the invocation of the Trinity; so that he sanctifies the body by his contact when it is distributed into all the members, and feeds the soul as its proper food. This is the Catholic doctrine, by which Christ himself vivifies our body by the power of the Word implanted in it, and by his divinity feeds and sanctifies the soul. Conversely, in the Calvinist hypothesis, something else pertains entirely to the body; and this very thing is against the opinion of Cyril regarding the substance B of the eucharistic bread; namely, the material bread and wine which consist of it: a different thing for the soul, namely, that grace which they liberally join to their bread and wine. Cyril therefore explains the Catholic dogma, not the Calvinist. I am not unaware that the Fathers sometimes, in figurative and ornate language concerning baptismal water, chrism, and holy oil, used this speech—that water washes the heart, that it sanctifies the soul. But the same authors, when they declare the force and reason of these mysteries more strictly and accurately, delineate the ends and limits of the individual parts of which they consist: nor did any of the Fathers perform this more diligently than our Cyril, defining the effect of baptismal water as a corporeal purification, and reserving the sprinkling and purification of the heart for the Spirit (cat. 3, n. 4). This they repeat in almost the same words, Greg. Naz., Greg. Nyss., Cyril Alex., and many others. In the same way he speaks in cat. 17, num. 36. And this sole perfusion of the body, without any grace of the Holy Spirit, he attributes to those who approach feignedly, both in this place and in precat. n. 4. I would wish them to show, as I have said, whether in Cyril or in others, this distinction of a double part in the Eucharist, whereby it might happen: 1° that the body achieves this solely from the contact of the Eucharist, that it is nourished by the material bread and wine, while grace reaches the soul—to which the bread cannot reach; 2° that those communicating unworthily taste only the material bread and material wine; and that they do not become guilty of the defiled hands and mouth used to receive the sacred body, and are not absolved from the condemnation of Judas the traitor and the Jews who crucified him. [CCXXXIII] The responses of Albertinus to these matters have been occupied. There remains one objection of Rivetus taken from a certain testimony in catech. 12, num. 1, to which we have abundantly satisfied in that very place.
91. The seventh argument could be taken from the confession of the adversaries. The famous man Ernest Grabe, known to the literary world no less for the candor of his spirit and the honesty of his character than for his erudition, compelled by the force of truth, confessed that our Cyril, Gregory of Nyssen, and John Damascene thought that the bread and wine of the Eucharist were transmutated into the body and blood of Christ. Thus he, in his notes to Irenaeus edited by him, at book V, chapter 2, page 399: They, he says (the Fathers whom I named), C were persuaded that the Holy Spirit descending from heaven communicates to the bread not only the virtue of the body of Christ, and so changes it by reason of its qualities; but also by divine power transforms its very substance into flesh, which may be the flesh of Christ, and, with that which came forth from the womb of the Blessed Virgin and was fixed to the cross and thence taken up into heaven, becomes the same through επ αύξησιν (that is, growth), and that it holds the same spirit of life within itself: just as the bread which the Savior ate on earth was transformed by the force of natural heat into his flesh, and our daily bread passes into the substance of our body: which body, being worn by us today, is said to be the same with that in which we have lived for many years, since it is enlivened by the same soul; even though its particles are entirely different, and
perhaps none of the earlier ones survives. I would have wished that he had explained this distinction more clearly. That mention of *epauxēsis* [accretion/increase] is taken not from Damascene, but from the epistle inscribed under Damascene’s name to Zacharias, Bishop of the Doari, new ed. p. 656, which the learned and sagacious Fr. le Quien has excellently proven to be falsely attributed to the name of John Damascene, since it is more truly the work of a certain Peter Damascene. That author, for his part, falls into a most serious error elsewhere when he says that Christ’s body in the Eucharist, before consumption and while it is broken and eaten by us, is corruptible; but that after it has been consumed by us, it becomes incorruptible; and he adds in the subsequent discourse, of which the same author is the writer, no. 2, p. 658, that Christ’s body is immortal and incorruptible, devoid of blood, and not even rightly called flesh. B Grabius transfers the opinion of this author regarding Christ’s body—transubstantiated from bread and wine into flesh and blood—to John Damascene, Gregory of Nyssa, and our Cyril, who do not even have a word about any such *epauxēsis* and accretion. But if one were to understand this [term] as referring to a certain extraordinary kind of accretion and extension, after our manner of conceiving it, whereby it comes to be that it is present through all the churches of the world, and remains one and the same body of Christ while being received by the faithful, though now incapable of substantial accretion—just as Fr. le Quien kindly interprets the author of the epistle to Zacharias—we readily concede that Cyril thought this. But if he attributes this to Cyril (for as to the other authors whom he joins in the same group, it is nothing to me), such that he believed that a true addition is made to the body of Christ transubstantiated from bread and wine, I vehemently object. And I ask again, [CCXXXIV] since the meaning of the words of that most celebrated man is not sufficiently clear to me: does he think that this accretion is added to Christ’s body as it exists naturally in heaven? And does he say that as much of this new substance is added to it as there is bread and wine transubstantiated—that is, more or less according to the measure of the bread and wine? Or does he believe that, through the bread and wine being changed into flesh, blood, and all human members, a certain human body is formed, being informed by the divine Word, which, joined C to the celestial and natural body of Christ, is considered one and the same body with the celestial one—not in matter, which would be physically different, but in estimation due to the unity of the soul? Just as from that unity it comes to pass that the flesh of Christ born of the Virgin is held to be one and the same with that which was crucified, even though there was perhaps nothing of that previous matter remaining. If he held the former view, I do not understand how it can be reconciled with the present state of Christ’s body in heaven, which on this hypothesis would grow immensely; otherwise, that which the most celebrated man denies was believed by those Fathers, Christ’s body would have to descend from heaven in order to be consumed by the faithful. If he judged the latter, I confess that from the unity of Christ’s soul, joined to both the celestial and the eucharistic body, it comes to pass that [it is] possible for one and the same man, Christ, both to be in heaven and to be taken by the mouth of the faithful on earth; but I clearly deny that it would be one and the same body. There would be several bodies informed by one soul, which would make one man using different bodies, just as in a body there are many members which, because of the unity of the soul that informs them, constitute one human body. But just as it cannot be said of the head that it is the feet, even though they are informed by one soul; so it could not be said of the eucharistic body of Christ that it is the same body as His celestial one: nor would it be true what the Fathers affirm, that in the Eucharist we all partake not of one [body] differently, but of one and the same body; so that what is received by one is exactly the same as what is received by others. From Cyril’s sentiments it appears that he did not examine the matter so subtly; but that he, as well as his hearers, understood simply and candidly one body of Christ which is in heaven, and is truly and really, albeit in a manner unknown and inexplicable to us, eaten by the faithful on earth.
Chapter XII.
*De sacrificio eucharistico, et invocatione ad consecrationem.*92. Phaffius, a professor of the Augsburg Confession, whom I mention for the sake of honor and friendship, in his dissertation *De oblatione veterum eucharistica* [On the Ancient Eucharistic Offering], subjuncta to the fragments of St. Irenaeus published by him, ch. 58, p. 327, sets forth Cyril’s opinion on the eucharistic sacrifice in these words: "Therefore, the principal offering, and that which is essential to the eucharistic sacrifice, according to Cyril, must be called that which is named the *latreia anaimaktos* [bloodless worship], transmuting bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; so that the sacrifice, perfected by consecration, is *ousia tou hilasmou*, a propitiatory sacrifice; [CCXXXV] and [is] also to be offered for others after the consecration." Nor can it be denied at all that Cyril’s opinion is close to the tenets of the Roman Church. Note, however, that other Fathers differ greatly from Cyril. It is not our business to treat of other Fathers; it is remarkable, however, if in a matter so principal and of common and daily use, there was not one single opinion among all the Church Fathers, and those who commonly are the highest priests, regarding the function of their priesthood. But I remain with Cyril; whose opinion he should have declared not merely close to, but twin, most similar, and plainly the same as the tenets of the Roman Church. When I asked him what difference he had detected between the two opinions—that of Cyril and that of the Catholics—regarding the eucharistic sacrifice, so as not to admit that they were perfectly in agreement, he replied that many more chapters of the doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice are enumerated by us Catholics than in Cyril; whether in the doctrine of the Council of Trent, *De sacrificio missae* sess. 22, or in the work of Jacques Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, in his French book *De explicatione quarumdam caeremoniarum missae* [An Exposition of Certain Ceremonies of the Mass]. This was the sum of my response: that our faith regarding the sacrifice of the Eucharist is entirely Cy-[rillian]
A oration as contained; that a fuller understanding and explanation of it is given by those authors, gathered both from the various ways the holy Fathers explain this same doctrine, and from its necessary corollaries; and that all these things, when compared and composed together, are in harmony. The sum of the Catholic faith concerning the sacrifice is this: that through the consecration performed by the priest—the minister of Christ and the Church—Christ is placed upon the altar, lying there like a slaughtered victim, so that He may be offered by the Church to God as a propitiation for the living and the dead, and that we may feed upon His flesh as participants in the sacrifice. Pfaffius admits that Cyril acknowledges all these things. From this, all the corollaries of Catholic doctrine follow of their own accord. First, that the Eucharist is a true and proper sacrifice, in which, first of all, the bread and wine offered to God are destroyed by their own transmutation: B next, the victim is placed upon the altar, offered for the salvation of the human race; and it is placed not merely to be there, but is established as lying there in the manner of a slaughtered victim; so that Cyril, simply, along with many other Fathers, says (Cat. 23, no. 10) that Christ, *mactatum* (slaughtered), ἐσφαγιασμένον, is offered by us for our sins. This state of the victim is gathered either from His voiceless and motionless presence, or from the separate consecration of the body and blood, whereby the body and blood are represented as divided and separated by death. From this action it has come about that the Fathers frequently say that the priest, with his voice as if with a sword, divides the body and blood of the Lord in an unbloody section (Greg. Naz., Epist. 240). "We slay the immaculate lamb as a whole burnt offering to the Lord, sacrificing and offering mystically," etc. "We do not lie when we say that Christ is sacrificed in the sacrament," says Augustine (Ep. 98, to Bonif., no. 9). Secondly, that Christ in this sacrifice is not only the victim offered by the Church, but the High Priest offering Himself for the Church. For Christ cannot be deprived of His priestly dignity, and for this reason He is placed by the priest upon the altar, that what He does in heaven, He may perform on earth, namely, that He may stand before the face of God for us, more effectively setting forth the symbols of His own passion. [CCXXXVI] Thirdly, that the Eucharistic sacrifice is a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross, and indeed the same thing continued; for in it the same victim is present, the same High Priest, the same One offering to God, and the same reason: only on the cross was Christ truly immolated, whereas in the Eucharist He is mystically and representatively slain and immolated. These points are explained admirably by Chrysostom (Hom. 17 in Epist. ad Hebræos, p. 856), who compares both the sacrifice of the cross and the Mass, saying that the Eucharistic sacrifice is a figure of the sacrifice of the cross, and the sacrifice of the cross a figure of the Eucharistic one. And what Christ accomplishes in the Eucharistic sacrifice through the commemoration of His past death, He did at the Supper through the commemoration of His future death. Fourthly, that in the Eucharistic sacrifice Christ offers Himself and the Church—and the Church offers itself and Christ—to God through the hands of the priest. Christ offers Himself as a victim; and the Church, whose figure He bears, is contained under the species of bread and wine, for just as the bread and wine are made one from many grains that have been crushed, so the Church is composed of many faithful joined into one. By the same reasoning, as the Church offers Christ, it also offers itself as joined to Him and represented in the Eucharistic species. These are collected from many sentiments of Augustine. See, above all, De civ. Dei, book 10, chaps. 6 and 20.
93. I could bring forth many other corollaries of doctrine from the holy Catholic Fathers, none of which can be denied once the sentiment of Cyril is admitted, and the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine on the altar. But because Cyril was silent, it must not be said that he was therefore ignorant of these things, or, what is worse, that he rejected them; rather, it should be said that he would have approved the decrees and sentiments of other Fathers set before him, unless it were established by certain documents to the contrary. And, may it be said with all peace to that most illustrious man, who is very close to me, this fault is detected in the whole work of Pfaffius: that in examining the sentiments of each individual Father, one after another, he thinks that each one merely thought and felt what is contained in his own words, and rejected the rest; whereas, when we are weighing the writings of secular authors, among whom there was no common law of thinking, we are accustomed to declare and illustrate the words and mind of some by those of others. Yet he forbids this to you almost entirely regarding the holy Fathers, whose one mind and purpose was that each might declare the common doctrine of the Church according to his own grasp and ability: as if it had been permissible for them, in the most grave matters (not in doubtful ones or those of lesser moment), for each to form his own sentiment, omitting and neglecting the others; and as if they were unaware of the necessity laid upon them to hold and affirm what had been handed down from antiquity and was commonly believed in the Church.
On the invocation at the consecration.
94. One might inquire here: 1st, whether Cyril attributed the consecration of the Eucharist solely to the invocation contained in the liturgy, to the exclusion of the evangelical words? 2nd, if he did so sense it, what is to be thought of his estimation—is it an error or legitimate doctrine? 3rd, is it permissible to consider the prayers of invocation necessary for the consecration? And [CCXXXVII] regarding the first question, it must be confessed that as often as Cyril speaks of the consecration, he is accustomed to refer it to the invocation of the Holy Trinity or the Holy Spirit, with no mention made of any other thing. "The bread and wine of the Eucharist," Cat. 19, no. 7, "before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity, was bare bread and wine; but after the invocation, the bread becomes the body of Christ." Cat. 21, no. 3: "The bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is not common bread, but the body of Christ." Cat. 23, no. 19, explaining the words "Holy things to the holy," says: "Holy are those things which lie proposed upon the altar, having received the advent of the Holy Spirit." But, which is the main thing, in no. 7, reciting the order of the liturgy, when he comes to the
A consecration, he does not even mention the evangelical words: not that they were omitted in the liturgy—for that is a thing not permitted even to be thought of—but because, being merely recited historically, they seem to have been deemed to have no force in the sacred action. He makes mention only of the invocation in these words: "After we have sanctified ourselves through these spiritual praises (he understands the Trisagion), we beseech the merciful God to send forth the Holy Spirit upon the gifts proposed, that He may make the bread the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ. For whatever the Holy Spirit has touched, that is sanctified and transformed." To Pfaff in his second dissertation, *De consecratione veterum eucharistica*, these things seemed clearly sufficient for him to number him among those whom he maintains to have placed the consecration in the invocation alone. I say 1st: the simple silence of Cyril is not sufficient for us to deem that the force of the evangelical words had been removed by him: which I confirm by example. If we had only those works of St. Chrysostom in which he mentions only the invocation as the cause of consecration, as lib. III *De sacerd.*, cap. 4, p. 32, and lib. VI, cap. 4, p. 93, and serm. 32, tom. V, p. 487, and serm. 36, p. 553, we might suspect that he had left no efficacy to the evangelical words. But we are forbidden to think this of him by what he states clearly in serm. 30, *De proditione Judæ*, p. 463. These things show that both opinions are composed most excellently; that the evangelical words work their transsubstantiation, but that their operation and application depend upon the ecclesiastical prayers as upon an impetrating cause; with Christ and the Holy Spirit working as one. That such was indeed the opinion of Cyril I do not affirm, but as for the opposite, no one, I think, can prove it. I say 2nd: Cyril only perceived the transmutation of the elements to have been accomplished after the invocation. Regarding this matter, as it seems to me, the opinions of his cited earlier do not permit any doubt, in which he affirms that before the invocation, the bread and wine of the eucharist are bare bread and wine, and that when it is completed, they are already the body and blood of Christ. Are you asking what should be thought of this estimation of his? I will reveal it in a few words.
93. And first, indeed, one must admit that this entire controversy does not pertain to the faith. Although between the Greek and Latin theologians at the Council of Florence this matter was disputed more sharply, yet in the decree of union nothing was decided regarding either opinion. The Council of Trent did not even touch upon this dispute: [CCXXXVIII] sess. 13, cap. 2, it decreed that immediately after the consecration by the force of the words, and can. 4, after the consecration is performed, the body and blood of Christ exist under the species of bread and wine together with his soul and divinity; but which those words are by which the consecration is performed, it does not decree. Secondly, if Cyril had abolished the force of the evangelical words and had placed the cause of the whole consecration in a bare invocation, I would say that this opinion seems to me to be contrary to the estimation of the Latin Church, and then also of the ancient Greek Fathers, and indeed even of the more recent Greeks. For the more recent Greeks have rejected far away, as a calumny cast upon them, the charge that they said no part was attributed to the evangelical words in the consecration. Thirdly, in the use of the Greek liturgy, which places the evangelical words before the invocation, I do not believe it can be doubted that the opinion of all Greeks, of all ages and places, was that Christ is not present immediately after the pronunciation of the evangelical words, but only after the invocation is performed; I do not cite the authorities of the Fathers, which are known to everyone, nor do I use unnecessary witnesses in a clear matter. This opinion was born from the very words of the liturgies and of the sacred invocation, by which it is requested of God that that which is bread and wine, changed by the Holy Spirit, may become the body and blood of Christ. To twist these words to mean that we are requesting the effects of the eucharist in ourselves is to deprive the Church of a most clear and constant testimony of transsubstantiation. Otherwise, who will receive the sense of those words, self-evident and conspicuous in themselves, more certainly than those who have used them through all ages? It is not surprising that our scholastics were offended by that opinion; they were persuaded (and deservedly so, if you look to the Roman liturgy which they used) that Christ is contained under the species of bread and wine without any delay immediately after the recitation of the evangelical words. But it was unjust for these things to be transferred to the Greek liturgy; for in the Roman, the Milanese, and in almost all the ancient Latin liturgies, that invocation—"that it may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ," or a similar prayer—is accustomed to precede the evangelical words; wherefore no doubt is left that when these are recited, the consecration is finished. Wherefore, as the Greek Fathers, deeming the consecration to be absolute only after the invocation, are accustomed to speak as if that invocation alone effects the consecration; so the Latin Fathers, judging the consecration to be finished only after the recitation of the evangelical words, seem to speak of these words as if the transmutation of the elements was to be attributed to them alone; but neither did they remove the necessity and efficacy of the evangelical words, nor—and much less—did these remove the necessity and efficacy of the prayers. Which, indeed, regarding both, I wish to be understood generally only, not of all and each one to the letter. For it is known that a great many Latins have testified to the force of prayers in the sacrifice, and I do not speak only of the ancients, such as Jerome and Augustine; but even of the more recent, such as Agobard in his epistle to Bernard of Vienne, and Paschasius Radbertus, who in lib. *De corp. et sang. Domini*, cap. 3, says: "The Holy Spirit, by his invisible power, through the sanctification of his sacrament, works the flesh and blood of Christ from the substance of the bread and wine," and cap. 12, *De Christo*, "He himself is the one who, through the Holy Spirit, makes this his own flesh." I omit many theologians, especially [CCXXXIX] from the schools of Scotus, who have constantly asserted the necessity of prayers down to these our times.
A 96. That there is a certain efficacy, and that no small one, in the invocation during the consecration of the Eucharist, as Basil says in his book *On the Holy Spirit*, ch. 27, has always persuaded me most strongly. The first reason is that most true principle of Augustine, that the efficacy of the sacraments depends upon the prayers of the Church. Although the minister, through the external administration of the sacrament, and Christ, through the grace which is never absent from sacraments conferred in due form by his divine promise, baptizes and remits sins, yet the Church—not only because it received the keys immediately from Christ, which it exercises through ministers deputed both by itself and by Christ, but also in another sense, through the efficacy of its never-failing prayers—can truly be said to baptize and to remit sins: a truth often repeated by Augustine. See his *De baptismo*, lib. III, cap. 17; lib. IV, cap. 4, num. 6; *serm*. 99, 9; *serm*. 295, 2. See similar passages in Ambrose, *In Lucam*, lib. V, num. 11, and *De pœnitentia*, lib. I, cap. 15, num. 81, and the remarkable testimony of Ambrose Autpert in *Apocalypsin*, lib. I. For Christ, who promised that he would be present at his sacraments, since he willed that his grace flowing through them should depend upon the prayers of the Church, ensures that the prayer of the saints in the Church never fails; and he always hears the prayer expressed through the minister, who is the interpreter of the Church's vows. In every administration of the sacraments, the prayers of the Church are contained, demanding the effect of the sacrament from God: these are not a pure and bare ceremony, but an expression of the vows of the Church truly praying, poured forth by the minister of the Church in its name; and therefore, they are never defrauded of their effect on account of the minister's unworthiness. Upon these principles, Augustine defends the validity of baptism given by the unworthy and by heretics in all his works against the Donatists. The same must be thought concerning the prayers of the Church contained in the liturgy for consecration. The Fathers unanimously and earnestly commend the efficacy of the sacramental prayers, and no one more robustly than our Cyril: who attributes to these same prayers the power of the baptismal water (cat. 3, n. 3), and the efficacy of the exorcised oil (cat. 20, n. 3), and the power of the holy chrism (cat. 21, n. 3), and finally the transmutation of the Eucharist.
97. The second point, which demonstrates not a little the necessity and efficacy of the eucharistic invocation, is that it is sought from the secret tradition of the apostles and, in the judgment of Basil, is found in all ancient liturgies, whether they have gone out of use or are still common: it is not conceived in the same words nor attached to the same place; but sometimes it precedes the evangelical words, sometimes it follows them; sometimes it is directed to the whole Trinity, sometimes to the Holy Spirit, sometimes to the Son, sometimes to the Father; yet it demands the same effect, that the oblation placed upon the altar be transmuted into the body and blood of Christ. And in all the liturgies, both Greek and Oriental, edited by the most learned D. Eusebius Renaudot, [CCXL] there is, at the same place, nearly the same form of invocation, through which the consecration is completed; whereas in the Latin rites, there is neither the same form nor the same place; yet it is commonly placed before the evangelical words. Thus, in the Roman liturgy, it is expressed to the Father in these words: "Which oblation (of bread and wine) do thou, O God, deign to make in all things blessed, enrolled, ratified, reasonable, and acceptable, that it may become for us the body and blood of thy most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Who, the day before he suffered," etc. Similar is nearly the formula of the Ambrosian liturgy, if it was not later inflected and accommodated to the Roman. Certainly, Ambrose is a witness to a certain common invocation of the Trinity used in the sacrifice, in these words from *De Spiritu sancto*, lib. III, cap. 16, num. 112: "He (the Holy Spirit) is named by the priests in baptism along with the Father and the Son, and is invoked in the oblations." But perhaps he had another prayer in mind. The author of the books *De sacramentis* attributed to Ambrose, who did not indeed exhibit the Milanese rite, but that of a neighboring Church, records this invocation similar to the Roman in lib. IV, cap. 5, num. 21: "The priest says: Make this oblation for us enrolled, ratified, reasonable, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ: which is to be understood in such a way that from the bread and wine it becomes the figure and sacrament of the body and blood of Christ present." The Spanish liturgies express the form of consecration thus, as Beatus and Etherius write in lib. I *cont. Felicem et Elip.*, *Bibl. PP. Lugd.*, tom. XIII, pag. 371: "The sixth part which succeeds (the liturgy prayer) is the confirmation of the sacrament, so that the oblation which is offered to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, may be confirmed into the body and blood of Christ." Today, in the Mozarabic Missal, this prayer directed to the Son is found: "Be present, be present, Jesu, good priest, in our midst, as thou wert in the midst of thy disciples; sanctify this oblation, that sanctified we may receive it through the hands of thy holy angel, holy Lord and eternal Redeemer." The evangelical words follow. In the African liturgy, a more explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit seems to have been held, based on these words of African authors. Optatus, lib. I *cont. Parmen.*, n. 1: "The altars upon which the vows of the people (the oblations of bread and wine) and the members of Christ have been carried; where God almighty has been invoked; where the Holy Spirit, being requested, descended, from whence by many the pledge of eternal salvation and the hope of resurrection has been received." Augustine, *epist.* 149, n. 19, dividing the whole liturgy into four parts, defines the second as the prayers "when it is blessed, and sanctified, and broken in order to be distributed (supplying that which is on the Lord's table)," which the whole Church concludes with the Lord's Prayer; and *De baptismo*, lib. V, cap. 20, n. 28: "How does God hear a murderer praying, whether over the water of baptism, or over the oil, or over the eucharist, or over the heads of those upon whom hands are laid? so that, indeed, these sacraments might be valid." Fulgentius, *lib. XI ad Monimum*, cap. 6: "Now also that is for us regarding the mission of the Holy Spirit which..."
The question is to be resolved, why, if the sacrifice is offered to the whole Trinity, the mission of the Holy Spirit alone is requested for the sanctification of our offering; and ch. 7: the Holy Spirit is requested from the Father to consecrate the sacrifice; and ch. 9: the coming of the Holy Spirit is requested for the sanctification of the whole Church’s sacrifice. Among the many reasons for this, he assigns this one in ch. 10: “When indeed could it more fittingly be that the holy Church, which is the body of Christ, should ask for the coming of the Holy Spirit to consecrate the sacrifice of Christ’s body, than when she knows that her very Head was born of the Holy Spirit, so that the selfsame One who formed Christ’s body in the Virgin may likewise confection it in the Eucharist from bread and wine?” Whether in the African Mass the invocation preceded the evangelical words, I could not gather from any testimony. In the Gallican liturgy edited by Mabillon, the invocation is found in many Masses, always directed to the Father and to Him alone, sometimes asking that He sanctify the offered gifts; sometimes requesting that He send now His Word, now the Holy Spirit, now both to sanctify the sacrifice. This prayer is held to be, now before, now after the evangelical words. Sometimes, however, it is omitted altogether: a fact which I refer to no other cause than this, that that collection of Masses is imperfect, in which many parts B are often missing, to be supplied, I think, by common usage. And if anyone should contend that many perfect Masses are contained therein, in which no trace of an invocation appears, which can hardly be denied, I shall say that it is supposed to be in the entire action of the mystery by the wishes of the faithful. Moreover, that usage of the Gallican liturgy, that the invocation now precedes the evangelical words, now the evangelical words the invocation, proves that it matters little to the matter where it is placed. The Church has two things to perform in the sacrament: that she should both recite the words of Christ, which, as they were once recited at the Supper by His own mouth, so now too by the mouth of His ministers sustaining His person, they might work the wonderful conversion of the Eucharist; and that she should express her own vow, that Christ, according to His promise, might not be absent from His sacrament: since she cannot perform these at the same time, she is compelled to divide them in time. But there is one C action of the sacrifice composed of those two things: which of them either precedes or follows matters little to me, for the unity of this action suffices. However, it seems more apt that the impetrating cause, which is situated in the prayers, should precede and draw on the efficient cause, which we place in the words of Christ; which is the custom of the Latin Church: than that the efficient cause should await the impetrating one present to act, which is the procedure of the Greek ceremony.
CHAPTER XIII. On Holy Scripture, tradition, and the Church.
98. We have here to refute the objections which Rivet levels against the Catholic Church from the authority of Cyril. The first is that we follow a different canon of the Scriptures than the Cyrillian one; just as if, even as he objects the Cyrillian canon to us, we could not in turn oppose to him the canon of the Roman and Latin Fathers. The second is about the necessity and sufficiency of the Scriptures for creating the belief in dogmas; [CCXLII] which he opposes to the authority of tradition and the definitions of the Church. As regards the first, Rivet sins in many things: 1st. That he denies that Cyril acknowledged the history of Susanna, Bel, and the Song of the Three Children. He was ignorant, surely, that Cyril used the interpretation of Daniel adorned by Theodotion, along with the whole Greek and Latin Church: in which there was no distinction, as there is in the Hieronymian translation, of those three monuments from the rest of the text of Daniel; but in the first place stood the history of Susanna; in the middle of the third chapter, the song of the children; and at the end, the history of Bel. The Fathers used Daniel’s exemplars of this kind; all the Greek manuscript codices of the Bibles are D of this kind. But Rivet’s assertion about Cyril is inexcusable, since he cites these three monuments in his Catecheses as true parts of the prophecy of Daniel: the history of Susanna (cat. 16, n. 31), the song of the three children (cat. 2, n. 16; cat. 9, n. 2), the history of Bel and the dragon (cat. 14, n. 25). Furthermore, he reckons the book of Baruch and the epistle of Jeremiah in his catalog; and he held the third book of Esdras as probably being the first of Esdras, along with the rest of the common Fathers. Likewise, he does not appear to have distinguished the additions to Esther in his book from the rest of the text, as one who was utterly ignorant of the Hebrew language: lest Rivet think he used only the canon of the Hebrews; in which alone the Protestants boast that they acquiesce. The second sin of the same Rivet is that he thinks those books which we call deuterocanonical, because they are not recounted in the Cyrillian canon, were altogether rejected by him. In truth, he does not comprehend them in his catalog, as if they were doubtful and not yet received into the canon by any judgment of the universal Church. But he often cites some of them, and undoubtedly would have done the same for the others, had occasion offered itself. He praises the book of Wisdom (cat. 9, n. 2 and 16) under the name of Solomon; and he uses the sentences of Ecclesiasticus (cat. 6, n. 4; cat. 15, n. 8; cat. 11, n. 19). Indeed, he even uses many sentences from the Apocalypse, although he seems to have expressly rejected this book as apocryphal. The same thing happens to him as to the other Fathers, who, when they knew the deuterocanonical books were not received in the canon by all the Churches, did not recount them in the canon. Nevertheless, since there was in the Church a certain and indubitable tradition concerning their goodness and utility, and yet one not so certain and explored and general concerning their divinity, but yet common and uninterrupted, and confirmed by the usage of almost all the Fathers citing them as divine Scripture; he praised them as divine, awaiting the judgment of the Church. Thirdly, Rivet unjustly objects to us the authority of the Cyrillian canon, just as if the Protestants themselves used it; or as if we ought, or even were able, to follow all the Holy Fathers, whose diversity and contradiction among themselves is well-known. But we, with greater right, to them...
A can oppose, first, the ancient canons of the Latin Church, in which we were regenerated, which are the ones we follow; secondly, we object to the Protestants, with greater justice, the mind and opinion of Cyril in describing the canon of the Scriptures. Just as they treacherously despise it, so do we perfectly follow it, even when we depart from his canon. Cyril [CCXLIII] did not compose the canon of the Scriptures on his own authority, but gave to his hearers that which his own Church followed; and he prescribed it as a law that we should hold those books as divine which the unanimous authority and tradition of the Church proposes to us (Catech. 4, n. 33, 35, 36). By that law, we receive the deuterocanonical books, which Cyril himself would receive today, following the authority of the Church. They, putting aside the authority of the whole Church—both that in which they were born and the universal Church from which they withdrew by schism—composed a canon of the Scriptures out of their own arbitrariness. Cyril, in his canon, admitted without hesitation books about which there had formerly been doubt, and about which doubt had not ceased even in his own age: such as the Epistle to the Hebrews, and several of the canonical Epistles; but he yielded to the prevailing authority of the Churches. Why, then, do our adversaries not follow the suffrage of the Greek and Latin Churches, equal in this day, in admitting the deuterocanonical books, even if some doubt regarding them happens to remain, which is to be submitted to the authority of the whole Church?
99. When they were establishing the diverse canons of the Scriptures, there was, however, one mind and opinion. Those who, for example, excluded the deuterocanonical books, nevertheless praised them everywhere in their books as divine without any distinction. But those who received them into the canon did not do so with any certain affirmation or condemnation of the contrary opinion: but, following the tradition of their own Church as an apt authority, they were nonetheless expecting, more certainly and generally, the judgment of the universal Church. Thus, when the African Church in the Council of Carthage in the year 397 had written its canon—which is conformable to the Tridentine one—it added, as if slightly doubting: "Regarding the confirmation of this canon, let the Church across the sea be consulted." And again, in the other Council of Carthage, in the year 419, with the same catalog confirmed, it adds: "So that it may be made known to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface (the Pope) and to the bishops of those parts." Similarly, Augustine, who took part in both councils, when he transcribes the same catalog in *De doctrina Christiana*, lib. II, cap. 8, n. 13, had nevertheless prescribed this rule in n. 12: "Let a student of the Scriptures follow the authority of the most numerous catholic churches." He will therefore hold this method regarding canonical Scriptures: that he should prefer those which are accepted by all churches to those which some do not accept; but regarding those which are not accepted by all, he should prefer those which more numerous and weightier churches accept to those which fewer churches of lesser authority hold. And for that reason, he does not pronounce with such great certainty on the divinity of the books of the Maccabees, as in B *Contra Gaudentium*, cap. 31, num. 38, and *De cura pro mortuis*, cap. 1, num. 3. Likewise, regarding the book of Wisdom, which was rejected by the Massilians, in the book *De praedestinatione SS.* And in the first book of *Retractationes*, cap. 10, num. 3, he retracts and corrects that which he had somewhere called words taken from Ecclesiasticus "prophetic words," because, he says, they are not read in a book of which we are certain that it is by a prophet. Junilius, although an African, in lib. I, cap. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, says of many of the books of the African catalog that they either do not run among the canonical [CCXLIV] Scriptures, or are of medium authority. Although the Roman pontiffs Innocent and Gelasius had given a canon of books by their own authority, in which the books of the Maccabees are contained, their successor St. Gregory the Great, in *Moralia*, lib. XIX, cap. 13, excuses himself for having used them thus: "We do not act with disorder if we bring forward testimony from books which, although not canonical, were nevertheless published for the edification of the Church." We should not marvel that authors of an inferior bench used the same liberty in rejecting some of those books, or in signifying their own doubt regarding them. I praise, as one among all, St. Thomas, who is considered the master of almost all Latin theologians, who in the *Prima Pars*, quaestio 89, art. 8, ad 2, citing Ecclesiasticus, says: "If, however, the authority of Ecclesiasticus is not received, it is because it is not computed among the canonical Scriptures by the Hebrews." Julian of Toledo has almost the same thing to say about the same book in *Prognosticon*, lib. II, cap. 50, although it is known from Isidore, Ildephonsus, and other monuments that the Spanish Church held this book, like the other deuterocanonical ones, in the canon. But after the C long-awaited definition of the Church at the Council of Trent arrived, unanimously accepted by all Latin Churches and consonant with the opinion of the Greek Church, which finally recognizes those books as canonical—I simply do not see what doubt could remain regarding them. Although I am not unaware that there are men of first-rate catholic standing who do not consider themselves to be at variance with the opinion of the Council of Trent or the Roman Church, in admitting a certain distinction in authority between the canonical and deuterocanonical books.
100. I return to Cyril and the Church of Jerusalem. Those books which it did not yet receive in Cyril's time, it recognized in succeeding times. For Damascene includes the Apocalypse in the canon of the New Testament with no sign of doubt. Andrew of Crete, who is said to have come from the Jerusalem Church, illustrated the same book with a commentary. Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, uses its testimonies in his oration *De angelis*, and Michael Syncellus in the ninth century in his *Laudatio in sanctos angelos*, published by Combefis: he indeed uses both the Apocalypse and Judith, Tobias, and the three books of the Maccabees in the same oration. Antiochus, a monk of the Laura of St. Sabas, in homily 17, cites the book of Ecclesiasticus. The aforementioned Andrew, in his second oration on St. Patapius (p. 221), cites the Wisdom of Solomon by name. Finally, the Palestinian bishops in the synod
of Bethlehem, in the year 1672, receive the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, the histories of Bel and Susanna, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees in these words: Καὶ ταῦτα τῆς Γραφῆς μέρη κρίνομεν· And we judge these to be parts of Scripture.
On the addition of the authority of Tradition and the Church to Scripture.
101. I approach another chapter of the dispute undertaken with Rivetus. He triumphs in a way by heaping up many testimonies of Cyril concerning the sufficiency and necessity of Scripture, to which I could respond in a word: he himself admits that the matter concerns the creed, in which we recognize [CCXLV] that nothing is contained that is proposed solely by the authority of unwritten tradition; so that it is not surprising that Cyril asserts with such force that nothing concerning the doctrine of the creed should be handed down without the authority of the Scriptures, apart from human reasoning (for this alone he excludes, not the opinion of the Church proposing and interpreting). But since he attacks both unwritten traditions and the authority of the Church with these testimonies, I transcribe them here, so that I may not appear to be concealing anything. In Cat. 4, num. 17, having set forth the doctrine of the Church concerning the Trinity in summary, Cyril says: "Keep this seal always in your mind, which has now been set forth to you summarily by a review of the chapters; but if the Lord grants, it will be discussed by us to the best of our ability, using demonstration from the Scriptures. For it behooves us to hand down not even the least thing concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the faith without the divine Scriptures; nor to be led away by probable arguments consistency in the artifice of words. Do not even believe me when I proffer these things, unless you receive from the divine Scriptures the demonstration of those things which I announce to you. For this faith on which our salvation depends has its power not from contrived disputation, but from the demonstration of the divine Scriptures." Cat. 5, num. 12: "Embrace and keep only that faith (the creed) which is now handed down to you by the Church, fortified from all the Scriptures... and for now, indeed, keep the faith in your memory by hearing it merely in words; but take the assertion of each chapter at the appropriate time from the divine Scriptures. For the sum of the faith was not composed as it pleased men; but the commendatory chapters selected from all the Scriptures complete and perfect one doctrine of the faith." Cat. 11, n. 12, when he had spoken concerning the mode of divine generation, that the Holy Spirit, the author of the Scriptures, has said nothing about them in them, he adds: "Why then do you laboriously inquire about things which the Holy Spirit has not recounted in the Scriptures? You who do not know what has been written, do not inquire into what is not written." Cat. 12, num. 5: "Let us seek for what reason Jesus descended; nor attend to my reasonings, for it is possible to be deceived by sophisms; but unless you receive the testimonies of the prophets regarding each thing, do not believe those things which will be said. Unless you have learned from the divine Scriptures also concerning the Virgin, and the place, and the time, and the manner, do not accept testimony from man." Cat. the same, num. 16: "Are the doctrines of our faith mere figments of words and human ingenuity and deception? Are not the divine Scriptures our salvation? Are not the predictions of the prophets? Therefore, guard this deposit committed to me, which is immovable, and let no one move you: believe that God was made man." It is ridiculous that he draws this deposit to the entire Christian doctrine, which pertains to the one article of the true incarnation to be believed. Cat. 15, num. 8: "Everything which pertains to Christ is written; and nothing is ambiguous, for nothing is destitute of testimony, all things are inscribed on the prophetic columns; not on tablets of stone, but manifestly described by the Holy Spirit. When, therefore, you hear the Gospel recounting what was done by Judas, ought you not to hear the testimony of that matter from the old Scriptures? You have heard that Christ’s side was pierced with a spear; ought you not to investigate whether that was also written (in the Old Testament)...? You have heard that He rose again; ought you not to inquire whether we are mocking you with these doctrines?" [CCXLVI] It would be a crime now, Rivetus adds, for a Christian adult, much less a catechumen or a neophyte: in these things, certainly, Cyril was not a papist. I did not know that it was permitted for a baptized Protestant to suspend his assent to the mysteries of Christ contained in the Gospel for so long, until he had recognized them as confirmed and predicted in the prophets. Cat. 16, num. 2: "Let us say regarding the Holy Spirit only those things which are written: but if anything has not been written, let us not curiously inquire. The Holy Spirit Himself has spoken the Scriptures; He Himself also said about Himself whatever He willed, or whatever we were able to grasp. Let us say, therefore, those things which were said by Him; for those things which He did not say, we do not dare." Finally, Cat. 17, n. 1: "We shall not use human reasonings and inventions even today, for it is not at all expedient: but we shall suggest to the memory the sentences of the divine Scriptures only, for this is most safe." From all these testimonies, the adversary seems to wish to conclude three things according to the prejudices of his sect: 1° That everyone ought to recall the faith proposed to him by the Church in which he was born to the censorship of the Scriptures; and, setting aside all human authority, to admit what seems to him in conformity with the Scriptures, and to reject what is discordant; 2° that no authority ought to be granted to unwritten traditions; 3° finally, that the judgment and definition of the Church by itself and by its own authority is worth nothing; but is to be listened to only insofar as it shall seem to us to be in conformity with the Scriptures. I already show more clearly that there is nothing in the Cyrillian doctrine contrary to these articles.
102. And first indeed, to pass over that this is improbable, that the one way to find the truth prescribed by Cyril is not there, which 1° is impossible for a great part of men who cannot read the Scriptures either because of ignorance or occupation, Cat. 5, num. 12; then for all, it is long and arduous because of the difficulties of the Scriptures, and the comparison of versions, texts, and interpreters to be discussed; 3° it is easily exposed to error because of the diverse interpretations which all boast are supported by the authority of Scripture; about
which, since it is judged by the opinion of the ancients according to Rivet, I say: 4° it is never sufficiently certain, but always conjoined with fear; for it depends on the keenness of wit, diligence, and learning of each individual. Having omitted these points, I say: 1° the condition of the catechumens whom Cyril addresses is different from that of the baptized: the latter have confessed before angels and men the profession of faith written in heaven (Cat. 19, n. 5). To recall this to their own judgment, and to change it, as the Protestants have done, is, in the judgment of Cyril in the cited passage, the crime of perfidy. There were no such bound by any sacrament who were approaching our religion; that they might offer a reasonable service of faith to God, it was right that they be persuaded of the truth of Christian doctrine both by their teachers and by their own study and labor. To that end, B nothing more useful could be prescribed by the teachers of the Church than that they should compare the history of the Gospel with the prophecies. For us to bring the faith of the Gospel into doubt is a crime. Second, as Cyril himself confesses (Cat. 5, n. 12), there were those who could not read the Scriptures, for whom he says the Church provided by embracing a compendium of the Scriptures in the symbol [CCXLVII]: for these, therefore, the way of finding the truth by themselves was closed. Unless you say that sufficient provision was made for them by the arguments brought forward from the Scriptures by the teachers, by which individual parts of the symbol were proven. But first, it was proper to Jerusalem that the doctrine of the symbol should be accurately demonstrated through diverse catecheses by its individual parts; elsewhere the tradition of the symbol was completed in only one or two sermons, by a bare exposition of the dogmas without arguments. Next, is it the act of a sufficiently prudent man, after hearing the arguments of some teacher, even those most probable, to give faith without any other examination? Especially when it concerns an uneducated and illiterate person, upon whom light arguments might easily place a deception. Third, he does not permit the catechumens to doubt the truth of the doctrine proposed to them before the respective demonstrations are brought forward. This is evident 1° from this explicit assertion in Cat. 13, n. 9: "We have gathered not so that we might now perform a purely contemplative exposition of the Scriptures, but rather that we might be convinced by sure proofs regarding those things which we have believed." They bore the name of "the faithful," not for title and pomp, but so that they might truly believe our mysteries with certain assent. Procat. n. 6: "Miserable man that you are, you receive the name of God (in the appellation 'faithful'); but beware lest you bear the appellation of a faithful person, but the purpose of an infidel." Cat. 5, n. 2: "Here it is now sought that one might be found faithful according to the innermost conscience... that you might show to God the sincerity of your faith, who searches the reins and hearts"; and n. 9: "If you have no or little faith, the Lord is kind, and will propitiously send himself to you as you repent. Say only, and you candidly and from the heart, 'I believe; Lord, help my unbelief'." C These things, before the symbol proposed merely as a model, but not yet proven D and demonstrated. Cat. 17, n. 35: "If you stand in faith, you are blessed; if you have fallen from unbelief, cast off from this day your unbelief, and put on firm persuasion." Yet three articles of the symbol remained to be proven. He commends faith to his hearers in all places and that, too, an intimate one. See Procat. n. 8 and 17. Cat. 1, n. 1, he says they had recently lit the lamps of faith, and exhorts them to keep them unextinguished; n. 2, he exhorts that they might acquire the earnest of the Holy Spirit through faith. Cat. 2, n. 3, he assumes faith formed in the minds of the auditors, but commands them to beware lest they admit anything into their mind which might tear that faith apart. He demands faith before proofs are brought forward for many things. He demands, in Procat. n. 8, regarding the obtaining of the remission of sins through a sincere will and faith; and the whole discourse dwells upon this argument, that they should put away hypocrisy and conceive a sincere faith; he demands it in the whole of Cat. 2, concerning the possibility of the reparation of the sinner through repentance; he demands it in Cat. 3, concerning the presence of the Holy Spirit in the baptismal waters. In Cat. 4, he begins almost every article which he proposes—which he was only to demonstrate at another time—with the word "Believe"; and when he has finished the doctrine of the Trinity, he adds, "Always keep this seal in your mind." Therefore, he did not wish assent to hang in suspense for so long, until the arguments for the doctrines simply proposed and not yet proven had been brought forward. He commands the same regarding the symbol in Cat. 5, n. 42: "I command you to have this faith as a provision for the journey [CCXLVIII] for all time, and to accept no other than it, not even if we ourselves should change and speak things contrary to what we now teach; nor even if an angel adversary transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you into error." He had not yet asserted the doctrine of the symbol with arguments: but he commands that it be received even then with certain and immutable assent. Finally, he delayed the assertion of the truth of the sacraments until after Easter, and the same was received by the neophytes: did he therefore wish that, for example, they should approach the Eucharist in doubt and hesitating regarding the truth of the body of Christ given to them, until in the catechesis the faith of that matter had been made from the Scriptures? Was not a certain faith in that thing demanded by commanding the response "Amen" to the formula of communion, "The Body of Christ"? By these arguments I think it is demonstrated that when Cyril allows himself not to be believed unless he has brought forth certain proofs of the dogmas from the Scriptures, these things should-in no way be understood as suspending the assent of the auditors for so long, but only as regarding the confidence of the cause he was pleading. Now it must be proven that the unwritten traditions were not more harmed by him.
103. There is no Father who has alleged more unwritten traditions, and has spoken more frequently and effectively concerning their force than our Cyril. He discourses magnificently in many places about the force and utility of the sign of the cross, Cat. 4, n. 14, Cat. 13, n. 36; concerning the virtue of exorcisms and insufflations, Procat. n. 9; of the exorcised oil.
A the efficacy of the sacred chrism, Cat. 20, n. 2; Cat. 21, n. 3; concerning the power of ecclesiastical blessings in consecrating baptismal water, Cat. 3, n. 3; the exorcised oil, the sacred chrism, in the cited places; and the sacred eucharist, Cat. 19, n. 7, Cat. 21, n. 3, Cat. 23, n. 7. From which Scriptures do we have these things received, or what testimonies from them does Cyril strive to bring forward in proof of these things? Let us say the same regarding the honor shown to the wood of the Lord's cross, by the faithful who desire to have particles of it, whose faith Cyril praises, Cat. 10, n. 19, Cat. 4, n. 10, Cat. 13, n. 4; and concerning the reverence paid to the holy monument of the Lord, Mount Golgotha, and other monuments of the Lord, which Cyril never mentions without a preamble of honor and decorates with the titles *hagios*, *panhagios*. He argues most copiously and weightily about the power of the holy relics, Cat. 18, n. 16; about the utility of the intercession of the saints added to our prayers in the oblation of the sacrifice, Cat. 23, n. 9, and of the sacrifice offered for the relief of the dead, ibid. n. 10; since a clear argument for this matter is not found elsewhere in the Scriptures except in the books of the Maccabees, which Cyril did not have in his canon, it is necessary that he followed only the authority of tradition in this matter. Nor, in truth, does he labor to bring any proof for all these things. Add to these the perpetual virginity of Mary, Cat. 12, n. 34, the praise of the monastic profession and of devoted perpetual bodily continence, Cat. 4, n. 24, Cat. 12, n. 33, etc., the beauty of clerical continence, Cat. 12, n. 25, and finally the very canon of the Scriptures, which certainly is not described in the Scriptures themselves; the authority of which he draws from the tradition of the apostles and the ancient bishops who were rulers of the Church, Cat. 4, n. 33. Therefore, when in the objections under no. 98 he commands that nothing [CCXLIX] be believed and assented to unless proved by the authority of the Scriptures, he is dealing with the Creed, not with the sacraments and other ecclesiastical traditions, none of which we admit are contained in the Creed. But since the Creed, according to the opinion of Cyril, Cat. 5, n. 12, is nothing other than the sum of the principal points of doctrine contained in the Scriptures, what wonder if in explaining that doctrine one must recur to the Scriptures themselves, in which God has revealed what and how much of the things contained in the Creed we ought to believe; the rest he has ordered to be adored in silence, hidden from the curious to exercise our humility? Such is the force of the testimonies of Cyril that have been objected, especially 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8. But whatever Christ established for the institution and administration of the Church, not everything is consigned to the Scriptures, but some things he willed to be preserved through the tradition of the Church, as all the Fathers teach by their words and especially by their deeds. Secondly, when Cyril forbids anything to be added to the Scriptures, he excludes nothing other than the reasonings of human invention, sophistries, the exercise of the mind upon our mysteries, and as he himself calls them, B *anthropinous logismous*, etc. This is clearly evident from the cited testimonies, especially 1, 2, 4, 5, 8. Very grave causes compelled Cyril to speak and act in this way: the first is the necessity of persuading and effectively demonstrating the truth of our religion; which is established by the authority of the prophets much more significantly than by human reasonings. See Cat. 13, n. 8, and Homil. on the Paralytic. The second was to protect his hearers from the cavils of the heretics. The Valentinians, mixing the principles of Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy with the seeds of Judaism and Christianity, had fashioned an insane system of doctrine with human reasonings, by which they deceived the simple and the unlearned. The Manichaeans also adorned their dreams about darkness and its princes with such pomp of words, C as they disparaged the old Scripture which they slandered, in order to affirm with no sign of doubt that they were surely leading their hearers to the truth, and to persuade many even of this. These were rampant in Palestine in the times of Cyril. Hence the frequent and much-inculcated contempt for human reasoning in his writings, and the diffidence toward it which he commanded to his hearers. But for him, to violate ecclesiastical traditions by word would have been a sin against religion. Nor does he subject the authority of the one defining and prescribing to the censure and judgment of any individual. Cat. 18, n. 23, he writes that the Church is called catholic, that is universal, among other reasons also for this: "Because it teaches universally and without defect all the dogmas that ought to come into the knowledge of men, whether concerning visible and invisible things, or heavenly and earthly things." Nothing is to be added to the doctrine of the Church, because it teaches universally whatsoever [CCL] ought to come into the knowledge of men: nothing is to be subtracted, if all that it teaches ought to come into the knowledge of men; nothing is to be changed or reformed, since it teaches without defect, and there cannot be a greater or graver defect in teaching than the preaching of error. If the Church were to teach what is false, one should not remain in its bosom, but masters of truth should be sought wherever they might be. But Cyril commands one to remain constantly in the Church which is called catholic: for this is the one bride of Christ, the one mother of the faithful; nor does he suffer us to be led away by the enticements of other sects; which, although they usurp the name of Church, are guilty of having unjustly invaded the name of the Church by that fact alone, being destitute of the name of catholic, and are convicted of being worthy of only the name of the "church of the malignants." "One might properly and truly say," he says, Cat. 18, n. 62, "that the church of the malignants is the assembly of the heretics... Fleeing their abominable assemblies, remain always in the holy catholic Church, in which you also were reborn. And if ever you are traveling in cities, do not simply inquire... where the Church is: but where the catholic Church is. For this is the proper name of this holy one, and the mother of all of us. Which indeed is also the bride of our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. From this Church he commands us to seek the canon of the Scriptures and the creed of faith. Concerning the former he says, Cat. 4, n. 33: "Studiously...