DEDICATORY EPISTLE OF THOSE WHO PUBLISHED ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, PREFACES AND SELECTED ANNOTATIONS
A Joannes Grodecius, Dean of Glogau, to the Most Reverend Father in Christ and Lord, Lord Gaspar, by the grace of God Bishop of Wrocław, my most beloved and most clement lord, wishes flourishing happiness.
Everything is full of the catechisms of our time, which are always being forged anew by new authors, through which nearly all innovators strive to hand down their opinions concerning religion to the unlearned youth and scatter them among the common people. But if anyone would wish to compare them with the ancient catechisms of the Fathers, they will be seen to differ from them. It would be safer and much more prudent to draw the principles of our religion from the pure fountains of the Fathers than to pursue the turbid rivulets of degenerate sons. For although these new men boast greatly of the purity of their doctrine, which they pretend to have drawn from the fountains of Holy Scripture, if anyone looks more closely with the healthy eye of the mind, he will see nothing but turbid mud and shifting sands cast by them under the pretext of the splendid Word of God. For both with the Holy Scriptures themselves, when correctly understood, and with the orthodox Fathers, who interpreted the Scriptures in the same Spirit by which they were written, the principles and progress of their doctrine do not agree at all; and they themselves differ vehemently among one another, as much concerning mysteries as other dogmas of religion. In which variety and dissension, the purity and truth of doctrine can by no means consist; for truth can only be one and simple: but falsehood, as our Cyril says (Cat. 6, no. 13), is varied and manifold. Whence this variety of catechisms is born, while each sect hands down new catechisms to its followers, and fashions new institutions of mysteries and new rites of sacred things. He who wishes to avoid this variety and the falsehood joined to it must recur, and diligently consider, the purity of Catholic doctrine and the principles of the nascent Church—what the sacred institutions were then, what the catechisms, what the explanations of the mysteries. It is permissible to perceive this as much from other very ancient writings of the holy Fathers as from these very catechisms of Cyril of Jerusalem: by which he instructed the people of Jerusalem in piety, and handed down those dogmas of the most holy faith which are now vehemently assailed by the worshippers of new opinions. I deem it far more profitable to bring these same catechisms out of darkness into the light and to propose them to be read everywhere by the men of our time than to describe some new institutions, however much they may be adorned with various elegances. For the authority and majesty of Christian doctrine is illustrious among those ancient and orthodox prelates who, by the instinct of the Holy Spirit, taught sound doctrine and true apostolic learning in the Eastern Church and subsequently entrusted them to posterity in writing. And moved by this zeal for antiquity and sincere truth, when some years ago at the City, in the presence of the most reverend and illustrious lord, Stanislaus Hosius, Cardinal D Warminsis, now legate of the holy Apostolic See at the Council of Trent, I had obtained a manuscript Greek exemplar of the Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem, a most ancient prelate—which, so far as I know, had never before been translated into the Latin language or published—I thought I would be doing no small service if, having endowed it with Latin, I proposed it to be read everywhere by others also who are studious of sincere piety. While I was occupied in completing this work, and had already finished it, the most reverend lord, Lord Jacob Uchański, Archbishop of Gniezno, legate born and Primate of the Kingdom of Poland, a man most studious of antiquity and the ancient faith, and most vigilant in defending and propagating the Catholic religion, after he understood that I possessed the Greek-Latin Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem (which he had obtained from Macedonia and Bulgaria, written in the Slavonic idiom many years before, and translated into the Polish language), he shared with me, out of his kindness, his own Slavonic-Polish exemplar of these same Catecheses, and diligently arranged for both translations to be compared together with the Greek original. From which it came to pass that, from a certain wonderful harmony of the diverse language and translation, the constant variety of the institutions shone forth most conveniently. For although some faults and gaps, which are accustomed to be committed by the error of scribes, were not lacking in either exemplar, yet by their mutual collation those having been removed, and the things that were missing having been restored in their entirety, the series of discourse and doctrine so agreed in all things that no suspicion could remain but that these catechisms of Cyril are the most true and most closely joined to the ancient orthodox doctrine. In translating these, we thought that greater account should be taken of truth than of elegance, so that we might approach as closely as possible to the phrasing of Cyril. For where divine and sacred mysteries are handed down, there is danger and a great impiety in withdrawing far from the very words, and in preferring the splendor of the discourse to the propriety of simple doctrine. But since it is well known to me, most reverend prelate and Lord, how great are the cares and anxieties that now affect your mind, how much you strive to labor, in order that, for your divine vocation and holy pastoral office, you may be able to extirpate the new institutions of the sectarians—which are too widely spread—and the doctrines of demons from your fatherland and diocese, and to introduce the ancient discipline of the Catholic religion: and since you have not hesitated to affect me, a humble client, with singular kindness in this diocese of yours, and to admit me into the vineyard of the Lord: I deemed it opportune to dedicate these ancient Catecheses of Cyril to your Highness, so that they might come into the light under your most ample name and authority, and so that they might be read everywhere by the youth studious of the ancient faith, rather than the pestiferous catechisms of the innovators. For since, because of your illustrious pastoral vigilance, you do not doubt to demand of others among my colleagues with frequent exhortations that they not grow sluggish in idleness, but perform the office of heralds of the Word of God: this your singular piety, and zeal for propagating the Catholic religion, has also vehemently moved me, so that at the very first opportunity I…
might gladly satisfy those pious admonitions: but since the means to perform this task are not yet present, and the necessity of the law now hands me over to another matter, I meanwhile offer and dedicate these *Catecheses* of Cyril, in which, for the cause of confirming Catholic doctrine, I have labored to the extent of my strength, to you, most pious prelate, with the highest submission of spirit that I am able. I also humbly pray that you not be loath to accept them kindly, and to further my remaining studies with your favor. Who this Cyril was as an author, and at what time he flourished; then what the character of his writings is, from those things which I have gathered from the writers of ecclesiastical history concerning his life, will appear below.
ON THE LIFE OF CYRIL
Cyril of Jerusalem is reckoned among the ancient Fathers of the Church, those saints truly the affirmers and champions of Catholic and apostolic doctrine; for he was equal to many of those pillars of the Church, and indeed older than many, and he held the orthodox doctrine in common with all Catholics. He flourished more than one thousand two hundred years ago, in the times of the Emperor Constantius and some of his successors. This, in many places, most writers of ecclesiastical history, as Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, and others, demonstrate, and they always make honorable mention of him. A From whom also Nicephorus (1), receiving this, and reviewing in a long series the catalog of Fathers who flourished around the times of the Council of Sardica (which was instituted by the will of Constantius and Constans), records that among the other peers of Cyril, there were also, together with him, most renowned defenders of sound doctrine: Paul of Constantinople, Athanasius of Alexandria, Anthony the Egyptian, together with the whole body of Egyptian monks. He adds thereafter: “Many other esteemed men finally flourished in the same years, and shone in the Churches of God. Among whom especially flourished in learning and eloquence Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa, Titus of Bostra, Serapion of Thmuis, Basil of Ancyra, Eudoxius of Germanicia, Acacius of Caesarea, the successor of Eusebius, B Cyril, who after Maximus administered the Church of Jerusalem, and Theodore of Perinthus, then also Ephraim the Syrian.” These and very many other things Nicephorus writes in that place concerning the men of that century who were illustrious and excellent in Catholic piety: among whom, since Cyril of Jerusalem is also reckoned, what his authority is and how great, anyone can easily perceive. It is also read concerning the same Cyril, that he was endowed not only with other virtues worthy of a bishop, but that he did not lack the gift of prophecy. For when the Emperor Julian, as Socrates writes in his *Ecclesiastical History* (2), had ordered the Jews to restore the temple in Jerusalem, and had provided the expenses from the public treasury, at that time Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, mindful of the prophecy of the prophet Daniel, which also Christ confirmed in the holy Gospels, and predicted to many that in that temple one stone would not remain upon another, said: “This oracle of the Savior will be fulfilled.” C When the bishop had said this, at night a great earthquake occurred, which dislodged the foundation stones of the old temple structure and scattered them all together with the contiguous buildings. And when many Jews had gathered for the miracle, fire fell from heaven and consumed all the instruments of the craftsmen. But the following night, signs of the cross, shining like a solar ray, appeared impressed upon their garments, which they could by no means wipe off. These portents, so stupendous, followed that one utterance of Cyril, brought forth by a divine and clearly prophetic spirit. Nor indeed did he confirm his prediction to them solely by these prodigies on earth, D but God saw fit to illustrate his episcopacy with a far greater miracle in heaven. For while he was presiding over sacred rites, the sign of the cross in the sky appeared at Jerusalem in light over the holy mount of Calvary during the days of Pentecost, at about the third hour of the day, and as the light shone then, it far excelled the rays of the sun in the brilliance of that cross; so that the whole Jerusalemite people, stirred by the excellence of that light, watched that sign of the Son of Man for a long time with the greatest admiration. For even in magnitude that cross was so great that it exceeded fifteen *stadia*, and extended from the very holy Golgotha to the Mount of Olives; and with such light, that not only did all the Christians there feel themselves illuminated and strengthened; but even the Jews and gentile strangers were turned away from the errors of darkness, were illuminated, and confessed that the crucified one is truly God. Just as Cyril himself describes this most excellently in his letter which he had sent to the Emperor Constantius concerning that same admirable sign, and Nicephorus in his *Ecclesiastical History* commemorates the same in more detail. Thus indeed did the Word of God shine in Jerusalem at that time, much more than in these our own last times among us, not only by the preaching of Cyril, but also by the power of God, with such admirable signs following.
Cyril succeeded Maximus in the episcopate of Jerusalem, and he too was there a most great defender of the Catholic faith. For thus writes Theodoret (3): “But at Jerusalem, after that Macarius of whom we have made mention not once, Maximus held the episcopate; a man excellent in defending piety, and he had lost his right eye on that account, and had his right arm cut off. This man having also passed a life unversed in old age, the episcopal dignity of grace had been conferred upon Cyril, a most prompt defender of apostolic dogmas.” For which cause he also suffered greatest persecutions from the Arians. For when they had observed him vehemently opposing heresies and defending apostolic dogmas so strenuously, they used certain gathered slanders to accuse him in a certain conventicle of theirs, and thereafter, just as they did not hesitate to depose many other Catholic bishops in their custom, they did so—and this under the pretense sought from his concern for piety toward the needy, as Sozomen is the authority. But the one hundred and fifty Catholic bishops, who not long afterward had gathered at Seleucia for a synod, did not hold that deposition to be valid, as Theodoret testifies; nay, they preferred to exclude from that synod Acacius, the adversary of him and the author of the deposition, rather than Cyril. Nicephorus, however, writing concerning the acts of the same Seleucian synod and concerning the Acacians, says: “Neither did they sustain the same faith with others, nor answer to the crimes objected against them.” Moreover, invited to hear the cause of Cyril of Jerusalem, whom they themselves had ordered to depart from his episcopate, they did not appear: for there was no one who could force them. But the others (namely the Catholics) not only did these things freely, but they deprived Acacius and whoever had taken refuge with him of his dignity, inasmuch as they had feared to clear themselves of the crimes of which they were accused. From these things it is clear how great was the integrity of Cyril, whom his adversaries of the truth dared not even accuse before legitimate judges, but only among their own sectaries, whose power and audacity had then grown so much, when they understood that the emperor was of their party; so that they nonetheless forcibly and violently turbulently expelled those whom they had once unjustly deposed from their seats, and substituted others at their own whim. Just as happened also to Cyril, who, being ejected from the Jerusalemite seat, Heraclius was substituted for him, as Nicephorus says (4), and to him in turn succeeded Hilarius. For these up to the time of Theodosius
A held the administration of that Church. After them, the divine Cyril recovered his own seat. But how he arrived at his seat again, and in what manner he conducted himself in it, can be seen from the letters of the Council of Constantinople (which was celebrated under the presidency of Nectarius under Theodosius) to Damasus, Ambrose, and the rest of the bishops gathered at Rome, when they write: "In that Church, which is the mother of all others, at Jerusalem, we know that the most reverend and most God-beloved Cyril is bishop, having long since been duly elected by the provincial bishops, who indeed has struggled much in various places against the Arians." Epiphanius also, in book II, tome I, heresy LXXIII, makes mention of this Cyril, because he did not hesitate to contend for the sake of religion, alongside his other bishops, against Acacius the Arian. And Jerome writes of him in his *Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers*: "Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, often driven from the Church and received back, at last under the Emperor Theodosius held the bishopric for eight years B unshaken." Therefore, from these and very many other testimonies of ecclesiastical writers, it is certain that Cyril, as a most valiant athlete of Christ and a most constant defender of the orthodox faith, struggled for many years for the truth of the faith, endured various persecutions, and fought this good fight, from almost the first years of the Emperor Constantius up to many years of Theodosius; and that he finished his course when Theodosius, after conquering the tyrant Maximus (who had invaded the Roman Empire in the West), having rightly settled Roman affairs, returned to Constantinople and was handing over his sons to be educated by Arsenius, as Nicephorus writes: "At the same time Timotheus and Cyril, who had shone in the sees of Alexandria and Jerusalem, departed this life: the one had Theophilus as successor at Alexandria, the other had John at Jerusalem, up to the times of Anastasius and Innocent, bishops of Rome." John’s successor at Jerusalem was indeed Nepos. Thus far Nicephorus. And Cyril indeed, as we read, fought the good fight C and finished his course of life; as for the rest, a crown of glory is laid up for him, which the just Judge will award him. How brilliant and holy a memory of himself Cyril left among posterity, both his extant writings and the fasti of the Oriental Church, or Calendars, in which anniversary prayers and commemorations of saints are described, abundantly testify. For as with other Fathers who are held to be more illustrious in the assembly of saints, so too is the holy memory of this Cyril of Jerusalem celebrated in the Greek Churches on the eighteenth day of March. And in his writings also, the name of "holy Father" is found prefixed everywhere among the Greeks.
CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF CYRIL
That the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem were called "Cyrillian" in the Oriental Church, Nicephorus recounts, and other writers testify that they were not few. For since he was a learned and eloquent man, and had presided for so many years over the Church of Jerusalem, in which he was wont to preach not only on single Lord’s days, as may be seen from his instructions, but also on single days throughout the whole of Lent: there is no doubt that his catecheses and sermons written down were far more numerous than those which have reached us. For this was the D principal custom of the Fathers of that time, especially those who were distinguished among others for erudition and eloquence, that the words they had spoken to the people, they committed also to writing; so that a sure account of their orthodox faith and doctrine might be established, and that the false opinions of heretics might be refuted both by sermons and writings, even after the death of the writers. But if those who were so occupied that they lacked the time to write with their own hand what they conceived in their mind and delivered to the people had certain studious amanuenses, noting the words with such swift pen that they would transcribe their sermons entire, in the same sequence of oration in which they were spoken. Which indeed was not difficult for those Greeks to perform for a double cause: for they possessed miraculous abbreviations of almost all words, of which hardly any part has reached us; and those holy Fathers, in preaching the word of God, used to pronounce with a certain great majesty and veneration slowly, so that the people might be more affected by the venerating discourse, and might more conveniently perceive and hold in memory what was being said. Wherefore it was easy then also for scribes, amanuenses, and students of some famous preacher to take down single words with the pen. That this was indeed done while Cyril was preaching, a certain very ancient annotation, which I found affixed to his Catecheses, as well as the very inscription of the Catecheses, which are called "extemporaneous," or dictated on the spur of the moment, clearly testify. Now that annotation says thus: "Many indeed and other instructions were dictated by Cyril every year, both before baptism and after baptism, to those who had been recently illuminated. These, however, when they were spoken, in the three hundred and thirty-second year of the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, certain students taking them down transcribed, in which you will find for the most part, according to the Scriptures, concerning all the necessary dogmas of the faith, which it is profitable to come to a knowledge of." From which annotation it is clear that which we mentioned above, and that many other Cyrillian dictates or writings had existed; and that these which have reached us, and which now come to light, the eighteen catecheses and the five mystagogical ones, were committed to writing by his students while he was speaking, but were undoubtedly reviewed afterward by Cyril himself (of which also Jerome makes mention, and says that those catecheses of Cyril existed in his own time, which he had composed in his youth). And even for this cause they are called "extemporaneous," because they were not polished by long meditation and the artifice of words; but by the simple and pure interpretation of the pure word of God, as the Spirit gave him to speak, they were accommodated to the capacity of the people. This can be recognized from the very phrase of Cyril, and the composition of his oration: which relies not on the persuasive words of human wisdom, but on the power of the word of God. For he does not use philosophical argumentations here: he does not put forward the grandiloquent opinions of the wise men of this age; he does not instill dreams and phantasms of his own head—as the new catechists of our time are wont to do—into his hearers: but he announces the pure word of God, and proclaims the Scriptures themselves: not twisted into some private and depraved sense, but according to the sense and consensus of that which then flourished, the orthodox and catholic Church. Whence it appears manifestly that he did not institute any catechisms of private opinion, nor deliver any new doctrine of his own to the people: but that which he had received through hand-down from his predecessor the Apostle James and from other apostles: which he had learned from the catholic Church: which he had understood, confirmed by the recent blood of the martyrs. And these catecheses ought not therefore to have less authority because they are called "extemporaneous"; nay rather, they will retain much greater certainty of orthodox religion and holy inspiration. For those things which are written down from the mind of a man by long meditation are rightly called commentaries, if only because they mostly have human inventions and errors mixed in: for since they rely on the persuasive words of human wisdom, [they have] more of the flesh...
than the spirit, more of paint than of true brightness. But those instructions which are made at the time for the edification of one’s neighbor in the word of God, proceed from His own inspiration, who said: "It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you" (Matt. x, 20); and, "Take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given to you in that hour what you shall speak" (ibid. 19). And this we very often see happen in our own experience, that all the best preachers, when they are led not by any perverse study, but by the zeal of God, when they speak words to the people, generally express the thoughts of their minds far more readily than they had meditated; since they are no longer moved by their own spirit, but by the Spirit of God, and they speak without any respect of persons the wonderful works of God, "as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts ii, 4). And that this also happened to Cyril A when, sitting in the chair of Moses, he dictated these divine instructions and delivered them to the people of Jerusalem, is more certain than can be doubted. For we perceive in them how full he was of divine eloquence, how copious in producing the Scriptures, how bold in refuting heretics, how strong a defender of the dogmas of the catholic Church. And in the first eighteen catecheses, the photizomenoi [enlightened], those who had been recently illuminated by faith in Christ, he instructs on matters pertaining to baptism, and deals first with the acknowledgment of $\sin$, which he teaches to be the germ of free will; then of confession, which used to precede baptism in adults; moreover, he greatly commends exorcisms, and shows what power the water of baptism has. Then he proposes the dogmas of the catholic Church, most of them in summary, which he finally explains and interprets more extensively along with the entire apostolical Symbol. In the later five Mystagogical instructions, however, to those who were by then more apt for a more solid doctrine, he delivers solid food, and explains the divine mysteries concerning baptism, chrism, the Eucharist, and the tremendous sacrifice of the Mass. He commemorates, moreover, almost all those ceremonies which are also now wont to be observed in the catholic Church in the showing forth of these sacraments, such as: to renounce Satan and all his works, to profess the symbol of faith, to be anointed with chrism in baptism; to wash the hands, to kiss one another, to make a commemoration of the angels and of the entire heavenly host, to invoke the saints, to pray for the living and the dead, and to offer the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ in the tremendous sacrifice of the Mass. But in all these sacred institutions, he defends not any private doctrine of his own, but the public and pure doctrine of the Church, confirmed by sacred oracles and handed down by the apostles; he attacks the trifles and errors of heretics, and to those recruits who have recently given their names to the militia of Christ, he offers weapons against the Jews and Gentile Greeks, against heretics and Antichrists. With which weapons we also will be able to fight bravely against the heretics of our own time, who renew ancient errors, and emerge victorious. John of Damascus also used these weapons of Cyril B against the Iconoclasts, and it is possible to see this in the third book of his Apology for the veneration of holy images; where, among other authorities of the orthodox Fathers, he cites also these words of Cyril from his twelfth catechesis: "If, therefore, you seek the cause of Christ's advent, recur to the first book of the Scriptures. By six days God created the world; but the world [was made] for man," and many other things, up to the words: "The wooden image of an earthly king is honored: how much more the rational image of God!" Whence it is also clear that these same catecheses of Cyril existed long ago in the Eastern Church in the time of Damascene, which now, after many centuries, are published for the first time in Latin in the Western and Latin Church: not without a nod, and a certain divine providence, so that at a time when, almost daily, new heretics arise, renewing ancient heresies, Cyril also should come forth into the midst among other holy Fathers, and standing in the battle line of the living God, should block the mouths of heretics with his own outstanding testimony of the ancient and catholic faith. Let them be silent, therefore, so that we may speak with Cyril, and let the heretics of our time be put to shame, who deny free will and introduce a certain Stoic necessity of all things; since they see these dogmas of theirs opposed and condemned as heresy, so many centuries ago, in that primitive Church, even by the divine Cyril. Let the heretics be silent who deny that our works are required for justification; who remove the confession of sins; who foolishly reprove the celibate life, the virginal crown, and monastic exercise, when we read even Cyril extolling these things even to heaven and equating them to the angelic life; and confirming that the former have the greatest rewards of the heavenly kingdom. Let all heretics perish who remove the rites and sacraments of the catholic Church, and who trifle that they are human and pernicious traditions, recently devised by pontiffs for the sake of gain; C since we see, even by the testimony of Cyril, that in that ancient catholic and apostolic Church, those rites and most holy mysteries were observed always thereafter, as consonant with the word of God, and instituted by the apostles themselves and handed down through their hands. Let the sacramentarians be struck dumb, who blaspheme the true body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine; since Cyril teaches this truth, which we all as Catholics assert, in such clear words, that he commands not only the intellect, but even the senses themselves to be taken captive into the obedience of faith, and to believe the Truth more, which says of the truth of His body: "This is my body," than our senses, which falsely deny it: "This is the bread which we perceive, [it is] simple." Let all heretics finally be silent and let the doctrines of those who remove the priesthood and the sacrifice perish, who rend with impious tongue the tremendous office of the Mass. Since, as Cyril indicates, twelve hundred and thirty years ago in the Church of Jerusalem, in the holy office of the Mass there were commemorations and invocations of the saints, prayers and obsecrations for the living and the dead, just as is done now in the Roman [Church]; and finally that unbloody sacrifice was offered by Christ Jesus the Son of God, to God the Father, for the sins of both the living and the dead. D These and other dogmas of the sort belonging to the ancient and orthodox Church, Cyril hands down and defends against the erroneous opinions of heretics, in these catecheses which now for the first time in this century come into the light in Latin, which we propose to be read by all who are studious of the truth. Written at Trent, during the ecumenical council, on the ninth day of July, in the year of our Lord MDLXIII.
Dedication Epistle of Jo. Prevotius for his Greco-Latin edition of Cyril, in 4º, Paris, with Claudius Morellus, in the year 1608.
To our most holy and most blessed lord Paul V, Supreme Pontiff, with the most humble kissing of [his] feet.
It has always been my opinion, most blessed Father, that when it is a question of the sacrosanct mysteries of the faith, I should prefer to admire and embrace ancient things rather than search for new ones. For who would doubt that the ancients, drawing nearer to the age of the apostles, excelled both in the purity of their doctrine and in the integrity of their morals? Therefore, in order to publish a specimen of this inclination of mine, I humbly consecrate to your Beatitude the monuments of an ancient Father, and I bring them forth under the auspices of your sacred name—the milky introductions, I say, of Cyril of Jerusalem, by which that very serious prelate sustained souls newly grafted into the Christian body, as if with some excellent nourishment; and I make them common property: these things, which indeed were once published in Latin only, and were perhaps considered as if unpublished due to the defect of a faulty manuscript. Having therefore obtained better codices in the celebrated and most copious Vatican Library of the Holy See, I have accurately described the infinite number of Greek A catechisms—which were almost entirely missed, neither few nor ever before published, and greatly desired by all—and I have collated them with the Latin version with as much diligence as I could; so that those who do not know Greek may read the interpretation more safely than before; for I hope that it will be much more amended. Furthermore, most blessed Father, I humbly beg of your Holiness that you would not disdain to consider my effort in good part, and to receive this slight little gift with a placid countenance; being ready to offer greater things, if my strength were equal to my will: having meanwhile been made certain that I have finally fulfilled the promise I gave to your Holiness regarding the publishing of this Father, permission having been granted by you to that end to go to Gaul. May God grant that the Church—attacked by so many and such great heresies—may at last, under the most prudent guidance of Paul V, be purged of all dregs, restored to its pristine brilliance, and enjoy its supreme pontiff for a long time and in great measure. Paris, Kalends of Sept., MDCVIII. Your most humble servant, Jo. Prevotius.
Hexastichon of Federicus Morellus, Royal Professor, on the enlarged bilingual edition of the Catecheses of B. Cyril of Jerusalem.
Cyril, O Bishop of the Solyma, greets the great Paul, Through whom he will be reborn. Prevotius brought the extensive papers of Cyril from Rome, Under the auspices of the wearer of the purple, Perron. Hence, by the study of Morellus, the sacred writings of the Father Are published on royal presses in both languages.
Preface of Thomas Milles, S.T.B., to his Oxford edition of Cyril of Jerusalem from the Sheldonian Theatre, in the year 1703.
Now at last, learned reader, the works of holy Cyril come forth, polished by my care, such as it is, and greatly adorned by the splendor of the academic presses. The writings of this most holy prelate are indeed most worthy to be edited anew by one most expert in ecclesiastical antiquities: but since men of universal learning—a good number of whom this Oxford of ours has produced even in this present tempest, not very favorable to letters—have either declined or neglected whatever labor this may be, I undertook it, and have brought it to completion as best I could; and I hope you will not be burdened by the fact. I feel that there is no need for me to commend our author, or his Catecheses, which breathe a purely primitive piety, with many words; since so many and such great writers of the ancient Church have celebrated him with most deserved praises, and Nicephorus reports that his writings were honored in the East with the peculiar title of *Kyrillia*. But truly, since it is of prime importance for the deeper understanding of the sentiments of authors that one be well-acquainted with the life, character, and deeds of the writer, I thought it would be to your advantage if, before I spoke about this our edition of the works of holy Cyril, I should briefly touch upon some things concerning Cyril himself and his writings.
Those who have left behind ecclesiastical histories have remained silent about who his parents were and in what year Cyril was born; and although it seems most likely that he was born in the very city of Jerusalem. He had Macarius and Maximus as his predecessors in the bishopric of Jerusalem; and it is established that he was made a deacon by the former, and a presbyter by the latter. He also exercised the office of catechist in the Church of Jerusalem in the final years of Maximus; and almost every day throughout the interval of Lent, he clearly explained the main articles of the faith to the catechumens who were to be baptized at the feast of Pascha. Upon the death of Maximus, or, as some report, his being driven into exile, our Cyril succeeded to the see of Jerusalem, aided especially by the favor and help of the bishops Acacius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, who were addicted to the Arian sect: aided under this iniquitous condition, as Jerome says (1), that if he were to renounce the honor of the presbyterate which he had received from Maximus, he should serve for some time in the place and rank of a deacon in the Church. Truly, however, there is little reason for us to place certain faith in the testimony of Jerome regarding this matter. For the Fathers of the second general council gathered at Constantinople D declare the exact opposite, while in their letter to Damasus (2) they state that Cyril was rightly and canonically ordained by the bishops of the province, and that he so abhorred the Arian faction that he suffered many evils at their hands in various places while he was defending the orthodox faith.
A From this, one may not unreasonably wonder why Rufinus accused our Cyril of variation in faith and communion, he whom Theodoret (1) declares to have been a most passionate champion of apostolic doctrine. Therefore, to confess what is true: although Cyril kept the Nicene faith undefiled, yet he did not cease to cultivate friendships with Acacius of Caesarea, Basil of Ancyra, and others to whom the stigma of Semi-Arianism was attached at that time. From this, perhaps, the malevolent seized the occasion to slander him as having less than correct sentiments regarding the faith. Nor indeed should it be denied that Cyril used the word *homoousion* but rarely—only once or twice, if I remember rightly—in his Catecheses; and although he asserts in the most eloquent terms that Christ is truly God, he nevertheless calls Him "like to the Father" or "like in all things to Him who begat Him," B concerning which formula of speech, see what we have noted at *Catecheses* IV, § 5.
After Cyril had administered the affairs of the Church of Jerusalem for two or three years with the highest praise, a huge dispute arose between him and Acacius of Caesarea, with whom he had hitherto lived most amicably, concerning the metropolitan right of the Church of Caesarea. For Cyril was striving to claim the primacy of the province of Palestine for the Church of Jerusalem, which he vaunted as the mother of all churches, instituted by Christ Himself, founded by the apostles, and always held in the greatest honor by all Christians of all times. But in this unjust and untimely altercations, Cyril consulted very poorly for the ecclesiastical laws, the peace of the Church, and his own advantage. For it had been sanctioned by the seventh Nicene canon that the Church established at Jerusalem (which the Nicene Fathers call Aelia, because it was founded by the Emperor Aelius Hadrian after it had been overthrown by Titus) should hold only the rank of honor next after the Church of Caesarea. For Jerome (2) interprets these words, *ἐχέτω τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῆς τιμῆς, τῇ μητροπόλει σωζομένου τοῦ οἰκείου ἀξιώματος*, in such a way as to assert that Caesarea is the metropolis of Palestine. "If I am not mistaken," he says, "it is decreed therein that Caesarea should be the metropolis of Palestine." And although the highest honor was rendered to the Bishop of Jerusalem at that time, the Nicene Fathers nevertheless willed the metropolitan right to be kept intact for the Church of Caesarea, just as it is found to be even more clearly established in the twelfth canon of the Council of Chalcedon (3).
From this animosity between Acacius and Cyril, the seeds of discord were scattered widely throughout the Eastern Church, while the bishops who held the same sentiments as the Arians joined themselves to Acacius, but those who professed a sounder faith stood on Cyril’s side. Acacius, however, when he could no longer tolerate Cyril claiming equal right for himself and his Church, gathered the bishops of Palestine, deposed him from the episcopate, and drove him from the city. But various crimes were imputed to Cyril by his adversaries. First, because, as Sozomen (4) says, he followed the faith of the Homoiousians, or those who asserted that the Son is like to the Father according to substance. D Yet this seems too improbable, that Acacius the Arian, and the other Arian bishops with him, would impute Arianism to Cyril as a crime. Therefore, I assent rather to Nicephorus (5), who, following Sozomen himself, reports that Cyril fell into disfavor with Acacius for this reason primarily: that he approved of those who praised the *consubstantial* from the beginning. Secondly, they objected to Cyril that he had imprudently squandered Church goods, and that when famine was pressing upon Palestine, he had sold a sacred garment interwoven with gold threads, which Constantine the Great had given to Macarius, to a certain merchant, that he might have something to bestow upon the poor who fled to the bishop. The merchant, however, sold it to a certain stage-actress, who, appearing on stage clothed in that garment, fell while dancing and, unhappily striking the orchestra, was killed.
For these reasons, Cyril, stripped of his insignia and punished with exile, fled from Jerusalem and arrived at Antioch. But when he found this Church deprived of a bishop, he proceeded to Tarsus and stayed there for a considerable time with Bishop Silvanus. Acacius, as soon as he heard of his arrival at Tarsus, sent letters to Silvanus informing him that Cyril had been deposed from his see by the vote of the bishops and was to be excluded from ecclesiastical ministry and communion alike. But Silvanus, because he saw that the sermons which Cyril delivered were pleasing to the people, refused to obey the warnings of Acacius. Then at last Acacius began to rage; and for the space of two years, he continually summoned Cyril to appear before the bishops of Palestine. Terrified by these threats, Cyril, having sent a petition of appeal to the bishops, appealed to a higher judgment, namely, that of the Emperor Constantius; which Socrates wrongly notes as having been done by Cyril first and alone contrary to the custom of ecclesiastical canon, for long before Cyril, the Donatists had appealed from the judgment of the Council of Arles to Constantine the Great. Yet, in the meantime, I think it ought not to be concealed that it was forbidden by the twelfth canon (6) of the Council of Antioch for a bishop deposed by a provincial synod to cause trouble to the Emperor, whom he ought to have appealed to a greater synod.
While Cyril was living at Tarsus with Silvanus, a synod of about 160 Eastern bishops was gathered at Seleucia in Isauria at the same time, that is, in the year 359, in which the synod of Western bishops was convening at Rimini. As the bishops gathered, the synod was divided into two parts, with Acacius of Caesarea, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Eudoxius of Antioch standing on one side along with thirty others; and on the other, George of Laodicea, Eleusius of Cyzicus, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, and Cyril of Jerusalem, whom the far greater part of the bishops followed. These two factions strove bitterly against each other for the space of four days. Acacius and his followers drew up a new formula of faith, in which, rejecting the names of "consubstantial" and "substance," they asserted that the Son is only "like" the Father by will. The bishops of the other party, however, judging that no new formula of faith should be written, approved the Antiochene [formula] with their own names subscribed. But when Leonas, the prefect of the synod sent by the Emperor, saw that the bishops could not come to an agreement with one another, he dismissed the council, yet in such a way that it was permitted for the bishops to meet in the church and deal with their controversies. Therefore, the bishops who favored Cyril meeting together sent for Acacius with his followers, so that they might treat as much of the affair of Cyril as also...
of the other bishops, and judge them. But they, although frequently summoned, refused to come and were excommunicated by the others. When these things were finished and the synod was dismissed, they sent ten legates of their own to Constantinople, who might inform the emperor about all matters. But Acacius, quickly hurrying off from Seleucia, came first to Constantinople and preoccupied the ears of the emperor, who was already more inclined toward Acacius; at his urging, he proclaimed a conventicle at Constantinople, having summoned about fifty bishops from Bithynia; these, together with Silvanus of Tarsus and many others, deposed Cyril.
Cyril, however, having been banished from Jerusalem, remained an exile until the death of Emperor Constantius. When Julian succeeded him around the end of the year three hundred sixty-one, in order to win the favor of all more abundantly, among other benefactions by which he had gained great praise for himself at the beginning of his empire, he recalled the bishops who had been put to flight by the dire persecution of the Arians and were exiles to their own sees. It is therefore probable that our Cyril returned to Jerusalem on this occasion and took up his episcopal dignity. For in the year three hundred sixty-three, when Julian was preparing to restore with excessive expense the temple of the Jews, which had been destroyed by Titus, Cyril, who was then residing at Jerusalem, pondering the matter silently with himself and remembering, as Socrates says, the prophecy of Daniel, cried out before many bystanders that the oracle of the Savior would shortly be fulfilled, and that B the desolation would persist even to the consummation and the end, and that stone would not remain upon stone in the temple. The event indeed miraculously proved this. For when the Jews persisted strongly in the work, and when the foundations had already been bared and they were nearly ready to attack the structure itself, balls of flame, which were to be feared, erupting from the earth with frequent assaults, burned the workers several times and caused them to interrupt the work that had been begun. This is testified not only by Chrysostom and Gregory Nazianzen, but also by Ammianus Marcellinus; who, since he was hostile to the Christian name, can hardly be thought to have invented anything to favor the Christians. In the following times of Julian, nothing worth relating occurs concerning Cyril, except that he provided a safe refuge for a certain youth from Antioch, the son of a pagan priest, who, having embraced the Christian faith and fleeing his father who was angry on this account, betook himself to Bishop Meletius, who sent him by night to Jerusalem and entrusted him to Cyril. Concerning those matters which Cyril did under the empire of Valens, the annals of the Church are silent; but it is credible that he suffered grievous things from the Arians, who at that time filled all places. However, as Jerome says, under Theodosius he held his episcopate unshaken.
Moreover, in the third year of Theodosius, three hundred eighty-one of Christ, the fourth of those synods which are called ecumenical was gathered at Constantinople. Cyril presided over it together with Gregory of Constantinople, Timothy of Alexandria, and Meletius of Antioch. These holy Fathers, after the Nicene faith had been established and confirmed, their first care was to look to the governance of the principal churches of the Orient. And therefore, in place of the intruder Maximus, they constituted Gregory Nazianzen bishop of the Church of Constantinople; but to Gregory, who was resigning the episcopate, they substituted Nectarius. At Antioch, however, in place of Meletius who had recently died, they elected Flavian; and Cyril, finally, was declared A duly and lawfully established. We have received that Cyril survived this council by about five years. For on the eighteenth of March of the year three hundred eighty-six, if one ought to put faith in the Greek Menaea, he, already elderly and worn out by cares, placidly fell asleep. Most of those things which we have said about Cyril are sufficiently confirmed by the testimonies of the ancients, which we have subjoined at the end of the preface; and therefore we have more rarely cited the ancient authors who handed down the deeds of Cyril to posterity. So much for the life of Cyril: it remains that we discuss his writings a little more diligently.
That many of Cyril's writings once existed, more than those of which even fragments have reached us, there is no reason for us to doubt. For since he presided over the Church of Jerusalem for a rather long time, and had delivered very many sermons to the people, it is not to be wondered at if, according to the custom of that century, the listeners, taking them down with a pen, gave them to the public: but the memory of these sermons has perished through the injury of time. But that Anastasius of Nicaea (1) [more truly Sinaita] in his questions and answers on various arguments in the holy Scriptures, makes mention of the commentaries of our Cyril on Mark, and of his epistle to Olympius the monk, I judge that this came to pass because he did not quite cautiously enough distinguish Cyril of Alexandria from Cyril of Jerusalem. But those writings of Cyril which exist today, and which, edited with more polished care than heretofore, we now display to you, benevolent reader, are these.
I. Twenty-three Catechetical lectures, of which eighteen were delivered during the time of Lent to the *competentes*, or those who were asking to be baptized (2), contain an excellent compendium of the whole of Christian doctrine. For after he had prepared the minds of the catechumens with preliminary instruction, and had briefly discoursed concerning sin, baptism, and the principal heads of the faith, he explains at length all the articles of the Jerusalem creed, and completes, if I may so say, the whole body of theology. Although these Catecheses sufficiently declare their own author, and beautifully reflect in the context of their speech the simplicity of the primitive Church, there have not been, nor are there still lacking, those who not only judge them untoward to Cyril, but even assert them to be the offspring of a later age. Among these, the movement is led by Rivetus of Poitiers, a professor of theology not undistinguished among the Dutch at Leiden, who either denies that these Catecheses were written by Cyril; or, if that cannot be obtained, says they are miserably interpolated, with some things subtracted from them, and some sewn on to them.
The first argument, by which he attempts to prove that these 401 Catecheses are falsely ascribed to Cyril, comes to this: since Jerome says that Cyril composed them in his youth, this is by no means probable, that the public instruction of catechumens should have been committed to a youth, and that his authority and reputation for erudition should have been so great that all his words were taken down by notaries. As regards the year of age at which Cyril delivered these catecheses, there will immediately be given a more copious place for discussing that; for the present, it suffices to have noted this: that the public instruction of catechumens was not a work so full of dangerous risk that it could not safely enough be entrusted to Cyril, even though a youth. For the mysteries of the Christians were hidden from the catechumens, both regarding the faith and the cult, and those things were explained to them only which were plain and obvious, and which did not in the least escape the grasp of those who did not understand things above the common level. Moreover, there was no need for notaries, who would take down all his words, since even he himself...
when he had spoken the words to be baptized, could have put them on paper afterward, or his listeners could have taken them down with a pen from the mouth of the one dictating; this indeed agrees with the chronological annotation cited above, whose words are: A (1) "Many other catecheses were spoken, each year, both before baptism and after the neophytes were baptized; but these, while being spoken, some of the diligent took down and wrote in the 352nd year [cccLII] of the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." From this, however, it is possible to perceive that there is no such inconsistency as Rivet claims, between Jerome saying that Cyril composed his catecheses, and the title of the Catecheses, by which it is asserted that they were extemporaneous.
Secondly, Rivet objects that these catecheses in a manuscript of the Augustan Library are attributed to a certain John, Bishop of Jerusalem. But that most learned man is mistaken. For the eighteen catecheses of the Illuminati in this B manuscript are attributed to no one, neither to John nor to Cyril. The notations, or titles of the Catecheses, are indeed listed; but the catecheses themselves are attributed to no one. Marcus Velser prefixed this note: "Catechetical instructions of the Bishop of Jerusalem, whom I think to be Cyril." It must be admitted, indeed, that the mystagogical catecheses are attributed to John of Jerusalem. For the title stands thus: "Five mystagogical catecheses of John, Bishop of Jerusalem, concerning Baptism, Chrism, the Body and Blood of Christ, etc." But if, in one or another manuscript, the erring pen of a scribe may have attributed them to John or anyone else, since Jerome, Theodoret, Photius of Damascus, and others who lived close to the age in which it is certain they were written, attribute these catechetical instructions to our Cyril, I do not care for the manuscripts, nor can I be led to think that the stumblings of an unskilled scribe are more trustworthy than the testimonies of the holy Fathers. Furthermore, it is clear from the catecheses themselves that they could in no way have been written by John of Jerusalem; but rather by Cyril himself, or by an author who lived in the same times as Cyril. John succeeded Cyril in the see of Jerusalem around the year 386; but it is manifest that these catecheses were delivered between the years 347 and 351, not only from the fact that it is said that seventy years had then elapsed since the rise of the Manichaean heresy, but also from the mention of the Persian War, catech. XV, § 3, both of which fit very poorly with the age of John, but fit Cyril very well. Hence it is clear that Rivet, Albertin, and others deal in nonsense while they contend that these catecheses were written by a certain John. Let us see, therefore, whether some things have been subtracted from them, and some added, which Rivet does not hesitate to assert.
Rivet testifies that he found the first addition in catech. XII, § 11: "For if he who serves the Son well abstains from a wife, how was the Son Himself about to come from man and woman?" He says this was added by a senseless monk, because at this time the authority of the Nicene canons was in force, by which it was left to the discretion of the clergy whether they wished to abstain from their wives; concerning which matter, I ask you to see what we have noted on this passage on page 161; to which it seemed proper to add only this: that in many places at these times, not only bishops, but also presbyters and others enrolled in the clergy, led a celibate life as being more perfect: for this reason, therefore, Cyril says quite appositely, according to the custom of his own times: "For if," etc.
Secondly, Rivet cries out that whatever is found concerning the wood of the cross, either in catech. XIII, § 2, or in other places (2), is an insertion. For since, shortly before he wrote these, the cross was found by Cyril, those words *μέχρι σήμερον* ("to this day") do not at all suit his times, since they are accustomed to be used only of things far in the past. But what the most learned D. Cave says (3), that this phrase does not always designate a long interval of past time in Cyril; but sometimes denotes the present time, and is equivalent to the phrase *κατὰ τὴν παρουσίαν* ("at the present time"). Furthermore, Cyril in these words does not refer to the finding of the cross; but he only says this: that the wood of the cross, which remains even now, is a notable testimony of the Lord's death. But as to what Rivet says, chap. 10, that an entire page was inserted from the tenth line of page 274 to the eighteenth line of the following page, since he relies on no argument to prove it, and there is no manuscript codex in which this pericope is not found, nor does any trace of error or fraud appear, we think it just and deserved to be rejected by us as easily as it is asserted by him.
The five remaining catecheses are called mystagogic, as they were delivered to those newly baptized on the days following Pascha. That the author of these is the same as that of the preceding ones will be doubt to no one who has accurately considered what is held concerning the arguments of these catecheses at the end of the last catechesis of the Illuminati. "After the holy and saving day of Pascha," Cyril says, catech. XVIII, § 14, "in the remaining days of the week, after the synaxis, being gathered at the holy place of the resurrection of the Savior, God willing, you shall hear other catecheses, in which you shall again learn the causes of each of the things which are done, and shall receive demonstrations from both the New and the Old Testament." First, concerning those things which are done immediately before baptism. Then, how you were cleansed, etc. C Afterward, he promises that he will speak about all those things which are treated in the mystagogics. Nor, I think, does Rivet say these were added by some more recent person for any other reason than because they declare so openly that our Cyril is the author of the mystagogical catecheses. The style of these catecheses is indeed more concise and pressed than the style of the preceding ones, which I believe occurred for no other reason than the different subject matter of them and the different circumstances of the listeners.
As for the year of his age in which our author delivered these catecheses, the writers of the ancient Church have handed down almost nothing certain. Jerome, indeed, relates that Cyril composed them in his youth. But, with the pardon of those who hold Jerome in the highest, and not undeservedly, value, let it be permitted to depart from his opinion. For the public instruction of the catechumens had not been entrusted to him before he had obtained the honor of the presbyterate; but since a presbyter could not be created until he had already completed his thirtieth year, he must be considered to have passed the boundaries of youth. Moreover, from what he says concerning the rise of the heresy of the Manichaeans, catech. VI, § 12, it is evident that he poured forth these catecheses not so long before he was promoted to the dignity of the episcopate: but in no way will it seem credible to anyone who has looked a little more attentively at the discipline of the primitive Church that he could have become a bishop as a youth.
II. Following the catecheses is the letter which, immediately after he had obtained the episcopate, he wrote to Constantius concerning the sign of the cross from light very thick and shining, which appeared at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost in the year three hundred and fifty-three, if Baronius judges the reckoning of the times correctly, with very many seeing it (who had come from almost all the regions of the world to Jerusalem for the sake of praying or visiting the holy places). Of this apparition, and of the letter written by Saint Cyril concerning it to Constantius, mention D is made (2) Catech. 4, § 7, 10 § 9. (3) Hist. Litter. in Cyrillo.
Not only Theophanes and Michael Glycas, but also Sozomen, make mention of it. Whence I can hardly wonder enough what drove Rivet to assert so boldly that it was either not by Cyril, or that it was written by an Arian Cyril. He addresses the emperor with smooth words indeed, and adorns him with many and perhaps unmerited 402 praises; but I do not quite see whether one can rightly conclude from this that Cyril was not the author of this letter. Who would ever dare to say that Gregory Nazianzen was not the author of the oration *Against Julian*, or Ambrose of his 5th epistle to Valentinian, or finally Athanasius of his 1st oration *Against the Arians*, because in these writings of theirs Constantius is praised? Truly there were many things in Constantius worthy of praise. His hatred against idolatry, his love for the Christian religion, the sharpness of his wit, his prudence, fortitude, and other virtues both of the man and of the emperor; which rendered him worthy of being celebrated by the praises of Cyril and other bishops, even if they felt less correctly regarding the faith. That Cyril, however, was not an Arian is evident from this very letter, at the end of which he seems to exhort the emperor himself to the faith in the consubstantial Trinity.
III. The letter to Constantius is followed by a fragment of a homily *On the Paralytic cured at the Pool of Bethesda* (John v), which we edit now for the first time from the manuscript codex of the Bodleian Library, Roe, no. 25. That this was a genuine work of our Cyril, we arrive at by a very probable conjecture. The style agrees with Cyril's style, and, as is usually done in the Catecheses, the continuity of the discourse is interrupted by frequent citation of Holy Scripture, and is as it were beautifully variegated with certain tesserae. We discover by a most certain sign that it was not a work of a later age: because we see that mention is made in § 11 of prophetic dreams, and of the power to heal diseases and cast out demons; which miracles were scarcely, or even not at all, to be found in the Church after the age of our Cyril. But if we attribute this homily to Cyril from these words of his in § 13, *Perhaps we have been an obstacle to the patristic teaching* (ἴσως γεγόναμεν ἐμπόδιον τῆς πατρικῆς διδασκαλίας), etc., it is constant that Cyril wrote it when he was still a presbyter. For this custom prevailed in the early Church that presbyters would address the people in the first place, and bishops only in the last.
IV. After this homily follows the oration *On the Meeting of the Lord*, etc., which the most learned D. Cave places among the works falsely attributed to Cyril. The manner of speaking is indeed more loose in this oration than in the Catecheses, and the style runs with a certain impetuosity of words; which is not familiar to our Cyril. Nevertheless, many very learned men have not feared to attribute it to our Cyril, supported by very many manuscript codices. One, indeed, of the most eminent Cardinal Mazarin ascribes it to Cyril of Alexandria, which Combefis conjectures to have happened from a slip of the pen of a hurried copyist, writing *Alexandrino* for *Hierosolymitano*. From this oration it is certain that Cyril firmly held the faith of the Nicene Fathers. For concerning Christ, it has this in § 6: *He is the One who is and was before, and who is always co-present with the Father, consubstantial, sitting on the same throne* (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ὢν καὶ προὼν καὶ ἀεὶ τῷ Πατρὶ συμπαρὼν, ὁμοούσιος, ἑμόθρονος), etc.
V. Next follows the *Ecclesiastical and Mystagogical History*, which I found in a manuscript codex of the Bodleian Library inscribed with the name of our Cyril. This treatise had as its author a certain Germanus, long after Cyril's times, the second of that name, patriarch of Constantinople, who is said to have occupied the Constantinopolitan see around the year 1226. This history does indeed exist in the *Auctarium Duceanum*, vol. II, p. 133, but, as P. Simonius notes (1), it is so interpolated that one can scarcely discern what Germanus wrote first, and what was added afterwards by others. We now give you this history, much briefer and, as I believe, more sincere; which indeed P. Simonius promised in the cited place that he would do from the manuscript codex at the end of the *Catena of the Greek Fathers on John*, which he testifies to have found in the library of the Fathers of the Oratory congregation of Paris near the Louvre, and to have retained in his own possession for that purpose: but he never, as far as I know, discharged the promise given. That entire treatise is almost wholly concerned with explaining ecclesiastical and liturgical matters, especially those which pertain to the churches of Palestine, and especially to the church of the Lord's Resurrection in Jerusalem: and from this perhaps some were led to believe that it was written by our Cyril. Indeed, I have found the name of Cyril in this History, as it exists in the *Auctarium Duceanum*, only once. It is worth noting what Germanus says in § 8 of this History, that the custom of praying towards the East, and certain other ecclesiastical rites, were handed down to the Church by the apostles themselves.
VI. It seemed best in the last place to put the letter to Augustine concerning the miracles of Jerome celebrated after his death, which bears the name of our Cyril unworthily. For besides the fact that it is established that it could not possibly have been written by Cyril, because of a notable anachronism of thirty years by which Cyril’s death preceded Jerome’s death: it is so full of such futile fables, and is so deformed and foul due to the infancy and barbarism of its style, that it seems most probable that it was forged two hundred years ago by an idle and most insipid monk. For those ridiculous things which he babbles so ineptly concerning purgatory and the invocation of the miracles of Jerome, smack more than enough of that age and of such an author.
B Regarding the edition of the Works of St. Cyril, that we might see more distinctly what has been achieved by us in it, I think it ought first to be narrated what others have achieved in this regard. There have certainly been many who, in the very beginnings of the revival of learning, worked in various places for the great benefit of the Christian republic, either in editing or in translating the Catecheses of St. Cyril. For the *Catalogus Græcorum codd. bibliothecæ Augustanæ* teaches us that Catecheses were published under the name of Cyril at Vienna in the year 1560: but whether all the catecheses, or only the mystagogical ones were brought forth then, the Catalog does not state explicitly, nor is it sufficiently clear to me, for it never happened that I had the opportunity to lay eyes on a copy of this edition. Around the same time, a certain Jacob Uchanski, Archbishop of Gniezno and Primate of the kingdom of Poland, whom Grodecius reports to have been most studious of antiquity, having acquired a copy of the Catecheses from Macedonia written in the Slavonic idiom, translated them into the Polish language. But a little later, Joannes Grodecius, Dean of Glogów, from a Greek codex, which the most eminent Cardinal Hosius, legate of the Roman See at the Council of Trent, had shared with him, translated all the catecheses, both those of the *Illuminated* and the *Mystagogical*, into the Latin language, and in the year 1564 published them from the press of Christopher Plantin at Antwerp; having prefixed a short dissertation on the life and writings of Cyril. In the same year, William Morellius, printer to Charles IX, King of the French, published at Paris in Greek certain of the catecheses of the *Illuminated*, namely the fourth, sixth, eighth, ninth, eleventh, and eighteenth, together with the five mystagogical ones: but he nowhere mentions what copy, whether printed or handwritten, he used in preparing this edition. From this time, the industry of learned men in editing and at the same time examining the writings of the holy Fathers languished a little; and so it is no wonder that no one was found (except that once or twice the catecheses were printed in Latin only among the authors who make up the *Bibliotheca Patrum*), who in editing these D (1) In *Catalog.* ad fin. not. in Gabrielem Severum, p. 287.
A labored, until Joannes Prevotius published them at Paris in the year 1609, to the great applause of all learned and good men. He, by the help of manuscripts of the finest quality which the Vatican Library provided him, not only supplied the omissions in the Catecheses edited by Morellius and corrected errors, but also brought to light others never before published in Greek (if indeed only the mystagogical ones had been edited at Vienna), corrected the translation of Grodecius in many places, and finally added the letter of Cyril to Constantius as a supplement at the end. The two editions of the Catecheses that followed this, at Paris in 1631 and 1640, express the edition of Prevotius almost exactly. The oration *De occursu*, etc., was first published in Greek and Latin by Laurentius Sifanus, Jurist, at Cologne in the year 1568, together with the orations of Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Timothy, presbyter of Jerusalem, and Amphilochius for the same feast. Then indeed Pontanus presented it in a new edition, and later the most learned Fronto Ducaeus enlarged the *Bibliotheca Patrum* with this oration, as also with other writings of antiquity of great value. Most recently of all, Combefisius, provided with several manuscripts, published it in a new *Auctuarium*, so emended and enriched with his own notes that he left almost nothing for the care or industry of others. Fronto Ducaeus was the first and only one, so far as I know, to publish the ecclesiastical and mystagogical history; however, the letter to Augustine can easily be found among the works of both Jerome and Augustine.
In editing the writings of Saint Cyril, I understood that this task was principally given to me: to present the text, especially of the Catecheses, pure, entire, and cleansed of every stain. For since, through the ignorance or negligence of copyists over the long lapse of time, it can hardly be that the writings of the ancients are not foully mutilated and corrupted, the first and most ancient duty [of an editor] must be that they are freed from such errors. But since this is possible by no other method than the diligent collation of manuscripts, both printed and handwritten, I deemed that this must be undertaken with the greatest industry. First, I compared the text of Joannes Prevotius—which, as I said, he himself greatly emended and supplemented from Vatican manuscripts, and which we have expressed in this edition—with all the other editions I could procure, in order to give it to you corrected even further; and in this way, I easily removed many errors, both of the typesetters and of Prevotius himself. Afterwards, however, I diligently compared all the Catecheses and the letter to Constantius with two manuscripts, and some of them—namely the fourth, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, fifteenth, and eighteenth—with three. The first, a parchment codex written, it seems, six hundred years ago, I found among those codices which were brought from the East and donated to the Bodleian Library by the knight Thomas Roe, who was the first of our countrymen to be an ambassador to the Great Mogul from King James I; the second, however, we owe to the diligence of Isaac Casaubon, who compared the Catecheses and the letter to Constantius with a manuscript codex which, as I think, he happened upon in one of the libraries of France, B and all the variant readings, he noted accurately in the margin. This copy of Casaubon, from his most well-furnished library, was most humanely shared with us by the very reverend Father in Christ, Joannes, Bishop of Norwich; who, for his singular love toward letters, did not disdain to favor our modest efforts greatly. The third, a paper codex, written by the hand of some Greek, as far as one can conjecture from the duct of the letters, not more than three hundred years ago, were provided by the Bodleian archives. I compared the oration *De occursu*, etc., with the Bodleian manuscript codex, and part of the mystagogical history with the codex which is preserved in the library of Magdalen College, Oxford.
When, however, I was comparing these codices with the text of Prevotius, it was a point of conscience for me not to omit any reading at all, even the most minute. For since the judgments of critics (a fastidious species of men) are so diverse that they would deem readings which one of them thought should be rejected, another would value at a great price; for that reason, in order to satisfy both, if possible, I deemed that all of them, absolutely, were to be noted and placed at the bottom of the page. Following the variant readings are certain annotations; by which I strove with all my might for one thing alone: to explain and confirm the rites, customs, and faith of the primitive Church from the monuments of the most ancient Fathers. Finally, I have rendered the translation of Grodecius—which, as I said, Prevotius emended much and improved—more corrected still in many places; though if anyone were to wish it to be perfect and absolute in all its parts, one would have to make it entirely new. Finally, that nothing might be lacking in this edition, it seemed good to append the judgments of learned men—namely of our countryman Cocus, of Rivet, and of Albertinus—decerning Cyril and his writings. The whole work is closed by most copious indices of Scripture passages, authors, and subjects.
Before, however, I put an end to this task of prefacing, I believe this occasion should be seized to offer public thanks to certain excellent men who have deserved well of myself and of this our work. Among these, in the first place, must be mentioned the very reverend D. Henricus Aldrich, Dean of Christ Church; by whose benefit whatever literary leisure I enjoy in this Academy is accepted with as much gratitude as I can offer, and under whose auspices the Church and the Academy C may themselves promise all things that make for the promoting of learning, good morals, and primitive religion. Two most outstanding men also should not be passed over by me in silence, namely D. Henricus Dodwellus and D. Joannes Ernestus Grabius, who by their highly learned advice and prompt aid ensured that whatever was difficult, doubtful, or obscure in this work, should be easy, plain, and clear for me. That our Cyril’s works have been purged of typographical stains is indeed owed to a friend most dear, D. Joannes Potter, Fellow of Lincoln College, a man most learned in Greek literature, and endowed with the most pleasant manners and the highest modesty. These are the things which I wished you to know, friendly reader. Farewell, and enjoy and favor our efforts. D
SELECT NOTES OF THE SAME THOMAS MILLES ON THE WRITINGS OF B. CYRIL
We will not give here all the animadversions of that most famous man on Cyril. We will first single out those which were written against the Catholic faith, or otherwise against the truth, whether historical or doctrinal, and which have been refuted by us either in the notes or in the dissertations. Then, however, we will select those which contain nothing but what is trite and known, and are taken from commonplaces which everyone has at hand. We will therefore record only those which contain something new and unheard of, which are indeed in very small number; or those which, while known and familiar to learned men...
contain the testimonies of authors which are useful to read with profit in connection with the Cyrillian work; those which, whether due to a scarcity of books, cannot be sought out by many, or even for those who have the books at hand, it is convenient to have ready. Furthermore, we do not undertake to guarantee the citations of authors brought forward here, nor do we wish everything that is contained in the notes below to be regarded as asserted and approved by us. We have suppressed the Greek words of the testimonies of many authors, leaving only the version, except for those which might admit of a different interpretation, or which we judged should be included to understand the force and emphasis of the sentiment.
PROCATECHESIS
Ad num. 1. (Oxon. ed. pag. 1, n. 1, not. 4.) A Νοητὰ ἄνθη. *Noēton*, or "spiritual," is always opposed to *aisthēton*, or "sensible," or "corporeal." Hesychius: *Noēta, ta mē horōmena* (things not seen). Suidas: *Noēta, ta mē horata, kai haplōs ta mē aisthēta* (things invisible, and simply things not sensible). Gregor. Nyssen., homil. 6 in Canticum, tom. 1, p. 555: *Noēton (legomen) to huperpipton tēn aisthētikēn katanōēsin*. "We call that *noēton* which exceeds the perception of the senses." It suffices to have pointed this out once. Cyril used this phrase to express the invisible and spiritual grace of baptism.
Ad num. 2. (Oxon. n. 2, not. 4.) B *Apes idōmen ti poiousin hoi pistoi*. Cyril here advises those to be baptized not to be overly curious in inquiring into those things which the Church concealed from them. For the primitive doctors did not rashly divulge the mysteries of the faith and of religion, but set them forth only to those who were initiated through baptism, or the *pistoi* (faithful). Hence that formula which occurs so often in the writings of the Fathers: *Isasin hoi memuēmenoi* (The initiated know what is said). Chrysostom, hom. 40 in 1 Cor., speaking of certain rites: "And indeed I wish to say this openly; but I do not dare, on account of those who are not initiated." And Theodoret, interrog. 15 in Num.: "We discourse obscurely concerning the mysteries on account of the uninitiated; but when these are removed, we teach the initiated clearly." See Tertullian, *De praescript. haeret.*, c. 41.
Ad num. 4. (Oxon. n. 3, p. 4, not. 4.) C *Kanonikōn parousian*. Balsamon in his commentary on canon 6 of Basil to Amphilochius (see Beveridge, *Pandectae*, tom. II, p. 57) says the *kanonikoi* are those who are "being examined in the canon," that is to say, clerics, monks, monachae, and those who have professed virginity. And indeed all who were constituted in some ecclesiastical order were called "canonici." Hence in canon 15 of the Council of Laodicea, *kanonikoi psaltai* (canonical chanters) are found: who are said by Zonaras to be *en klērō tetagmenoi* (enrolled in the clergy); by which they are distinguished from those laymen who, as Balsamon notes in his commentary on the cited canon, "began divine canticles in the churches in contempt of the clergy." And in canon 2 of the Council of Antioch, these words, *eis to kanonos*, are translated by Dionysius Exiguus thus: "Any one of the clergy."
Ad num. 9. (Oxon. n. 5, p. 7, n. 1.) D *Tous exorkismous dechou meta spoudēs*. Entirely similar to this is what Greg. Nazian., orat. XL *De baptismo*, advises those to be baptized: "Do not spurn the medicine of exorcism, nor lose heart at its length. For this too is as a Lydian stone, by which it is tested with how sincere a heart each one approaches baptism." Through these exorcisms, in the times of the nascent Church, demons were cast out from the bodies of the obsessed, by adjuring them, namely, by the name of the Lord Jesus, the power of which name the demons even tremble at and recoil from, and today as well they obey us when adjured by the name of Jesus Christ. The words are those of Justin Martyr in the *Dialogo cum Tryphone*, p. 247. And this *charisma*, as it is called in *Constit. apostol.*, lib. VIII, c. 26, was common in those times to laymen along with the clerics; but it is manifest not only from the fact that in Mark XVI, 17, the casting out of demons is numbered among the signs that would follow those who believe; but also from the writings of the most ancient Fathers, especially Tertullian, who declares the sum of all Christian power over demons in these words: "Let there be brought forward here some one under your tribunals who is known to be possessed by a demon. When that spirit is commanded by any Christian to speak, he will as truly confess himself a demon as he will elsewhere falsely call himself a god." And shortly after: "Unless the demons confessed themselves, not daring to lie to a Christian, shed there the blood of that most forward Christian." *Apologet.*, cap. 23. And lest I bring forward more testimonies in a matter so manifest, in the book *De corona milit.*, cap. 41, he says that unclean spirits were cast out by the soldiers themselves: "And those," he says, "whom he drove away by day with exorcisms, he will defend by night." But in the following centuries of Christianity, exorcism was a proper and peculiar office in the Church. In canon 24 of the Council of Laodicea, exorcists are numbered among the minor orders of the Church. And canon 26 of the same council forbids those to exorcise who have not been ordained to that office by a bishop (I add, or by a chorepiscopus according to canon 10 of the Council of Antioch), or, as Balsamon speaks, "not having received this through episcopal imposition of hands." The same Balsamon in his commentary on this canon says the office of exorcists is "to katechein tous apistous" (to instruct the unbelievers), that is, to prepare them for baptism by rebuking the unclean spirit (Isidor., *De offic. div.*, lib. II, cap. 20) and by praying to God that He might render them free from the bonds of the devil and his miserable servitude. See *Eucholog. Graec.*, p. 335, edited at Paris by Goar, 1647.
Ad num. 10. (Oxon. n. 6, p. 8, not. 1.) D *Kai Samareitōn*. The Samaritans were a remnant of the Babylonians, whom the king of the Assyrians sent, when the Israelite people were led into captivity, that they might be a protection to that region, and thence the name of Samaritans was imposed upon them. 4 Kings XVII, 24. Origen, *in Joan.*, p. 329: "The Hebrews also call *Somer* a guardian, and thus they hand down that the Samaritans were first so called, because they were sent by the king of the Assyrians for the keeping of the land of Israel after the captivity of Israel." Epiphanius defends the same etymology of the name, and added another to it, tom. 1, lib. 1, *in Haer. Samaritan.*: "But you may interpret Samaritans as guards... or because they were guards of the constitution according to the law of Moses." Others, again, bring forward another reason for the name, and a truer one, and wish them to have been called Samaritans from *Schemer*, from whom Amri, king of Israel, bought the mountain of *Semer*, on which he later built the city called Samaria, 3 Kings XVI, 24. Now what were the dogmas of those Samaritans against which Cyril advises the catechumens to take up arms, not only does he show elsewhere himself, but Epiphanius will teach us more plainly in the cited place: "Furthermore, they differ from the Jews in this first, that the writings of the prophets were not handed down to them according to Moses: but only the five volumes which were given to the generation of the Israelites through Moses, when they had departed from Egypt." And shortly after: "They are ignorant of the resurrection of the dead, nor do they think it possible: then they reject the Holy Spirit, whom they indeed do not know." To which we must add what Leontius Byzantinus has about the Samaritans, *De sectis*, act. 2, p. 422: "They believe there is neither an angel, nor an immortal soul, nor a resurrection." Of this impious heresy, and that which lacks all reason
A regarding such matters, the pious and wise Emperor Justinian judged that they should be restrained by heavy penalties. For in the *Codex*, lib. 1, tit. 5, c. 17, he orders that "their synagogues be destroyed, and if they attempt to do otherwise, they shall be punished. And that they cannot have successors by will, or intestate, except for the orthodox; nor may those who are not orthodox give or otherwise alienate their property; but the treasury itself shall claim it under the providence of the bishops and governors."
Ad num. 17. (Oxon. n. 6, p. 8, n. 1.) *And to blot out the handwriting that was against us.* Thus the priest in the liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem, which is ascribed to St. James, prays after the consecration of the Eucharist: "And according to thy equity and thy ineffable humanity, passing over and blotting out the handwriting which is against us thy servants, grant us," etc.
CATECHESIS I.
Ad titulum. (Oxon. edit. p. 15, not. 1.) *And reading.* Regarding the reading of the sacred Scriptures, these points must be observed: 1. These readings, or *anagnōseis*, were held after the collect. Hence the rule, which is found in almost all books of sacraments, both published and in manuscript: "After the collect follows the Apostle," i.e., the reading from the Apostle, or epistle. For although these readings were taken not only from the apostolic Epistles, but also from the books of the Old Testament, and often from both; yet I find the name "Epistle" attributed to them; because, of course, they were for the most part taken from the Epistles of the apostles and specifically from the divine Paul. In the liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem, which is ascribed to Saint James, after the collect is also read "the holy oracles of the Old Testament," etc. (The holy oracles of the Old Testament are read, C see the liturgy of Saint James in *Bibliotheca Patrum*, vol. II, p. 4, edit. Paris 1624); but with the interposition first of a prayer, then of the priestly salutation, *Peace be to all*, and the response of the people, *And with thy spirit*, together with *Alleluia*, which the choir sings. 2. In the most ancient times of the Church, not only were the books of the Old and New Testament read, but also some writings of the holy Fathers, namely Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, and the epistles of bishops, especially those which they called "irenical" and "communicatory," by which, that is to say, commerce, concord, and discipline were maintained among the bishops. But in subsequent times of the Church, the 59th canon of the Council of Laodicea forbade "books not canonical to be read in church, but only the canonical ones of the Old and New Testament." "We must not... read in church... uncanonical books, but only the canonical ones of the Old and New Testament." Zonaras wishes those books to be called canonical by the Fathers of this council "which are listed in the 85th canon of the holy apostles; but not canonical, those of which there is no mention in that canon." 3. All liturgical readings (the Epistle as well as the Gospel) were read from the ambo or pulpit, as if from a tribunal; from which also the bishop held sermons to the people. Cyprian, epist. 39, dealing with a certain Celerinus, whom after his confession he had ordained a reader, says: "What else, he says, than that he should be placed upon the pulpit, that is, upon the tribunal of the church, so that, supported by the dignity of a higher position and conspicuous to the whole people for the brightness of his honor, he may read the precepts and Gospel of the Lord, which he follows courageously and faithfully." That bishops used to exhort the people from this place, we have as a witness D Prudentius in his hymn on St. Hippolytus: *Beneath the opposite front, a sublime tribunal is raised,* *From which the bishop preaches God.*
1234 Ad num. 5. (Oxon. edit. n. 5, p. 18, not. 1.) *The time of confession is present,* etc. The confession of all sins always preceded baptism (after the example of the baptism of John, Matt. iii, 6. See catech. 3, § 4). This can be proven by the testimonies of very many holy Fathers. Tertullian, in the book *De baptismo*, c. 20, "Those about to enter," he says, "into baptism with frequent prayers... and with the confession of all past misdeeds, so that they may also set forth the baptism of John." Gregory Nazianzen supports him, who in orat. 40 speaks thus to those being baptized: "Do not consider it a grave thing to confess your sin, knowing in what way John baptized: so that through the shame of this life, you may escape the shame and ignominy of the future age." See Eusebius book iv, c. 61, *De vita Constantini*, where he describes the order of that baptism, and Socrates, *Histor. eccles.*, lib. v, c. 17.
CATECHESIS II.
Ad num. 1. (Oxon. edit. n. 1, p. 20, not. 1.) *Self-determined evil, a sprout of the will. And that we sin by our own choice,* etc. These and many other things which are found in this catechism about man sinning by his own will were said by Cyril for this end, to overthrow the insane error of the Manichaeans; who taught their followers that sin does not proceed from the free will of men, but either from an evil God or an evil soul, which they dreamed was in every man. St. Augustine, *De hæres.* in the heresy of the Manichaeans: "The origin of sins, he says, they attribute not to the free will of the will, but to the substance of an opposing race, which they dogmatize as being mixed in men, and assert that all flesh is not the handiwork of God but of an evil mind, which they say is coeternal with God from a contrary principle." Augustine refutes this error in his three books *On Free Will*.
Ad num. 4. (Oxon. n. 3, p. 22, not. 1.) *Having taken the capacity to sin not from nature... the devil became such from his own choice.* Thus Chrysostom on the devil as tempter: "The devil is extremely evil, not by nature but by the purpose and sentiment of his mind." And Theodoret, ser. 3 against the Greeks, p. 54: "We say, he says, that these (demons) were not created evil from the beginning by the God of the universe, nor did they receive a nature of such a kind, but that they fell headlong from better to worse by the vice of their will." Prudentius also, speaking of the devil, says: *But made from the stock of goodness to be used,* *Produced, and first-born from the serene fountain,* *He became worse soon of his own accord.* See also Epiphanius, in the heresy of the Manichaeans, n. 16, and Lactantius, lib. ii, c. 8. Since these, and other infinite things with which the writings of the Fathers everywhere abound, concern the devil sinning by his own will, just as they were said to that end so that no one might consider God the author of sin, so also they are to be understood with respect had to the impious error of the Manichaeans, who maintained one principle was evil by its own nature.
Ad num. 12. (Oxon. n. 7, p. 27, not. 1.) *He stripped off the sackcloth instead of purple.* Sackcloth is a garment vile and abject, of a black color, as is gathered from Apocal. vi, 12, and which the holy Fathers deem the proper garment of penitents. Theophylact, in cap. xi Matt: "Sackcloth, a symbol of repentance. Sackcloth is a symbol of penitence." Cyril of Alexandria in *Amos*, num. 75, calls sackcloth *the habit of those mourning*, and elsewhere *a wretched garment*. Tertullian, *De pænitentia*, cap. 9, says it is for the penitent to "lie in sackcloth and ashes." Ibid. (Oxon. n. 7, p. 27, not. 2.) *On ashes*
and earth the king sat. A It was a custom for those to be sprinkled with ashes who, on account of some notable calamity, walked about sad and mourning, even among the Gentiles. Hence, among the Greeks, captives were led out with heads soiled with dust, as Cnemon confesses of himself, whom his father (as Heliodorus relates, *Histor. Æthiopic.*, lib. 1) brought before the people, having poured dust over his head; and in book iv, Charicles reveals: "having poured dust over his face and head," that is, with face and head sprinkled with ashes. Hence Seneca, in *Troad.*, concerning the chorus of mourners: "Loosen the hair, let the tresses flow down the necks, O desolate Troy, in the warm dust." See II Kings xix, 19; Esth. iv, 1; Job ii, 8; xlii, 6; Jer. vi, 26; Matt. xi, 21; Luke x, 13. Hence, among the penitents, it was customary to lie on the ground, B and be in ashes, dust, and dung, which the Gentiles called *pilosin*, *kataborborosin*, *gymnon en pelo kalindesin*. Cyprian, book *De lapsis*: "Daniel also, after the manifold grace of his faith and his innocence, after the favor of the Lord so often repeated concerning his virtues and praises, still strives to merit God by fasts, and rolls himself in sackcloth and ashes."
Ad num. 15. (Oxon. n. 10, p. 50, not. 1.) *For not according to the generation and conjunction of the stars, as some babblers say*, etc. Cyril attacks the vanity of astrology and genethliacs with these words; Origen teaches us that it was propagated from the Chaldeans to other nations, *Contra Celsum*, p. 350: "It pleased Celsus to call the most divine nations the first of the Chaldeans, from whom the fallacious discipline of the genethliacs was propagated to men." That this sidereal science was in favor among some in the centuries after Christ can be learned from Tertullian and Basil. Tertullian, *De idololatria*, cap. 9: "Of astrologers," he says, "one must not even speak; but since some have challenged me in these days, defending for themselves the perseverance of this profession, I shall use few words." And St. Basil, *homil. 6 In Hexaemeron*: C "But those men who overstep the boundaries to the defense of the most vain genethliac art, try to draw this judgment of Scripture (Gen. 1, 14) to it. And yet they say our life depends on the motion of the celestial bodies, and for this reason, from the sidereal observations of the Chaldeans, the effects which happen to us come to be." And a little later: "For what do they say? (the astrologers) doubtless that the conjunction or commixture of the stars which are moved towards those stars which are placed in the zodiac circle, if such be the figure of those concurring among themselves, will effect such generations and births of men." Against these, not only Christians, namely Bardesanes the Syrian, Origen, and others cited by Eusebius, *De præpar. evang.*, lib. vi, cap. 2, disputed; but even the philosophers themselves, Phavorinus in A. Gellius, lib. xiv, cap. 19, and others in Eusebius, lib. vi, c. 6, *De præpar. evang.*
CATECHESIS III.
Ad num. 3. (Oxon. n. 2, p. 34, not. 1.) *Having put on most bright garments.* We noted above the ancient custom that those baptized, immediately upon ascending from the water, were clothed in a white garment. To which it will not be irrelevant to append the testimony of Dionysius in the book *De ecclesiast. hierarch.*, chapter on Baptism: "The pontiff standing above, when the priests have proclaimed the name of the one to be initiated at the waters toward the pontiff, immerses him three times, invoking the three persons of the divine blessedness during the triple immersion and emersion. Then the other priests, receiving him, hand him over to the sponsor or author of his admission, and where they have clothed the initiated one with him in a fitting garment, they lead him back to the pontiff," etc. Maximus, in a scholium D on this passage, interprets the fitting garment as "white": *katalledlon* [that is to say, white]. *Fitting*, i. e., *white*. See p. 260. There are, indeed, many and most grave reasons why those who had been recently baptized walked about as candidates. I. The purification from the filth and defilement of sins, which is done through baptism, is very appropriately designated by the white garment. Origen, *hom. 12 in Exod.*: "Your garments are washed when you have come to the grace of baptism; you are purified in spirit, purified in body, cleansed from all defilement of flesh and spirit." And Amalarius Fortunatus, lib. 1 *De eccles. Officiis*, cap. 27: "We are baptized," he says, "in the Holy Spirit when we are washed from sins, which washing the white garments in baptism signify for the whole body." See Chrysost., *homil. in psalm. CXVIII*; Ambrose, lib. *De iis qui mysteriis initiantur*, cap. 7. II. Just as by the baptismal immersion the burial of Christ is represented, and by his emersion the resurrection, which is the most certain pledge of our own resurrection; so the glory of the resurrection is not more aptly shadowed forth by any symbol than by the white garments of the baptized. No one is ignorant that the color white was formerly used in joyful matters. Horace, *Satyr.*, lib. 2, sat. 2, verse 56, wishes festive days to be celebrated with white garments: "Let him celebrate the repotia, birthdays, or other festive days of the gods, dressed in white." But now no day will shine brighter for pious souls than when they shall rise again to the blessed life. It is fitting, therefore, that those who bear the type of their own as well as Christ's resurrection should be adorned with a splendid garment. Hence Augustine, *serm. 163, De temp.*: "To this end," he says, "the Lord rose today, that he might show us the image of the future resurrection; and therefore today, rising again in the vital laver, the people of God illuminate our Church after the likeness of the resurrection with the splendor of a snow-white color." And Amphilochius, in *Vita Basilii*, calls the white garment of the baptized "the garment of Christ's resurrection," *ta tou Christou anastaseos amphia*. In which, surely, when the Lord was raised, angels appeared as a sign of joy. III. Those manumitted were clothed with a white garment. Tertullian, *De resurrect. carnis*, cap. 57: "But indeed they are honored by the whiteness of the white garment, and the honor of the golden ring, and the name of the patron and the tribe and the table." Artemidorus, lib. 2, cap. 3, *Oneirocritic.*: "Only priests and servants of the Greeks are clothed in white garments." But through baptism we are liberated from the hand or power of the devil: therefore, in sign of their liberty, the baptized is clothed in a white garment. This garment they took off on the eighth day, on the Saturday after Pascha or Pentecost, etc., and the baptized stored it in the church. Hence Augustine, *serm. 107, De Domin. in oct. Pasch.*: "The Paschal solemnity," he says, "is concluded by today's festival, and therefore today the habit of the neophytes is changed: yet so that the whiteness which is put off from the habit may always be held in the heart." Ibid. 2. (Oxon. ibid. not. 2.) *Do not approach the laver as water*, etc. By these and the following words Cyril asserts that the power and efficacy of baptism does not reside in the element of water, but in the Holy Spirit, who uses the water for all these things as an instrument. The Fathers agree with this. Chrysostom, *homil. 35, in Joan.*: "Just as the nature of this water did not heal by itself (if indeed it had always healed), but only when it was moved by the angel: so in us, simple water does not work, but when it receives the grace of the Spirit, it washes away all sins." And Ambrose, lib. *De iis qui mysteriis initiantur*, cap. 4: "Hence understand," he says, "that water does not cleanse without the Spirit: and therefore you have read that three things in baptism are one, water, blood, and spirit; because if you take away one of these, the sacrament of baptism does not stand. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect, nor again is it without the mystery of the water of regeneration."A that He might sanctify baptism, and the waters that were to mystically wash away the filth of sins. Whence Hilary, *can. 2 in Matthæum*: "Indeed He was not in need of the washing... but through Him in the waters, our sanctification was to be cleansed." And Jerome, *Adversus Luciferianos*, t. II, edit. Froben. p. 158: "Our Lord," he says, "was not so much cleansed in the washing, as He cleansed all waters by His own washing." With these also agrees St. Ignatius in his genuine epistle to the Ephesians, 18: "Who... was baptized that by His passion He might purify the water." For "that by His passion He might purify the water," which does not quite suit baptism, Theodoret in *dialogo 1*, and Macarius Chrysocephalus in the manuscript *Catena on Luke* III, 21, read: "that our mortality might be cleansed." See Ambrose in *Luc. III*, and Optatus Milevitanus, *lib. 1*.
Ad num. 13. (Oxon. n. 19, p. 41, not. 3.) "So also you, before baptism, struggle against your adversaries... but having received grace... then struggle." For when we have received the grace of the Holy Spirit through baptism, then at last we have the strength and the armor by which we can resist the devil and his temptations. Hence Gregory Nazianzen, *orat. 40*, *In sanctum baptisma*: "If the persecutor of light and the tempter has assailed you after baptism, as surely he will assail you (for he set out to attack even the Word and God Himself on account of the veil of the flesh; that light, I say, hidden on account of His humanity which falls into our view), you have the means by which you may overcome him: do not shrink from the struggle; set the water against him, set the Spirit against him, in which all the fiery darts of that wicked one shall be extinguished."
CATECHESIS IV.
Ad n. 6. (Oxon. n. 4, p. 48, not. 3.) "Some deified the sun, others the moon." Cyril is without doubt attacking the heathens, who followed the sun, moon, and other celestial bodies with religious worship. That nearly all the nations surrounding Palestine did this is certain. The theology of the Egyptians calls the sun *μοῦνον οὐρανοῦ θεόν*, "the unique God of heaven"; indeed, the Jews themselves worshiped the sun, called by them by the names Baal or B Beel, and contracted into Ba and Bel by the Hebrews, and the moon, which they called "Astaroth" or "Astarte." Jud. 11, 13. The Phoenicians venerated the sun, whom they called Beelsamen, with vows, prayers, and sacrifices when they were afflicted by the sad calamity of drought; which Eusebius, *Præparat. Evang.*, lib. 1, cap. 7, notes from the books of Sanchoniathon in these words: "And when drought had occurred, they raised their hands to heaven toward the sun. For this one alone," he says (Sanchoniathon), "they thought to be God; calling him Beelsamen, the Lord of heaven." Porphyry also, *lib. 2 De Abstinentia ab esu animalium*: "The Phoenicians, in great disasters of war, or heat, or pestilence, sacrificed one of their dearest to Saturn." That the sun was called Saturn by the Phoenicians is known to everyone. Among the Persians, the sun was held as a god, whom they called Mithras. Hesychius: *Mithras, the sun among the Persians*, and similarly Suidas in the entry *Mithron*. Hence in old inscriptions in Gruter, p. 34, n. 4, "To the unconquered Sun," and n. 8, "To the Sun Mithras," and n. 10, "To the unconquered God Mithras." Indeed, that the sun was the greatest of the gods among the Persians we are taught by Herodotus, lib. 1, and Strabo, lib. 15. See Justin's *Historia*, lib. 1. Regarding the moon worshiped by the Persians and Egyptians, see Herodotus, lib. 1, cap. 131, and lib. 2, cap. 47.
Ad eumd. num. (Oxon. n. 4, p. 49, not. 1.) "And other parts of the world." Cyril understands the elements which the Gentiles C worshiped with old-womanish superstition: the Phrygians, the earth, which they called Cybele, Dindymene, Berecynthia, Pessinuntia, etc.: the Egyptians, the water, which they called Osiris and Typhon:
The Greeks and Romans called the air, A which they believed was the cause of power, Jupiter, and the passive element Juno. See Seneca, *Naturales quaestiones*, lib. II, cap. 14; Athenagoras, *Legatio pro Christianis*, and Servius, *ad Aeneida*, verse 275; Cicero, in *De natura deorum*. Finally, the Persians called it fire. Maximus of Tyre, *dissertationes* 38: "All barbarians alike understand that there is a God. Meanwhile, they established for themselves various signs. The Persians [take] fire, an image that lasts but one day, a thing voracious and insatiable." And from this arose the custom that sacred fire was carried before their kings as they went out in public. See Q. Curtius, lib. III, c. 3; Ammianus Marcellinus, p. 233; Evagrius, *Hist. eccl.*, lib. V, cap. 14.
Ibid. (Oxon. ibid. not. 2.)* "And the arts." It is a wonder our author does not mention those arts over which the goddess Minerva presided, who was honored with the greatest reverence by the Greeks and Romans. What if the philosopher Anaxagoras, who, as Aelian reports (*Var. hist.*, lib. VIII, cap. ult.), set up twin altars, one to Mind, the other to Truth, could he not be considered to have cultivated the arts? It is likely that he understood the other arts as well, such as singing, medicine, etc., over which the Muses, Apollo, and Aesculapius presided.
Ibid. (Oxon. ibid. not. 3.)* "And the foods." Cyril refers to the Egyptians; of whom Juvenal says, *Sat.* 15: It is a sin to violate and crush with the tooth the leek and onion. O holy nations, for whom these deities grow in gardens! Every table abstains from wool-bearing animals; There, it is a sin to slay the offspring of a kid.
Ad num. 10. (Oxon. n. 7, p. 52, not. 3.)* "And the whole world has since been filled with parts of the wood of the Cross." Cyril uses the same argument in *Catech.* 13: "Truly," he says of Christ, "He was crucified... for if I were to deny it now... the wood of the Cross, which has been spread in pieces from this place throughout the whole world, will convict me." And *Catech.* 10, regarding the testimony of Christ to the cross: "The wood of the Cross," he says, "testifies to this day, appearing among us, and among those who, through faith, receive from it, by which almost the whole world has now been filled." That the Cross was discovered during the times of Constantine the Great is testified to by Cyril himself elsewhere, and is also amply taught to us by Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, and others. Cyril in his letter to Constantius: "In the time," he says, "of your father Constantine of blessed memory, beloved of God, the saving wood of the Cross was discovered in Jerusalem." As to the circumstances of the finding of the Cross, Socrates has recorded it in *Histor. eccles.*, lib. I, c. 17; Theodoret, lib. I, c. 18; Sozomen, lib. II, cap. 1.
Ad num. 12. (Oxon. n. 8, p. 55, not. 2.)* "And if you disbelieve in the Resurrection." All the heretics, who claimed that Christ appeared B only in appearance, denied both the resurrection of Christ and that of other men. See Tertullian, cap. 1 *De carne Christi*. And for that reason, in his book *De carne Christi*, Tertullian included a final reference to his book *De resurrectione carnis*. See the last chapter of *De carne Christi*. But before others, the Manichaeans are to be noted, whom Cyril is to be considered to be addressing especially here and throughout this entire catechism. For they denied the resurrection of both Christ and all mankind. That they did not believe in Christ's resurrection is taught to us by St. Augustine in his work on the heresy of the Manichaeans: " The Manichaeans," he says, "say that Christ not only feigned his death, but also his resurrection." Theodoret says that they felt the same way about the resurrection of all men, *Haeret. fab.*, lib. I, cap. ult.: "They reject the resurrection of bodies as a myth." See Epiphanius, in his work on the Manichaean heresy, num. 86.
Ad num. 13. (Oxon. n. 10, p. 54, not. 1.)* "What invocation of another, ever, when crucified, cast out demons?" And a little above, "the Crucified." C The words of Cyril agree with those which Justin Martyr has in his *Dialogue with Trypho the Jew*, concerning demons cast out of the bodies of the obsessed by the invocation of the name of our Lord Jesus, p. 247, which we also noted above, see the note to the *Procatech.* § 5, then page 302; where, after the most holy martyr had cited the words of the Savior, Luke x, 19, "I give you power to tread upon serpents... and over all the power of the enemy," he immediately adds: "And now we, who believe in our Lord Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate, adjuring all demons and malignant spirits, hold them as subjects under our power."
Ad num. 24. (Oxon. n. 16, p. 60, not. 1.)* "The order of monks and virgins." That virginity was held in great esteem in the earliest times of the Church escapes no one who has pondered with some care the things that are found everywhere on this matter in Tertullian's book *De velandis virginibus*; Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, lib. III; Eusebius, lib. IV *De vita Constantini*, and other Fathers. What more, since the Apostle himself, 1 Cor. vii, 38, says that he who gives his virgin in marriage does well, and he who does not give her does better; could he not be considered to have preferred virginal modesty to marriage? But that in the times of the apostles there were monks who, living a life completely solitary, occupied themselves solely with meditation and prayers, Chrysostom denies in very explicit terms, *Homil.* 25 in *Epist. ad Hebraeos*: "For there was no trace of a monk at that time, but the blessed one was discussing everything for worldly people." But in truth, before the first quarter of the second century had passed, it is most certain that monks (*monazontes*) had come into existence. For the heretic Marcion, who flourished around the year 140, was a monk, as Epiphanius testifies in his work on the heresy of the Marcionites, n. 4: "Who, in the beginning of his life, displaying chastity, professed the monastic order."
Ad num. 26. (Oxon. ibid. not. 2.)* "And let not those who are once-married look down upon those who have entered into a second marriage, etc." Not only heretics, but also some of the Fathers, condemned second marriages, especially in those who held some sacred office, as illicit. Among the heretics, the Montanists (or Cataphrygians) and the Novatians (or Cathari) considered it shameful to pass to a second marriage. Epiphanius says of them, in his work on the heresy LV, n. 9: "They expel him who has been bound by a second marriage, and compel no one to contract a second marriage." The same Epiphanius [says] of these in his work on the heresy LIX: "When they refuse to communicate with *digami* (those twice-married). For if anyone after baptism has taken a second wife, he is no longer admitted by them." Now, the 17th canon of the apostles barred from every priestly office those who were bound by second marriages after baptism: "If anyone after baptism has been joined in second marriages... he cannot be a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, or indeed from the number of those who serve in the sacred ministry." Likewise, Origen, lib. I *contra Celsum*, looking to that passage of the Apostle, 1 Tim. iii, 2, says that Paul prefers the "husband of one wife" (*monogamos*) over the twice-married (*digamos*) in the selection of bishops. However, the Church never forbade *digamia* to the laity, but it preferred *monogamia* as a more perfect state. Chrysostom, *homil.* 14, in 1 *Tim.*, asks: "Why does the Apostle admonish not to pass to second marriages; has he therefore condemned this matter? By no means; for this belongs to the heretics." That the Church, however, preferred monogamy to digamy is testified to by the same Chrysostom, tom. V, *homil.* 62: "Just as marriage is indeed a good thing, but virginity is better: so second marriage is indeed a good thing, but the first and only one is better than it." We do not, therefore, reject the second marriage, nor...
renounce it, provided one can contain oneself, let him be content with the first. A To no. 28. (Oxon. no. 18, p. 62, n. 1.) "For many of men, being beastly, and living like dogs, the blood, etc." Cyril speaks here of the Gentiles, who consumed blood in more than one way. Christians, however, scrupulously abstained not only from blood but even from comestibles of this kind that were blood-stained. Tertullian, in his *Apology* (c. 9), intending to refute the Gentiles who accused Christians of infanticide, says: "Let your error blush before the Christians, who do not have even the blood of animals in our diet; for this reason we abstain from strangled and dead meat, lest we become contaminated by any blood, even that which is buried within the entrails. Finally, among the trials of Christians, you even bring in sausages stuffed with blood, certainly most sure that it is illicit among them, through which you wish to lead them astray."
To no. 33. (Oxon. no. 20, p. 64, n. 1.) "Whenever you hear any of the heretics blaspheming the Law or the Prophets." By "Law or Prophets," Cyril understands the whole Old Testament, which indeed most heretics, and especially Marcion and Manes, rejected, as if it had an angel or an evil god as its author. Concerning Marcion, Theodoret relates in *Hæret. fab.*, bk. I, c. 24, that he rejected the Law and the Prophets and the whole Old Testament as if it were given by a foreign god. Epiphanius also says the same of Marcion in *Hæres.* XLII, nn. 4 and 3. Concerning Manes, Socrates relates in *Histor. eccles.*, bk. I, c. 22, that he also rejected the law and the prophets. Epiphanius affirms that he brought forth certain impious and blasphemous dogmas concerning the Law and the writings of the prophets. In *Hæresi* XLVI, n. 75, he says that he called the Law a "testament of death." Manes compares the Law and the prophets to dry and withered trees.
Ibid. p. 68. (Oxon. ibid. n. 2.) "Things translated by the seventy-two Interpreters." The history of the version of the LXXII Interpreters was handed down to posterity not only by Aristeas in his book *On the LXXII Interpp.*; by Aristobulus in Eusebius, *Præp. evang.*, bk. XIII, c. 12; by Philo Judæus, *De Vita Mosis*, bk. II; by Josephus, *Antiq. Jud.*, bk. XII, c. 2; but also by the most ancient Fathers: Justin Martyr in *Cohort. ad Græcos*, p. 13, edit. Paris, and especially in his 2nd *Apology*. "When Ptolemy was establishing his library, he sent to Herod, then king of the Jews," etc., in which passage, to remark this in passing, J. E. Grabe, a man eminent in piety and very well-versed in the writings of the Fathers, conjectures that for *βασιλεύοντι Ἡρώδη* should be read *βασιλεύοντι ἱερεῖ* [reigning high priest]; see the notes to Justin's *Apol.* 2, pp. 60, 61. Besides Justin, Irenæus also (*Adversus hæreses*, bk. III, c. 25), Tertullian (*Apologet.*, c. 18), Clement of Alexandria (*Stromat.* bk. I, p. 341, 342, edit. Paris), and others make mention of this matter. See Pamelii's annotations to c. 18 of Tertullian's *Apologet.*, Joan. Vossius's *dissert. de LXXII Interp.*, Ussher's *syntagma de LXXII Interp.*, and the book of the renowned Isaac Vossius, *Contra Historiam Aristeæ*.
To no. 34. (Oxon. no. 21, p. 65, n. 1.) "For it was not by human craft or the construction of sophisms B that the thing happened, but by the Holy Spirit the interpretation of the divine Scriptures spoken by the Holy Spirit was accomplished." It is the constant opinion of the Holy Fathers, with whom our Cyril agrees, as is evident from this passage, that the LXXII Interpreters translated the books of the Sacred Scriptures by the same breath of the Holy Spirit by which they had been written at first. Justin Martyr, in *Cohort. ad Græcos*, p. 14, edit. Paris, says this about the version: "And having learned, that those seventy men not only used the same thought, but also the same words in the translation, and that not even in one expression did they dissent from one another (to such an extent had they written all things about the same matters), he was struck with astonishment, and believing that the interpretation was accomplished by divine power," etc. Irenæus asserts more fully and eloquently that these Interpreters were filled by some divine inspiration (bk. III, c. 25, whose words Eusebius saved from destruction, *Hist. eccl.*, bk. V, c. 8): "When they had come together to the same place, to Ptolemy, and compared their interpretations, God was glorified, and the Scriptures were believed to be truly divine: all reciting the same things in the same words and the same names even to the end, that even the present Gentiles might know that the Scriptures were interpreted by the inspiration of God." Clement of Alexandria says the selfsame thing in *Stromat.* II, p. 342, edit. Paris.
To no. 35. (Oxon. no. 22, p. 65, n. 2.) "Read those twenty-two books; but have nothing in common with the apocryphal ones... which we also read in the Church with confidence." With these words and those which follow, Cyril teaches us quite clearly from which books of the Old Testament the codex was compiled at least in the fourth century after Christ. Namely, from those twenty-two books which our author enumerates in the following lines. Now, this number of books corresponds to the number of the Hebrew letters. Athanasius, in his *Synopsis of the Sacred Scripture*: "The number of the canonical books of the Old Testament is equal to the number of the Hebrew letters. For there are twenty-two elements among the Hebrews." John of Damascus hands down almost the same thing regarding the number of the books of the Old Testament in *De orthodoxa fide*, bk. IV, c. 18. But in order that what Cyril says in this place regarding the canonical and apocryphal books may become clearer, one should observe the distinction of Rufinus in *Exposit. symboli*, by which sacred books are distributed into canonical, ecclesiastical, and apocryphal. He calls those "canonical" which, along with that passage of Rufinus, Cyril also enumerates by name in the following lines. "Ecclesiastical," however, are those which are indeed read in the Church, but are not brought forward to confirm authority from them. "Apocryphal" are those which ought not to be read in the Church at all. The same distinction occurs in Athanasius, in his letter to Rufinus, where one finds *βιβλία κανονιζόμενα, ἀναγινωσκόμενα,* and *ἀπόκρυφα*. Among the ecclesiastical books, or *ἀναγινωσκόμενα*, one must reckon not only the writings which today are called apocryphal, but also the *Shepherd of Hermas*, the *Epistle of St. Clement*, the *Epistle of St. Barnabas*, the apostolic canons, and the constitutions which are called apostolic. By "apocryphal," however, the Fathers understand—as Cyril does in this place—such books as the 60th canon of the apostles calls *ψευδεπίγραφα τῶν ἀσεβῶν βιβλία*, "falsely inscribed books of the impious," or those which are manifestly impious and attack the Christian faith. Frequent mention of these is made in the decree of Gelasius among Gratian, dist. 15, for example: the *Gospels of Thomas the Apostle*, which the Manichæans use, are apocryphal; the *Gospels which Lucianus falsified* are apocryphal; all the books which Lenticius, the disciple of the devil, made, are apocryphal; the book which is called *The Foundation* is apocryphal. Confer *can. apost.* 60 and 85; Euseb., *Hist. eccl.*, bk. IV, c. 25; verses of S. Greg. Naz.; can. 63 of the sixth council in Trullo, and can. 27 of the synod of Carthage.
To no. 36. (Oxon. no. 22, p. 66, n. 1.) "The remaining ones happen to be falsely inscribed and harmful." Many gospels were once circulated besides those four which constituted the codex of the Gospels. Some of these, either written or forged in the times of the nascent Church, moved St. Luke to write a Gospel himself, as he professes in the prologue of his work. Of this kind were: I. The *Gospel according to the Hebrews*, which the Ebionites composed from the mutilated and adulterated Gospel of Matthew, which they alone used, as Epiphanius relates, *hæres.* XXX, n. 3 and 13; Clement Alex., *Stromat.* II, p. 380; Euseb., *Histor. eccles.*, bk. III, c. 27; II. The *Gospel* according to the Egyptians, which the Sabellians used, and from A
according to the Egyptians, which the Sabellians used, and from which they confirmed their impious dogmas: Epiphanius, *Haeres.* lxii, n. 2; Clement of Alexandria, *Stromat.*, lib. 3, p. 452, cap. 465; III. The Gospel according to the twelve apostles, mention of which occurs in Ambrose, *lib.* in *Luc.*, n. 2, in *exposit. in cap.* 1 *Lucae*, which is falsely attributed to Titus of Bostra, *Biblioth. Patr.*, tom. II Gr. Lat. edit. Front. Duc.; IV. The Gospel of St. Peter, which not only Theodoret, *Haer. fab.*, lib. ii, cap. 2, and Origen, in *cap.* xxvi *Matthaei*, mention, but also Eusebius, *Histor. eccles.*, lib. iii, cap. 3, in these words: "The Gospel which is called according to Peter, we know is by no means handed down among the catholic [books]." See also *Histor. eccles.*, lib. iii, cap. 25; V. The Gospel according to Matthias, of which Eusebius makes mention, *Histor. eccles.*, lib. iii, cap. 25; VI. The Gospel according to Bartholomew, of which Jerome [speaks] in *prooem. in Matthaeum*, from Origen's *hom.* 1 *in Lucam*; VII. The Gospel according to Thomas; VIII. The Gospel of Philip, which Leontius Byzantinus, *act.* 3, *De sectis*, and Epiphanius, *haeres.* xvi, n. 13, mention; IX. The Gospel according to Nicodemus is numbered among the apocrypha by Gelasius. (See *decret. Gratian.* part. 1, distinct. 15, c. 3); X. The Gospel of Eve, patched together by some of the Gnostics, according to Epiphanius, *haeres.* xxvi, n. 2, who also mentions in the same place the Gospel of perfection, εὐαγγέλιον τελειώσεως, of the Gnostics; XI. The Gospel of Jude, which Theodoret asserts was composed by the Cainites, *Haer. fab.*, lib. 1, cap. 15: "They bring forth a Gospel of Jude, which they themselves composed"; XII. The Gospels of Basilides and Apelles, concerning which see Jerome’s *prooem. in Matthaeum*, and in *Isa.* cap. lxiv; XIII. The Gospel of the Infancy, recently edited in Arabic and Latin; XIV. The Protevangelium of James, edited among the *Orthodoxographa* Bas., an. 1569. Mill. Ibid. (Oxon. ibid. p. 67, not. 1.) "The Manichaeans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas." Elsewhere (namely, *catech.* vi) Cyril asserts that Thomas himself was the author of this gospel. "Let no one read the Gospel of Thomas: for it is not the work of one of the twelve apostles, but of one of the three disciples of Mani." Photius also attributes this Gospel of Thomas to the Manichaean, lib. *Historiæ Manichaeorum*, not yet published, which the distinguished Mr. John Frederick Wincklar of Hamburg has very kindly shared with me, and which I hope he will soon offer to the learned public: "Mani's unfortunate disciples were twelve. Sisinius, who even received the principles of that impious dogma; and Thomas, who composed that gospel which bears his name." Photius elsewhere, *bibl. cod.* 85, calls this gospel τῶν Μανιαχαίων ξένων εὐαγγέλιον [the Gospel of the Manichaean strangers]. This gospel is rejected by Eusebius, *Histor. eccles.*, lib. iii, cap. 25, and Leontius Byzantinus, *De sectis*, act. 3, p. 452. See *not. ad catech.* 6. B Ibid. (Oxon. ib. not. 2.) "And as a seal of all things, and the last of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul." In these and the preceding words there are three things most worthy of observation: 1. The order of the books of the New Testament. For Cyril arranges these books so that the Gospels occupy the first place, the Acts of the apostles the second, and the seven catholic Epistles the third, namely: one of St. James, two of St. Peter, three of St. John, one of St. Jude, and finally, last of all, the fourteen Epistles of Saint Paul. However, others who constructed catalogues of the books of the New Testament do not all observe this order. In the 85th canon of the apostles, the Gospels appear first, followed by these fourteen Epistles of Saint Paul, to which the catholic Epistles are closely joined, in such an order indeed that the two Epistles of St. Peter stand in the first place, the three of St. John in the second, that of St. James in the third, and the Epistle of St. Jude last of all, while the Acts of the apostles close the procession. Eusebius, *Histor. ecclesiast.*, lib. iii, cap. 25, indeed assigns the first place to the evangelists, but places the Acts of the apostles second, and after this he puts the Epistle of Paul, and the first of Peter, and closes the whole catalogue with the Apocalypse. In this same order Gregory Nazianzen lists the sacred books of the New Testament in *Iambico* 3, *ad Seleucum*. Leontius Byzantinus, *act.* 2, *De sectis*, distributes the New Testament into six books: the first contains Matthew and Mark, the second Luke and John, the third the Acts of the apostles, the fourth the seven catholic Epistles, the fifth the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, and the sixth the Apocalypse. See the last canon of the Council of Laodicea, and canon 27 of the Council of Carthage. II. That Cyril numbers the Epistles of James and Jude, and the second of Peter, together with the second and third of John, which are enumerated among the [books] disputed (*ἀντιλεγόμενα*) by Eusebius in the place cited above, among those books which the ancient doctors and bishops of the Church have handed down to posterity as sacred. Concerning the Epistles of James and Jude, Eusebius, *Hist. ecclesiast.*, lib. ii, cap. 23, relates this: "To which is also usually ascribed the first of those which are called Catholic. Which indeed some think is spurious and supposititious. Certainly very few of the ancients made mention of this Epistle, as well as of that of Jude, which is also numbered among the seven Catholic ones." But he immediately adds: "Nevertheless we know that these also, with the rest, are publicly read in most churches." And indeed, C as far as the Epistle of St. James is concerned, it is listed among those books which they call canonical, as much in the canons of the councils as in the writings of most of the Fathers. Canon 85 of those attributed to the apostles places it among the venerable and holy books, as do canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea and canon 27 of the Council of Carthage. Gregory Nazianzen in *Iambicum* 3, *ad Seleucum*, St. Amphilochius, St. Athanasius, Rufinus, St. Augustine, etc., deem this Epistle worthy of the same place and honor as the other books of the New Testament. Clement of Alexandria also, *lib.* iv *Strom.*, p. 516, Origen, Basil, Epiphanius, and others attribute this Epistle to James the apostle, and place it in the number of the sacred books. The same cannons and the same authors attribute the same honor to the Epistle of St. Jude. Clem. Alex., *lib.* iii *Paed.*, cap. 8, p. 239, and *lib.* ii *Strom.*, p. 431; Origen, *in Matth.*; Huet., p. 223; Basil; Epiphan. As for the second Epistle of St. Peter, there was for a time, in the first ages of the Church, some doubt, as Origen, Eusebius, and Amphilochius teach us. But in the canons cited above it is numbered among the sacred Books. Papias and Dionysius of Alexandria attribute the second and third Epistle of John to a certain John the presbyter, not the apostle; however, the latter shows that he does not differ much from this opinion, in that he attributes it to John the apostle, in Euseb., *lib.* vii *Hist.*, cap. 25. But Irenaeus, *Adversus haeres.*, lib. iii, c. 18 (new ed. 16), n. 8, and Tertullian, *De praescriptione*, cap. 33, and *De carne Christi*, cap. 24, ascribe the second Epistle to John the apostle, and cite a testimony from it. But that the one who was the author of the second [Epistle] was also the author of the third, no one will fail to acknowledge, who has weighed its style a little more carefully. III. It must be noted that John's Apocalypse is not enumerated by Cyril among the canonical books of sacred Scripture. Indeed, as Jerome testifies in his epistle *ad Dardanum*, just as the Latin custom does not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews among the canonical Scriptures, so the Churches of the Greeks do not receive the Apocalypse of John with the same liberty. And, to tell the truth, D not only did the heretics, namely the Marcionites (see Tertullian, *lib.* iv *contra Marcionem*), the Alogians, and the Theodotians (see Epiphanius, *haeres.* li and liv) reject the Apocalypse, but even the Catholics themselves, by some, counted it among the apocrypha. A certain Caius, a presbyter of the Roman Church, [attributed it] to Cerinthus, Digitized by Google
A not only from this symbol of the Jerusalem Church, but also from that which Eusebius of Caesarea had accepted before the times of the Nicene Council, ἐν τῇ πρώτη κατηχήσει, ὅτε καὶ τὸ λουτρὸν ἐλάμβανεν. Theodoret, *Hist. eccl.*, lib. i, cap. 12. So also the Nicene symbol, and all the symbols of the Arians as well.
He asserts it was written. And thence perhaps it does not appear anywhere in the 85 canons of the Apostles, nor in canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea, where the books that the early Christians wished to be read in the Church are enumerated. Moreover, in the most ancient times of the Church, the doctors of the Church attributed the Apocalypse to John the Apostle, and regarded it as divine. Justin Martyr, in *Dialogue with Trypho*, pg. 308, relates these things concerning the Apocalypse: "And a certain man among us, whose name was John, one of the twelve apostles of Christ, in the revelation which was shown to him, foretold that those who believe in our Christ would spend a thousand years in Jerusalem." Looking back to this passage of Justin, Nicephorus Callistus, *Hist.*, lib. iv, cap. 6, says this about it: "He shows in this [namely, in the *Dialogue with Trypho*] that the Apocalypse is also acknowledged to be John’s." He asserts also that in that [work] it is held as a matter of confession that the Apocalypse is John’s. See Irenaeus lib. v, cap. 37 and 30, lib. v, cap. 30, and in Eusebius, lib. v, cap. 8. Tertullian and Cyprian bring forward very frequent testimonies from it. Finally, Athanasius in the *Synopsis of Holy Scripture*, after he had enumerated the canonical books of the New Testament, adds this: "Besides these, there is also the Apocalypse of John the Theologian, accepted as his, and approved by the holy ancients and the Fathers inspired by the Holy Spirit."
CATECHESIS V
Ad num. 4. (Oxon. n. 2, p. 70, n. 3.) Ὀφθαλμὸς πάσης συνειδήσεώς ἐστι φωτιστικὸς ἡ πίστις, καὶ συνέσεως ἐμποιητικός. Not much different from these are the things found in Theodoret, *Therapeut.*, serm. 1: "What the eye is in the body, that faith is in the mind: or rather, just as the eye needs light, by which visible things are shown to it; in like manner, the intellect needs faith, which point out divine things to it, and which preserves a stable and B perpetual concept of them."
Ad num. 14. (Oxon. edit. n. 6, p. 74, not. 2.) Ἡ κατὰ χάριν δωρουμένη πίστις ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος, οὐ δογματικὴ μόνον ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ἐνεργητική. By faith, our author understands a certain confidence, by which the Holy Spirit made the first teachers of the Christian religion certain that they had the power of performing miracles. Chrysostom, *homil. 29 in I Cor. xii*, calls this *πίστιν σημείων* (faith of signs), and, as Cyril does in this place, he distinguishes it from dogmatic faith: for when he explains these words of the Apostle, ver. 10, *ἑτέρῳ δὲ πίστις*, he says that by *πίστιν* he understands not this of dogmas, but that of signs, concerning which he says: "If you have," etc. "This is the mother of signs." He says it is not the same faith, that which is of dogmas, but that which is of signs. Concerning which he says: "If you have," etc. This is the mother of signs. For since neither the apostles nor their successors were always endowed with the power of performing miracles, it was right that they should discern by some certain evidence when they had the divine power present: lest perhaps, if they attempted to perform a miracle without divine assistance, they should shamefully fail in their undertakings. This evidence, however, was nothing else than this faith, or, a certain persuasion that they were able to do that which they were attempting.
CATECHESIS VI
Ad titulum catechesis p. 86. (Oxon. p. 77, not. 4.) Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεόν. "We believe in one God," etc. Thus do all the Churches of the East teach, as Rufinus notes, *Exposit. in Symbol.* For since the heresies of Simon Magus, the Valentinians, the Manichaeans, etc., which by positing two or more gods completely destroyed the unity of the divine nature, had budded forth and flourished particularly in the Eastern parts, for this reason almost all the Eastern Churches professed that they believed not only in God, but also in one God. This is evident C Ad num. 10. (Oxon. n. 7, p. 84, not. 1.) Αἴλουρος, καὶ κύων, καὶ λύκος ἀντὶ Θεοῦ προσεκυνήθησαν, etc. By these and the following words Cyril vehemently inveighs against the insane idolatry of the Egyptians, by which not only men distinguished by virtue and excellent deeds, but also any disgusting animals whatever were venerated with religious worship. That the cat was sacred to the Egyptians is reported by Herodotus, in *Euterpe*, cap. 66; Diodorus Siculus, lib. 1, and Plutarch, *Symposiacon*, lib. iv, quaest. 5: then also Cicero, in *Tusculan. Quaest.*, lib. v, cap. 27: "Who is ignorant of the custom of the Egyptians? Whose minds, steeped in the errors of depravity, would undergo execution sooner than they would harm an ibis, or an asp, or a cat, or a dog, or a crocodile: of which, even if they had done something to them inadvertently, they would refuse no punishment." Indeed, the author of the *Recognitions* which are attributed to Clement, lib. v, cap. 20, makes mention of this custom. "Some of the Egyptians," he says, "handed down the ox, which is called Apis, to be worshipped, others the goat, others cats; some the ibis, others the serpent: the fish also," etc. Where, by *gattas*, or rather *cattas*, Evagrius does not let us doubt that cats are to be understood, where he says: "Αἴλουρον κάτταν ἡ συνήθεια λέγει. Custom calls the cat *catta*." Juvenal reports the dog was worshipped by the Egyptians, *Sat.* 15, vers. 8: *Illic / Oppida tota canem venerantur, nemo Dianam*. Meanwhile, however, it must be observed that the Cynopolitans were particularly devoted to this superstition, as Clement of Alexandria teaches us, in *Admonit. ad gentes*. Finally, the wolf was particularly worshipped by the Lycopolitans, as the same Clement records, *ibid.*, and Strabo lib. xvii, *Λύκον Λυκοπολῖται τιμῶσι*.
Ibid. 4. (Oxon. ibid. not. 2.) Καὶ λέων ἀνθρωποβόρος ἀντὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ φιλανθρωποτάτου προσεκυνήθη. From those, indeed, of the Egyptians who inhabited the city of Leontopolis or Leopolin in Egypt. Strabo, lib. xvii, *Λέοντα δὲ τιμῶσιν Λεοντοπολῖται — The Leontopolitans worship a lion*. Since the Persians also fashioned their god Mithras, or the Sun, with a lion's face, they also must be considered to have worshipped the lion in some way, at least symbolically.
Ibid. (Oxon. ibid. not. 3.) Ὄφις καὶ δράκων, ἀντίμιμοι τοῦ ἐκβαλόντος ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ παραδείσου, προσεκυνήθησαν. That the Egyptians worshipped the serpent, besides Clement in the place of the *Recognitions* cited above, Aelian asserts from Phylarchus, *De animalibus*, lib. xvii, cap. 5. Indeed, Maximus Tyrius records that the serpent, as a symbol of the divine, was worshipped by the Indians in *dissertation 38*. Moreover, the Romans supposed the snake to have been either the sign of the god Aesculapius, or that the deity of Aesculapius resided in it: and thence among them it was held in the greatest honor. Which is evident from the passage of the *Livy Epitome*, book xi: "When the city was suffering from a plague, envoys were sent to transfer Aesculapius to Rome from Epidaurus: they brought back the snake which had betaken itself into their ship, in which it was certain that the divinity itself was; and upon it having emerged onto the island of the Tiber, in that same place a shrine was consecrated to Aesculapius."
Ibid. (Oxon. ibid. not. 5.) Καὶ οἶνος (we corrected to Διόνυσος) ἀντὶ Θεοῦ προσεκυνήθη. Bacchus, because he discovered the use of wine and taught the art of planting vines, was worshipped by the Greeks and Romans; but especially by the Egyptians under the name of Osiris. "For not all Egyptians worship the same gods in the same way, except Isis and Osiris, whom they say is Bacchus. These all equally worship." Herodotus, lib. ii. Ad num. 14. (Oxon. n. 9, pag. 87, not. 1.) Πά-
Καὶ Ἑλένην τινὰ πόρνην ἐπαγόμενος. Helen, not Selene (as Irenæus, lib. i, c. 20; St. Augustine, De hæres.; the author of the Recognitions, lib. ii, § 12, and Rufinus in his version of Eusebius), is more correctly, as it seems to me, called by Cyril this companion of Simon. Simon claimed, namely (witnesses Irenæus, lib. i, c. 20, and Tertullian, De anima, c. 34), that this was the very Helen for whom the war between the Greeks and Trojans once blazed up. Justin Martyr also calls her Helen, in his 2nd Apology, § 34, in the recent Oxford edition; see Eusebius, Hist. ecclesiast., lib. ii, c. 12, 13; Theodoret, Hæret. fab., lib. i, c. 1; and Jerome, in his epistle to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians. From this Helen, the followers of Simon were sometimes called Heleniani, just as they are more often called Simonians from their master Simon himself. See Origen, Contra Celsum, p. 272. Irenæus, Theodoret, and St. Augustine say that the wretched followers of Simon worshipped the image of this shameless woman, fashioned in the form of Minerva, along with the image of Simon himself, in the form and under the name of Jupiter, with the highest veneration. B Ad num. 16. (Oxon. edit. n. 10, p. 88, not. 2.) Κέρινθος γὰρ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν ἐλυμαίνετο. Concerning Cerinthus, see Irenæus, lib. i, c. 25; pseudo-Tertullian, in the appendix to his book De præscript., c. 48; Epiphanius, Hæres. xxviii; Theodoret, Hæret. fab., lib. ii, c. 5; Philastrius, St. Augustine, etc. Whether Cerinthus was also called Merinthus, Epiphanius considers uncertain (Hæres. xxviii, n. 8), although he asserts that the Cerinthians were also called Merinthians. The errors by which he says he undermined the Church are these: I. He taught that the world was not created by God, but by certain angels: and he established that these angels should be worshipped as mediators between God and men. It is therefore probable that the Apostle had them in mind in Colossians ii, 18: "Let no man beguile you, desiring in humility and religion of angels," etc. II. He taught that Jesus was not born of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost, but was begotten of Joseph and Mary in the same way as other men: and that for this reason he was a mere man, though he excelled other men in justice, prudence, and wisdom. III. Separating Jesus from Christ, he taught that Christ descended upon him after his baptism in the form of a dove, and after the Passion flew away from Jesus, and that Jesus suffered and rose again, but that Christ remained impassible, existing as a spirit. Irenæus, in the place cited above. Irenæus also reports (lib. iii, c. 2) that John wrote his Gospel for this very end, that he might remove the errors of Cerinthus from the minds of men.
Ad num. 16. (Oxon. ibid. p. 89, not. 1.) Καὶ Καρποκράτης. Carpocrates and Cerinthus taught almost the same things. Epiphanius, Hæres. xxviii, n. 4, says of Cerinthus: "And he taught almost nothing other than that Carpocrates who was mentioned by us above, and he propagated the same deadly poisons into the world as him."
Ibid. (Oxon. ibid. not. 2.) Ἐβιωναῖοι. Concerning the Ebionites, Irenæus says thus (lib. i, c. 26): "But those who are called Ebionites indeed agree that the world was made by God. But as regards the Lord, they err, using the Gospel according to Matthew, and they reject the Apostle Paul, calling him an apostate from the law. But they strive to interpret the prophetic writings more curiously, and they are circumcised and persevere in those customs which are according to the law, and they adopt a Jewish character of life, and they worship Jerusalem, as if it were the house of God." See also Epiphanius, Hæres. xxx; Theodoret, Hæret. fab., lib. ii, c. 1; Philastrius and St. Augustine.
Ad num. 17. (Oxon. n. 11, p. 89, not. 5.) Ἐκηνωνίσατο τῇ κακίᾳ Οὐαλεντίνος. Valentinus is said by Cyril to have contended after the earlier heretics, as it were in the second place, because he did not discover his heresy himself, but for the most part collected and consecrated it from the impious opinions of former heretics. Thus Theodoret, Hæret. fab., lib. i, cap. 7: "Ἐκ τούτων πασῶν τῶν αἱρέσεων (namely, Simon Magus, Basilides, Carpocrates, etc., whom he had enumerated previously) ὁ Βαλεντίνος λαβὼν ἀφορμάς, τοὺς ἀπεράντους συνέθηκε μύθους. Having taken occasion from all these heresies, Valentinus composed infinite fables."
Ad num. 22. (Oxon. n. 13, p. 92, not. 1.) Σκυθιανός τις ἦν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, Σαρακηνὸς τὸ γένος. That this Scythianus was the first author of the heresy of the Manichæans is clearly asserted by all the Fathers who have written anything upon it. Archelaus, bishop of the city of Caschar in Mesopotamia, in the dispute he held with Manes, edited by Laurentius Alexander Zacagnius, prefect of the Vatican Library, among other ancient monuments of the Greek and Latin Church, Rome, 1698: "He (Manes)," he says, p. 95, "is not the first author of this kind of doctrine, nor the only one; but a certain man from Scythia, Scythianus by name, was the author and prince of this sect in the time of the Apostles." See Epiphanius, Hæres. lxvi, num. 4; Socrates, Hist. eccles., lib. i, cap. 22. That he was a Saracen, having set out from that part of Arabia which had been called the Scenite desert by Strabo, we are taught by these same authors. Archelaus, in the cited dispute, page 96: "Scythianus himself," he says, "was of the race of the Saracens." Whence Socrates, Hist. eccles., as above: Σκυθιανὸς Σαρακηνός. See Epiphanius in the cited place. And he, after he had taken as his wife a certain captive woman from the brothel in the town of Hypsele, in upper Thebais in Egypt, lived in Alexandria, and there learned the arts and disciplines; as Cyril does in the following, so also the aforementioned Archelaus, Socrates, and Epiphanius confirm with one voice.
Ibid. (Oxon. ibid. not. 2.) Οὐδὲν κοινὸν (we have written κοινόν) οὔτε πρὸς Ἰουδαϊσμὸν, οὔτε πρὸς Χριστιανισμὸν κεκτημένος. This is, addicted to neither the Jewish nor the Christian religion: or rather, one who had imbibed his heresy not from the Jewish or Christian religion, as other heretics did, but from the schools of the philosophers. For so Archelaus writes of him in the Disputatio cum Manete,
A Thianorum, who said there were two persons in Christ: one, whom they called Jesus, passible and earthly; the other, whom they named Christ, celestial and impassible. Epiphanius, *Hæres.* XXVIII, num. 1, says that Cerinthus taught: "After Jesus had grown up—who was born from the seed of Joseph and Mary—Christ descended upon him from that supreme God." And a little later: "That Jesus both died and was raised to life, but that Christ, who had descended, remained free from all suffering, and returned to the place from whence he had come." II. Concerning the Valentinians, see Irenæus, lib. I, c. 1, § 4, and 13.
Ad num. 56. (Oxon. n. 20, p. 101, not. 2.) "Become approved money-changers," etc. The author of the *Apostolic Constitutions*, lib. II, c. 36, cites this as a saying of Holy Scripture: "It is said: Become approved money-changers." Yet many of the Fathers refer to it as having been uttered by the Savior himself. See the author of the *Clementine Homilies*, 2, § 51; 3, § 50; and 18, § 20; Origen, in *Joann.* VIII, 20, etc. Cotelerius gives his opinion on this passage in his notes to the *Apostolic Constitutions*, lib. II, cap. 36, in these words: "It is asked now what should be thought of this most celebrated passage. I propose my own opinion for the reader to examine in few words. It was reported either by tradition (whether unwritten or related in some apocryphon of better standing) that it was pronounced by a divine oracle of the New Testament: 'Become approved money-changers.' Some person, having ascertained this, added it to the margin of their codex at Matt. XXV, 17 and Luke XIX, 23, where he saw that a mention of money-changers was made. Another thought it should be noted at a similar place of the Apostle, 1 Thess. V, 21. And I know not if it was not written in the margin of the first Epistle of John IV, 1. From there, the spurious words crept into the sacred context later. Whence it happened that it was cited as if it were Scripture, as if evangelical, as if Christ's, as if apostolic, as if Paul's, or as if simultaneously Christ's and Paul's (which Socrates seems to have thought). Certainly, it is accustomed to be joined with the mentioned texts." And Cyril of Alexandria clarifies the matter when he says: "The blessed Paul also says something of this sort: 'Become wise money-changers, prove all things, hold fast to that which is good, abstain from every form of evil.'" Which latter parts are read in the said Epistle to the Thessalonians. Just as "approved money-changer" is found here, so in Philo Judæus, *lib. De judice*, at the end, is "a good money-changer"; in Gregory Nazianzen, "a natural-born master of the exchange"; in Cyril of Alexandria, "wise money-changers"; in Origen, *tractat. 27 in Matthæum*, "prudent money-changers," *homil. 1 in Luc.*, "by most practiced money-changers," B and at *Joan.* XIII, 20, "good money-changers"; in Theodore the Studite, *serm. catechet.* 125, "of good money-changers"; in Jerome, *I adversus Rufinum*: "an approved money-changer"; in chapter V of the Epistle to the Ephesians, "most prudent money-changers"; in the Epistle to Philemon, "a cunning money-changer"; in Ambrose, at *Lucæ*, ch. XIX, "a good money-changer," "good money-changers"; in Epiphanius the Deacon, "by divine money-changers"; and in John Climacus, *Scala*, grad. 4, just before the end, "the best money-changer." The force of this command is expressed by the Fathers in this way: that just as he is the best money-changer who knows how to distinguish cunningly the genuine coin from the adulterated, so all Christians, by this example, are bound to exert every nerve to discern the true and genuine doctrine of Christ from the false dogmas of heretics.
CATECHESIS X.
Ad num. 4. p. 158. (Oxon. num. 2, pag. 125, not. 1.) "Because of the wanderings of heretics who say that one is Christ and another is Jesus." Our Cyril provides the reason in these words as to why, according to the ancient custom of the Oriental Churches, we profess our faith in "one Lord Jesus," etc.; namely, that the faithful might be fortified against the errors of ancient heretics. I. Cerin-
Ad num. 6. (Oxon. num. 4, pag. 126, not. 2.) "Let us make man, not according to my image, but according to our image." Almost all the Fathers adduce this passage of Genesis I, 26 to prove that the Lord Jesus existed before he was conceived in the womb of the blessed Virgin. They believe, of course, that these words are of the Father addressing the Son. So Tertullian, *De resurrect. carnis*, c. 6: "The preface, he says, of the Father to the Son: Let us make, etc." Also Epiphanius, everywhere in the *Panarion*, but especially *hæres.* LV, num. 9: "But how empty is the sense of all heresies? For these also denied their own Lord... who did not have a beginning from Mary... but always existed with the Father, God the Word begotten by the Father without any beginning or time, as all Scripture declares. For it speaks thus: Let us make man, etc."
Ibid. (Oxon. ibid. not. 3.) "This is the Lord who works with the Father, who worked also at Sodom," etc. The Fathers, as Cyril here and in what follows, in order to prove that Jesus existed before his incarnation, said that he appeared to the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament under the guise of an angel, and that he watched over the salvation of the Church, for which he later poured out his blood, from the very beginning of things. Hence Tertullian, *Adversus Praxean*, c. 16: "It is the Son, he says, who from the beginning judged, crushing the most arrogant tower, and scattering the languages, punishing the whole world by the violence of the waters, raining fire and sulfur upon Sodom and Gomorrah, Lord from the Lord. For he himself also always descended to human colloquies, from Adam even to the patriarchs, and prophets in vision, in sleep, in a mirror, in an enigma, C preparing his order always from the beginning. He was learning what he was about to pursue, and God could not converse with men on earth otherwise than as the word, who was to be flesh." See also Justin Martyr, *Dialogo cum Tryphone Judæo*, pag. 275, 277, 279, 280, 281; Origen, *Cont. Celsum*, lib. I, p. 119, and lib. VI, pag. 329; Clement Alexandrinus, *Pædag.*, lib. I, cap. 7; Athanasius, *orat. IV contra Arianos*; Theodoret, *quæst. 68 in Gen.*
Ad num. 16. (Oxon. n. 8, p. 132, not. 1.) "But someone will say: The name of the Christians is new." By such reproaches, of course, the Gentiles harassed the Christian name and religion, as if it were of the most recent antiquity. Hence Theophilus of Antioch, *lib. III ad Autolycum*, says that the Gentiles pursued the religion of the Christians with curses because it was recent, "that the doctrine according to us is new," pag. 119. Eusebius also, *Præpar. evang.*, lib. I, cap. 2, says that the Gentiles attributed it to the fault of those professing the religion of Christ that they followed a sect that was new and until then unheard of: "How, says he, is there not extreme wickedness and rashness... for them to carve out for themselves a certain new and desolate path, keeping neither the things of the Greeks nor of the Jews."
Ad num. 18. (Oxon. n. 18, p. 133, not. 1.) "Because of the fact that it is undoubted that for the sake of the teacher, he bestowed more upon him who was formerly an enemy and persecutor to write." Two very learned interpreters of Holy Scripture, Benedict Pereira and Andrew Willet, in *Hexap.* on the Epistle to the Romans, adduce this very reason from Cyril as to why Paul wrote more epistles than the other apostles, and they confirm it with their own votes.
Ad num. 19. (Oxon. n. 19, p. 133, not. 2.) "The D
A witnesses to the holy cross, etc. Concerning the wood of the cross, see what we noted above regarding Catechesis 4, § 3. Meanwhile, however, it must not be hidden that there are some who draw a not insignificant argument—as they think—both from this passage and from others in which mention is made of the wood of the cross remaining even to the present day, to the effect that these catecheses were by no means written by Cyril. For they say that those words, *until this day* (μέχρι σήμερον), denote a long interval of time past; whereas the finding of the cross was so recent that Cyril himself could have been present at it. From these, therefore, they infer that these words are either an addition or that these catecheses were written after Cyril’s time. But indeed, whoever weighs the fact that those words *until this day* sometimes also denote a short interval of elapsed time will remove from his mind whatever scrap of doubt this might be. Thus, in Matthew xxvii, 8, the Evangelist says of the potter's field that it was called the field of blood *until this day* (ἕως τῆς σήμερον). And, not to bring forth more examples in a matter so manifest, in Matthew xxviii, 15, this report was spread abroad (namely, that the disciples of Christ had stolen the body secretly) among the Jews *until this day* (μέχρι σήμερον). However, it is manifest that the evangelist speaks in both instances of a matter not long past.
Catechesis XI
Ad num. 15. (Oxon. edit. n. 4, pag. 141, not. 1.) *He did not bring the Son from that which is not into existence (Οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν παρήγαγεν).* With these words, Cyril fortifies the catechumens against the nefarious dogma of Arius, who indeed acknowledged the Son as begotten of the Father, but did not acknowledge Him as begotten from eternity, nor from the essence of the Father; and asserted that God had made His Son a beginning of creatures from nothing, or from things not existing. Hear him declaring his own opinion in his most celebrated book called *Thalia*, in Athanasius, *Orat. 1 contra Arianos*, p. 413, with these words: "The Son was not always; for He was not before He was made, nor was He from the Father, but He emerged from things not existing, nor did He have essence proper to Himself." Arius asserted that the Son was made from things not existing so that, by this manner of speaking, he might deny that He was begotten from the Father's substance, but rather produced from nothing, after the manner of other creatures.
Ibid. 4. (Oxon. ibid. not. 2.) *He did not bring the non-existent into sonship (Οὐδὲ τὸν μὴ ὄντα εἰς υἱοθεσίαν ἤγαγεν).* The Arians were saying that Christ at one time did not exist: "The Son was not always; for since all things were generated," etc., says Arius in *Thalia*, in Athanasius, *Orat. 1 contra Arianos*, p. 409: "The Son was not always; for since all things arose from nothing, and all things were created and made, the Word of God Himself was also made from nothing, and there was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was made, but He had a beginning of creation. For God alone was," etc.
CATECHESIS XII
Ad num. 1. (Oxon. n. 1, p. 148, not. 2.) *The Theologian.* John is distinguished by the name of *Theologian* (Θεολόγος), not only in the title of the Apocalypse, but even in Chrysostom, *Orat. xxxvi, tom. vii*. What is more, in Athanasius, *Orat. contra Gentes*, p. 41, of the recent edition, he is called *Theologian* (Θεολόγος), or (as some codices have it) *a man of theology* (Θεολογίας ἀνήρ). John enjoys this title above other writers because he wrote more clearly than the others concerning the divinity of Christ.
Ad num. 5. (Oxon. n. 5, p. 150, not. 1.) *The sun by a command only, but man was fashioned by divine hands.* The Fathers assert that the prerogative of man above other created things consists mainly in this: that whereas they were made by a divine command alone, he was formed as if by the hands of God. Thus Tertullian, *De resurr. carnis*, cap. 5: "But flesh," he says, "consisted even by the word of God for the sake of form, lest anything be without the Word. For He premised: Let us make man; and further, with the hand because of [his] preeminence," B so that he might not be unequal to the universe. Item S. Prosper, *De Providentia*: The best Author gave This special honor to man; and when He was founding All things by His word, He deigned to form this one With His own hands, by which He is the more honored as its creator.
Finally, another Cyril, in *Glaphyr., lib. 1*, calls man more excellent than other animals, because God both *honored with deliberations and manual operation the workmanship* (καὶ προβουλίοις ἐτίμα καὶ αὐτουργίᾳ τὸ τέχνημα); He deigned to construct him by manual deliberation and operation.
CATECHESIS XIII
Ad num. 38. (Oxon. n. 19, p. 185, not. 1.) *The house of Caiaphas will convict you through its present desolation, showing the power of the one who was judged there at that time (Ἐλέγξει σε ἡ οἰκία Καϊάφα, διὰ τῆς νῦν ἐρημίας, δεικνύουσα τοῦ κριθέντος ἐκεῖ τότε τὴν δύναμιν).* Regarding this house of Caiaphas, which I consider to have been the palace of the high priests, in which Judas first promised the Jews that he would betray our Lord (Matt. xxvi, 14, 15), and afterwards Christ was condemned by the Sanhedrin as a blasphemer (ibid. vers. 66), there is not one opinion among the Holy Fathers. Euthymius believed this house to be the same as the house of Annas, but Augustine considered it the same as Pilate's praetorium; and therefore in *Tractatus 114 in Joann.* and *lib. 2 De consensu evangel.* he reads S. John xviii, 28, where we read, *they lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the praetorium*, as *to Caiaphas into the praetorium*. But both are mistaken; for the house of Annas and that of Caiaphas and the praetorium of Pilate are openly distinguished by the evangelists. Cyril hints with these words that this house of Caiaphas was destroyed in his own times.
CATECHESIS XIV
Ad num. 15. (Oxon. not. 8, p. 195, n. 1.) *Matthew, who wrote the Gospel, wrote it in the Hebrew tongue (Ματθαῖος ὁ γράψας τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον, Ἑβραΐδι γλώσσῃ τοῦτο ἔγραψε).* Cyril asserts with these words that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written in the Hebrew or rather in the Syriac tongue; with whom agree nearly C all the Fathers who have made mention of this matter. Papias in Eusebius, *Hist., lib. iii, c. 39*: "Matthew wrote the divine oracles in the Hebrew tongue." Irenaeus also, *lib. 3, c. 1* (whose words stand also in Eusebius, *Hist., lib. v, c. 8*): "Matthew published his Gospel written in their own tongue among the Hebrews." Origen also writes the same concerning this Gospel in Eusebius, *Hist., lib. vi, cap. 25*: "The first Gospel was written by Matthew, who published that which was written in the Hebrew tongue for the Jews who had converted to the faith." Eusebius, *Hist., lib. 3, cap. 24*, Jerome in *Præf. in quatuor Evang.*, and Epiphanius in more than one place write the same concerning this Gospel.
Ad num. 21. (Oxon. n. 12, p. 199, n. 1.) *Afterwards He was seen by James, who was his own brother, and the first bishop of this parish (Ἔπειτα ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ, τῷ ἑαυτοῦ μὲν ἀδελφῷ, ἐπισκόπῳ δὲ πρώτῳ τῆς παροικίας ταύτης).* Concerning this James, whom the Holy Evangelists Matthew (xiii, 55) and Mark (vi, 3) call the brother of the Lord, Epiphanius and almost all the Greek Fathers maintain that he was the son of Joseph from a former marriage. But Origen thinks that this rumor arose from books falsely inscribed with the names of Peter and James. Wherefore the opinion of Jerome is preferable, who thinks that this James was our Lord's cousin; in that he was born of that other Mary who is called the sister of the blessed Virgin in John xix, 25. Now, that a cousin is called a brother was most common not only among the Hebrews, but was also not unknown to the Greeks and Romans. Nicephorus, *l. 2, c. 38*, narrates that this eminent man was appointed the first bishop of Jerusalem by Christ Himself, or, as some think, afterwards by the apostles: "For," he says, "concerning James, he was called the brother of the Lord, and he was entrusted with the Church of Jerusalem first by the Saviour Christ, as some say, even later by His apostles." And thence he is called by Photius, *epistola 117*, D "Prince of bishops and who from the hand of the Lord received the sacred unction and [the] Hierosoly-
Hierosolymitan episcopate." And in the catalogue of the bishops of Jerusalem, which Epiphanius exhibits to us in *Hæreses* LXVI, num. 19, James is placed in the first rank.
CATECHESIS XV
Ad num. 24. (Oxon. n. 11, p. 218, not. 1.) 'Ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα πρόβατα, τοῦτ' ἔστιν ἐκεῖνα, ἡ δὲ ἀνθρωπότης τὸ ἓν μόνον. Some of the Fathers, when they discourse concerning the number of the angels, say that the ratio of the multitude of angels to the number of men is that which holds between ninety-nine and one. This proportion, indeed, they elicit from that parable (Matt. XVIII, 12) of the man who, having a hundred sheep, lost one, and leaving the rest, went to seek this one, and having found it, carried it back on his shoulders: for they wish that single sheep to be human nature, and they believe the ninety-nine remaining to be the angels. Thus Gregory Nazianzen, *Contra Eunomium*: "Therefore He who feeds the entire rational creation, having left the flock which does not wander and which is above the world in the heights, approaches the wandering sheep, our nature namely, by His love for mankind." For human nature is the thousandth and smallest portion, A if it be compared with the universe, which alone, as it is in the parable, being of the rational fold, has gone astray through malice.
Ad num. 27. (Oxon. n. 14, p. 220, not. 2.) Ἐτόλμησέ τις λέγειν, ὅτι μετὰ τὸ τέλος τοῦ κόσμου ὁ Χριστὸς οὐ βασιλεύει. Marcellus and Photinus asserted that Christ the Son of God did not exist before the ages, but rather from the time when He assumed human flesh from the Blessed Virgin: and just as they dreamed that His kingdom had its beginning from that time, so they supposed that after the destruction of the world and the supreme judgment, it would also have an end. Thus Socrates, *Hist. lib. II, c. 19*: "Thenceforth Christ Himself to have come to be, and Son of God, from when He assumed our flesh from the Virgin, four hundred whole years ago; for from that time they wish Christ to have had the beginning of a kingdom, and to have a term and judgment. Such are they who are from Marcellus and Photinus, the Ancyro-Galatians, who likewise abolish the pre-eternal existence and divinity of Christ, and His unending kingdom."
Ad num. eumdem ibid. (Oxon. ibid. not. 3.) Καὶ ἐτόλμησεν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ὁ Λόγος ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐξελθών, οὗτος εἰς Πατέρα πάλιν ἀναλυθεὶς οὐκέτι ἐστί. To illustrate this passage of Cyril, those things which Theodoret has in *lib. II, cap. 10* regarding the heresy of Marcellus are especially suitable: "The Galatian Marcellus denied the Trinity of hypostases. But he said that a certain extension of the divinity of the Father came into Christ, and he called this the Word of God. But the whole economy having been completed, it was again drawn back and returned to God, from whom it was extended."
CATECHESIS XVI
Ad num. 4, p. 245. (Oxon. n. 2, p. 225, not. 5.) Οὔτε συναλοιφὴν, ὡς Σαβέλλιος, ἐργαζόμεθα. See what is [stated] above regarding the heresy of Sabellius at *catech. 4, § 5*, and *catech. 11, § 6*. To which it will not be irrelevant to add what Epiphanius, *hæres. LXII, n. 1*, hands down concerning the error of Sabellius: "Their opinion is that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same, so that three appellations converge into the same hypostasis... Which they also declare by the likeness of the sun; in which, while there is one hypostasis, there is nevertheless a triple act, namely, the power of illuminating, and of heating, and of orbicular figure. And that power of heating, that is, the heat and burning, corresponds to the Spirit; but the power of illuminating to the Son; [and the Father] finally to the form, as it were, of the whole hypostasis." Regarding the impiety of both, namely of Arius and Sabellius, similar to those things which are said by Cyril are these words of Vincent of Lérins: "Who, he says, before the sacrilegious Arius, dared to sunder the unity of the Trinity; who, before the wicked Sabellius, dared to confound the Trinity of the unity?"
B Ad num. 12. (Oxon. n. 5, p. 229, not. 1.) Τινὸς μὲν συγκέχρηται γλώσσῃ πρὸς σοφίαν. By wisdom the ancients, both heathens and Christians, understood the knowledge of most obscure things, whether divine or human. But by the *word of wisdom*, which the Apostle enumerates among the gifts of the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. XII, 8, Theodoret, *in loc.*, understands the very doctrine of the Christian religion: "He calls it the word of wisdom, not eloquence, but true doctrine, of which the divine Apostle himself had also received the grace, and divine John the evangelist, and divine Peter, etc... For [those] men could not have been able, being fishermen, and earning their livelihood with their hands, and entirely ignorant of letters, to have held and written discourses, and to satisfy [with] what they said and committed to writing with the greatest power, unless they had received true wisdom from the divine Spirit." But by *wisdom* I think Cyril meant the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which Christians were able to utter and speak grave sentiments, such as are contained in the books of Solomon, without study and labor.
Ibid. (Oxon. ibid. not. 2.) Ἄλλῳ φωτίζει τὴν ψυχὴν ἐν προφητεία. By *prophecy* in this place I think Cyril means nothing else than *mantikēn*, or a certain prescience and prediction of future events. For the gift of interpreting the sacred Scriptures, which was another office of the prophet, is designated by these his following words, *and to another he gives to interpret the holy Scriptures*.
Ad num. 23. (Oxon. n. 12, p. 236, not. 1.) Καὶ τὰ μέν ἐστιν εἰς λειτουργίαν ὑποστελλόμενα. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews asserts that angels minister to man, Heb. 1, 14. But that his own angel assists every man as a guardian cannot be proven by the explicit words of sacred Scripture. Yet the Fathers, as much Greeks as Latins, do not shy away from asserting this. Origen, *lib. VIII contra Celsum*, says that the guardian angel of each man offers his prayers to God: "And the angel... always offers his prayers to the highest God through the only high priest." The same is also asserted by SS. Basil and Jerome.
CATECHESIS XVIII
Ad num. 4, p. 285. (Oxon. n. 1, p. 259, not. 3.) Ῥίζα τῆς ἀγαθοεργίας ἡ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐλπίς. Similarly Tertullian, *De carne Christi, c. 1*: "The hope of Christians is the resurrection of the dead." And Epiphanius, in the *Ancoratus*: "In which, that is, in the resurrection, is placed our whole treasure, and the foundation of wise confidence, and the hope of good action." The heathens, who cast the ashes of cremated martyrs into the river Rhone, set out to frustrate this confidence of the Christians. See Euseb., *Histor., lib. v, c. 1*.
Ad num. 8. (Oxon. n. 4, p. 262, not. 2.) Καὶ ὄρνεον εἰς τοῦτο κατειργάσατο φοίνικα. This argument, which Cyril uses with this passage to prove the resurrection, as do Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Epiphanius, or whoever else is the author of the *Physiologus*, is taken from the badly interpreted passage of Psalm XCI, 13, where it is said that *the righteous shall flourish as the palm tree*. The Fathers, of course, dreamed that not a tree, but the fabulous bird, the phoenix, was to be understood by these words.
CATECH. XIX. MYSTAG. I
Ad num. 2, p. 306. (Oxon. n. 2, p. 278, not. 1.) Εἰσῄειτε πρῶτον εἰς τὸν προαύλιον τοῦ βαπτιστηρίου οἶκον. By *the house of the baptistery* everyone sees that our author designates the place constituted for receiving baptism. Such places *phōtistēria*, and, as here Cyril, *baptistēria*, pools, baptismal halls, baptismal churches, oracles, etc., the authors of the first and middle antiquity call. Indeed, in the times of the nascent Church, no places were destined for Christians to be baptized in.
A Indeed, just as Saint John in the Jordan, and Peter, as Tertullian reports in cap. 1 of *De baptismo*, "baptized in the Tiber," so too their successors celebrated baptism in any place whatsoever, not only in rivers and ponds, especially in the Jordan, but also in private houses, and finally, because of the fervor of persecution, in prisons themselves. But when baptisteries and temples were built for the ministry of divine things, it was not permitted to baptize except in public, in the presence of the assembly of Christians. Hence Tertullian: "By hand," he says, "we can effectively seek grace for those about to be baptized," and the document which the monks presented to the patriarch Mennas at the council of Constantinople: "Cast out those who baptize in houses." Baptisteries, moreover, were often situated in a place separated from the church, naturally either in private houses, or in some hidden spot outside the city, or, which was more customary, concerning the baptistery, which Cyril mentions in these words, it seems most likely to have been in the very vestibule of the church. B And hence, in the *Procatechesis*, § 1, the catechumens are said to be "around the courtyard of the kings [the royal palace]." And Gregory of Nazianzus: "As long as you are in the number of catechumens, you are in the vestibule of piety." For the church is compared to a royal palace, in the portico of which the *kolymbetra* was situated on the left side. It must be noted, however, that Cyril, by these words "the courtyard of the baptistery house," intends not simply the baptistery, but the portico or vestibule of the baptistery, in which the rites of baptism, about which he discourses in this catechesis, were performed according to the custom of the Church of Jerusalem. For in the following catechesis, § 1, he promises that he would explain the rest of the things pertaining to baptism, namely, "what was done in the interior house."
Ad num. 4. (Oxon. n. 2, p. 279, not. 1.) "I renounce thee, Satan." The word *apotassomai* signifies "I bid farewell, I dismiss," and it is opposed by the word *syntassomai*, which has such force that it signifies "I enroll myself in order along with the others in the battle line." C Hence *syntaxamenos*, "travelling with an arranged battle line," among Xenophon, and *syntetagmeni phalanx* among Plutarch. Hence among Chrysostom in the end of homily 21 *ad populum Antiochenum*: "I renounce thee, Satan... and I enroll myself to Thee, Christ," that is to say, "I renounce the service of Satan, and I inscribe myself into the militia of Christ." The formula for this renunciation was almost the same in all Churches. We have the formula of the Church of Jerusalem beautifully described in this catechesis. The one about to be baptized, naturally, standing, with his face turned toward the setting sun, and stretching forth his hand, said first, "I renounce thee, Satan." Then, "and all thy works." Then indeed, "and all thy pomp." Finally, "and all thy worship." Congruent to these are the things which you find concerning the renunciation in the *Apostolic Constitutions*, lib. VIII, c. 41: "When he who is being baptized renounces, he recites thus: I renounce Satan and his works, and his pomps, and his cults... and I am inscribed unto Christ." D The *Euchologion*, page 338, most fully exhibits this whole rite to us: "And while the one being baptized is disrobed and undressed, the priest turns him toward the west, having his hands raised, and says thrice: 'Dost thou renounce Satan, and all his works, and all his angels, and all his worship, and all his pomp?' And it is said three times. And the catechumen, or his sponsor—if the one being baptized be a barbarian or a child—answers to each: 'I renounce.' And when he has said it three times, the priest asks again the one being baptized: 'Hast thou renounced Satan?' And the catechumen, or the sponsor, answers: 'I have renounced.' And when he has said it three times, the priest says: 'And breathe and spit upon him.' And when he has done this, the priest turns him toward the east, having his hands downward, and the priest says to him: 'Dost thou enroll thyself to Christ?' And the catechumen, or the sponsor, answers, saying: 'I have enrolled myself to Christ.' And he answers: 'I have enrolled myself to Christ.'" Moreover, the formula of the Latin Church used in most rituals is the same, which occurs both in the *Sacramentary* of Saint Gregory and also in the *Roman Ordinal*: "Then thou shalt say to him: Dost thou renounce Satan? Resp. I renounce. And all his works? Resp. I renounce. And all his pomps? Resp. I renounce." How ancient this rite of renunciation in baptism is can be learned from Origen, who makes mention of it in his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: "Let each of the faithful remember," he says, "when he first came to the waters of baptism... what he renounced to the devil, that he would not use his pomps, nor enjoy his pleasures." From Tertullian's book *De corona*, cap. 3: "About to approach the water," he says, "in that place, but also somewhat earlier, in the church under the hand of the bishop, we attest that we renounce the devil, and his pomp, and his angels: thence we are immersed three times." Finally, from the acts of the Scillitan martyrs, who suffered around the year 200, in Ruinart, p. 80.
Ad num. 6. (Oxon. n. 4, p. 280, not. 2.) "The pomp of the devil is the theatrical craze." By *theatromania* (which one might not inappropriately call the madness of the theater) Cyril understands theatrical plays of any kind, which, since they were instituted in honor of false gods and were celebrated under their protection, are not unworthily counted among the solemnities of the devil according to the custom of the primitive Church. Hence *Apostolic Constitutions*, lib. VIII, c. 32, those who engage in scenes are kept from baptism: "If any man or woman comes forward from the stage... let them cease, or be rejected." And Tertullian, *Apologeticus*, c. 38: "We renounce your spectacles," he says, "to the extent that we know their origins were conceived in superstition: indeed, we bypass the very things from which they are enacted. We have nothing to do with the madness of the circus, with the obscenity of the theater, with the atrocity of the arena, with the vanity of the *xystus*." Indeed, when the secular games of Severus were announced, in which spectacles of every kind were accustomed to be exhibited, he wrote the book *De spectaculis* regarding not attending them, in which he discourses at length on the four kinds of games, namely theatrical games, circensian games, hunts, and combats, which are also condemned by Cyprian, Epiphanius, etc.
Ibid. (Oxon. ibid. not. 3.) "Thou shalt see there the obscenities of the mimes performed with insults." Just as the stage was otherwise base enough, and much defiled by filth and impurity, so the flagrant acts of the mimes and pantomimes rendered it most base. For they, while the stage was vacant of actors, coming out onto the place or pulpit called *thymelike* (whence *Mimi Thymelici* are called), exhibited to the people whatever basest spectacles. Hence Salvianus, lib. VI *De gubernatione Dei*, says that such are the impurities of the theaters, that one cannot not only speak of what is done there, but even remember it without pollution. "For who," he says, "in a state of intact modesty could speak of those imitations of base things, those obscenities of voices and words, those turpitudes of movements, those filthinesses of gestures?" Then also Octavius among Minucius, p. 544: "In theatrical shows," he says, "there is no less madness, and more prolonged turpitude. For now the mime either exposes adulteries or shows them; now the enervated actor, while he feigns love, inflicts it."
Ibid. (Oxon. ibid. not. 4.) "The frenzied dances of effeminate men." Cyril pursues the lasciviousness of the pantomimes with these words, who had progressed to such a degree of malice and filth that they seemed changed into women. Such, truly, and so obscene was their dancing in the theaters that it seemed deserving of condemnation even by pagans who were somewhat more modest. Hence Jerome, epistle 8 *ad Marcellam*. In theatrical performances, in
spectacles, whose words, although many, the reader will not be burdened to have written here. "Now," he says, "concerning the artifice by which circus games are presented. Equestrian business was formerly conducted simply, and certainly common usage was not guilty. But when it was compelled for shows, it passed from the gift of God to the offices of demons. Therefore this species is assigned to Castor and Pollux, whom Stesichorus teaches were horses distributed by Mercury. But Neptune too is equestrian, whom the Greeks call Hippios, and they sanctioned quadriga for the Sun and biga for the Moon."
A But first Erichthonius dared to yoke four horses to the chariot, and to stand as victor on the swift wheels. Erichthonius, the son of Minerva and Vulcan, and indeed from lust fallen upon the earth, is a demonic portent; nay, the devil himself, not a serpent. But if Trochilus the Argive is the author of the chariot, he dedicated that work of his to his country’s Juno. If Romulus of Rome first displayed the quadriga, I think he too was enrolled among the idols, if he is the same as Quirinus. By such authors were four-horse chariots produced, and deservedly were the charioteers clothed in the colors of idolatry. For at the beginning there were only two horses, white and red. The white were vowed to Winter on account of its snowy whiteness; the red to Summer on account of the redness of the sun. But later, driven by both pleasure and superstition, some consecrated the red to Mars, others the white to the Zephyrs: the green to Mother Earth or to Spring; the Venetian (blue) to the Sky and Sea, or to Autumn. But since every species of idolatry is condemned by God, certainly that which is profaned by the mundane elements is also condemned.
Ad num. 7. (Oxon. ibid., not. 3.) "And those things hung up in the idol-festivals..." [are to be understood as part of] the devil's procession. These words of St. Cyril are to be understood concerning things sacrificed to idols, which both the apostles (Acts xv, 29) prohibited and Christians subsequently judged worthy of abomination. For it was solemn in the sacrifices of the heathens that not only the sacrificer, but also others who were present at the rites, would feast upon some part of the victim. Alexand. ab Alexand., lib. IV, c. 14, says: "The host being immolated and the mysteries performed, those who were taking part in the rites would eat standing, with viscera [read *viscere*, as Tiraquellus advises] and meal placed alongside, together with round breads which they used in honor of the gods. For it was observed that in the houses of the gods one should feast and sacrifice at the same time: for tables in sacred houses serve the place of altars." To eat such foods, the author of the *Recognitions*, lib. IV, § 36, says not only pollutes the garment of baptism, but also defiles both soul and body at the same time. "And what things," he says, "pollute the soul and body are these: to participate in the table of demons, that is, to taste of things immolated or blood, etc." And the *Apostolic Constitutions*, lib. VII, c. 21: "Abstain from things offered to idols; for in honor of demons they immolate these things, namely to the insult of the one God, such that you do not become participants of demons."
Ad num. 8. (Oxon. n. 5, p. 282, not. 1.) "And those prayers offered in idol sanctuaries." A custom grew up among the heathens that in any sacrifice whatever, they would dedicate vows and prayers to all the gods, but especially to the god to whom they were performing the rites. Alexand. ab Alexand., lib. IV, c. 14, says: "In every sacred rite it was established that it was necessary for a sacrifice to be made to a specific god, and afterwards for the remaining ones to be invoked, so that they might be present, willing and propitious to the vows and prayers." Cyril rightly judges this to be the worship of the devil; for the prayers which the Gentiles pour out, they pour out to demons, not to God.
CATECH. XX. MYSTAG. II.
Ad num. 3, p. 512. (Oxon. n. 5, p. 285, not. 1.) "Then after being stripped, with oil, etc." After the catechumens had been stripped of their garments, they were anointed from head to foot with a certain sacred oil. Most frequent mention of this custom is made in the writings of the primitive Church. *Apostolic Constitutions*, lib. VII, c. 22, where the manner of baptizing is prescribed: "But you shall first anoint with oil 40
A in the name of Jesus Christ, then you shall baptize with water." And c. 41, where the order of baptism is narrated: "After this profession, in order comes the anointing with oil." Justin also, quest. 37 *ad Orthodoxos* (if indeed this work is Justin's): "First," he says, "of those to be baptized, we are anointed with oil, and then, performing what has been said in the sacred laver, etc." But in *Apolog.* 1, p. 93, where he describes the rite of baptism, he makes no mention of anointing. Nor does Tertullian anywhere mention anointing before baptism: for what he says about chrism in more than one place should be understood as anointing *after* baptism.
Ibid. (Oxon. ibid., not. 2.) Ἐπίκλησις Θεοῦ, καὶ εὐχή. You have the formula itself of the prayer by which this exorcized oil was consecrated in *Constitut. apostol.*, lib. VII, c. 42, which the reader will not be bothered to find in its entirety here: "But this is blessed by the pontiff for the remission of sins and the preparation for baptism. For thus he invokes the unbegotten God, the Father of Christ, the King of all nature, in the sense and understanding of the one falling, that the oil may be sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and may grant spiritual grace, and effective power, and remission of transgressions, and a preparation for the confession of baptism; so that he who is anointed, being loosed from all impiety, may become worthy of initiation according to the command of the Only-Begotten." This prayer declares the power and use of the blessed oil clearly enough.
B Ad num. 4. (Oxon. ibid., p. 286, not. 1.) Καὶ κατεδύετε τρίτον εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ. The custom of immersing those to be baptized into the water three times is indeed very ancient, and although it was not explicitly commanded by Christ and the apostles, it is most evident that it was accepted by the usage of all Churches in the first centuries after them. Hence Tertullian, c. 26 *Adversus Praxeam*: "Finally," he says, "He commanded that they should baptize into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not into one. For we are not baptized once, but three times for each name, into each person." And lib. *De corona milit.*, C c. 3, "Then we are immersed three times." Also by the 50th canon of the apostles, against certain heretics older than the Eunomians (who, just like them, baptized by a single immersion into the death of the Lord), it is decreed: "But if any bishop or presbyter does not perform three immersions of one baptism, but one immersion which is given into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed." And shortly after, it was given in command to the bishops to use a triple immersion: "You, therefore, bishops, immerse three times into one Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit." This rite of baptizing still flourishes today in the Greek Church. See *Eucholog.*, p. 355, ed. Jac. Goar, and what he annotated, p. 565. But from what origin this custom arose is not sufficiently agreed upon among the Fathers themselves. For some assert that this rite was prescribed by the Lord, others refer it to a most ancient tradition. Among them must be numbered Chrysostom, who in *homil. De fide*, p. 290, tom. VII, ed. Eton: "Imposing as a sign upon all mysteries, the Lord delivered one baptism to his disciples in three immersions of water, saying: Go, teach, etc." And *can. apost.* 50, cited above, says the triple immersion is κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου γνώμην, "According to the Lord's opinion." Also Pope Pelagius in Gratian, *De consecrat.*, distinct. 5: "Many," he says, "there are who assert that they baptize merely in the name of Christ, and indeed with a single immersion. But the evangelical precept, delivered by the Lord and Savior Himself, admonishes us to confer the holy baptism upon each one in the name of the Trinity, and also by a triple immersion, the Lord saying to his disciples: Baptize, etc." St. Basil D seeks the origin of this custom from ecclesiastical tradition. For in the book *De Spiritu sancto*, c. 27: "'Now to be immersed three times, whence is this for us?' Likewise, the other things which are done in baptism, like renouncing Satan and his angels, from what Scripture do we have them? Are they not from private and secret tradition?" Likewise, Jerome relates that it is derived from the same origin, *Adversus Luciferianos*, tom. II, p. 139, ed. Bas.: "Do you not know," he says, "that this is the custom of the Churches, that hands are laid upon the baptized later, and so the Holy Spirit is invoked? You demand where it is written? In the Acts of the Apostles. Even if the authority of Scripture were not present, the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many things also which are observed in the Church through tradition have usurped for themselves the authority of written law, such as immersing the head three times in the laver, etc."
Ibid. (Oxon. ibid., not. 2.) Καὶ ἐνταῦθα διὰ συμβόλου, τὴν τριήμερον τοῦ Χριστοῦ αἰνιττόμενοι ταφήν. The Fathers are accustomed to bring forward two reasons why those being baptized were immersed in water. First, so that by this rite they might signify and in some way profess their faith in the holy Trinity. Thus Dionysius the Areopagite, *Eccles. hierarch.*, c. 2: "He immerses him three times, and in the three immersions and emersions of the one being initiated, he invokes and calls upon the threefold essence of the divine beatitude." Secondly, those being baptized were immersed three times, so that in this way Christ's three-day burial and resurrection might be foreshadowed. Cyril brings forward this reason not only in these words, but also Gregory of Nyssa, *De baptismo Christi*, tom. III: "Coming to water, the element akin to the earth, we hide ourselves in it, just as the Savior did in the earth; and by doing this three times, we represent the grace of the resurrection performed in three days." Theophylact explains the mystery of triple immersion by the same reasoning, in *Coloss.* II, 12: "He who is washed in baptism is buried with Christ, signifying by the triple immersion the three-day burial of the Lord, and dying, in so far as it relates to the old man prone to sin."
Ad num. 6. (Oxon. n. 5, p. 287, not. 2.) Ἀλλὰ καὶ υἱοθεσίας χάριν τυγχάνειν. Cyril speaks of the principal effect of baptism with these words, by which, of course, we are made children of God. For since through baptism we are joined to Christ, as to a head, by a mystic indeed, but most close bond of union, we constitute one body with Him; therefore, just as He is the Son of God by nature, so we obtain the same dignity by grace and baptismal adoption. Hence Gregory of Nyssa, *orat. in Baptism.*, tom. III, calls baptism οἰκείωσιν πρὸς Θεόν, "A conjunction with God." And Isidore of Pelusium, *ep.* 195, says baptism is υἱοθεσίας, καὶ θείας συγγενείας ποιητικόν, "Producing adoption and divine relationship." But by what manner this happens, Theodoret and Theophylact explain beautifully in *Galat.* III, where we are said to have put on Christ in baptism. "When," he says, "he had said that 'All of you are sons of God,' he teaches also how they obtained this, and says: 'You have put on Christ, who is truly the Son of God,' and having put Him on, you are rightly called sons of God." But the commentary on the same passage, p. 462, says: "For if we have put on Christ, the Son of God, and have been assimilated to Him, we have been brought to one relationship and one idea with Him, having become by grace what He is by nature."
CATECH. XXIII. MYSTAG. V.
Ad num. 9, p. 328. (Oxon. n. 6, p. 297, not. 1.) Καὶ πάντων ἁπλῶς τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν προκεκοιμημένων. The custom of praying and offering for the faithful departed, although it relies on no express testimony of holy Scripture, yet it seems most likely to have flourished in the Church from the very times of the apostles. Tertullian, *De monogamia*, c. 10: "For indeed," he says, "she even prays for his soul, and requests for him refreshment in the meantime, and a share in the first resurrection, and makes an offering on the annual days of his falling asleep." See also St. Cyprian, *epist. to the people and clergy of Furni*, and Arnobius, lib. IV, *adversus nationes*.
DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE BASILICA OF THE RESURRECTION
417 1. Since Cyril, while preaching in the church of the Resurrection, makes such frequent mention of this building and the adjacent Holy Sepulchre and the ornaments of both, I hope it will be agreeable to the reader that a description of this magnificent temple be offered to him, and its fortunes recounted. An accurate description of it had indeed been provided by Eusebius in a book written specifically on that subject, as he himself testifies in *Life of Constantine*, bk. IV, ch. 45 and 46; but that book, along with many other works of the same author, has perished. In its place, we must be content with the summary description he gave in his *Life of Constantine*, bk. III. What makes the loss of the book more to be lamented, however, is that no measurements of the building have been preserved, and we are forced to posit and assign them by chance. Furthermore, a proper understanding of the Eusebian narrative is aided in no small measure by other monuments, which I have studiously sought out.
2. A *Regarding the place where the church was built.* I speak, of course, of Mount Golgotha, at the very site of the Lord’s sepulchre. The name "Mount Golgotha" has a double significance for Cyril: sometimes it designates the entire circuit of the mountain with the valley below, and at other times only the summit itself and the mound where the cross was fixed. Hence, his twofold way of speaking about the site of the church of the Resurrection. Sometimes he says the auditors were gathered on Mount Golgotha, as in Catechesis 4, no. 10: "This blessed Golgotha, on which we are gathered now because of Him who was fixed to the cross there." He speaks in the same manner in no. 14, Catechesis 16, no. 4. Those who have said the church of the Resurrection was built "in the place of the Passion" are to be understood in the same sense; for example, Paulinus, in epistle 31, no. 6. But Cyril, in Catechesis 13, no. 4, calls Golgotha merely "near" the church in these words: "This Golgotha, near which we now stand, convicts me." The church of the Resurrection was not built on the very spot where the cross was fixed, but on the slope of the hill at the Lord’s sepulchre, which was much lower than the summit of the mountain. For, as Eusebius testifies in *Life of Constantine*, bk. III, ch. 26, the Emperor Hadrian ordered that the whole place be filled in with earth brought from elsewhere, raised to a moderate height, and paved with stone, and that the sacred cave be concealed under this huge mound; hence it was necessary for Constantine to have the holy monument dug out from deep underground. The little hill of Golgotha, however, was distant from the church by a stone’s throw. Thus the author of the *Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum*: "To those going outside the wall of Sion toward the Neapolitan gate, on the right side down in the valley are the walls where the house or Praetorium of Pontius Pilate was. On the left side is the little hill of Golgotha, where the Lord was crucified. Thence, as if at a stone’s throw, is the crypt where His body was placed. There, by the command of Constantine, a basilica has now been built." Regarding the site of Golgotha in respect to the Holy Sepulchre and the basilica, we shall speak again in no. 6. It is known by all that the Mount of Calvary was outside the ancient city of Jerusalem; it was, as it were, at the corner of two parts of the city, namely at the northern part of Mount Sion, separated from it by a valley and a thin stream, and to the west of the ancient city of Salem; it was directly opposite the Mount of Olives, which was situated to the east, at a distance of fifteen stadia.
D In the southern part of the Mount of Calvary, facing Sion and slightly to the east, was the Lord’s sepulchre, on the slope of the hill, as I have said. The new city, Aelia, had been built by Hadrian behind Mount Golgotha to the west, and it was being built daily from the ruins of the old city, as witnessed by Eusebius, *Demonstratio*, bk. VIII, p. 406. But as to what Sozomen says in *History*, bk. II, ch. 1—and which has been believed by all on his authority—that Hadrian had surrounded both the Mount of Calvary and the site of the sepulchre with a wall, this seems to us contrary to what Cyril testifies in Catechesis 14, no. 9, that the rock in which the cave of the Holy Sepulchre was excavated was contiguous not to old walls but to "outer walls" constructed later. For Cyril intends by the "old walls" (those which were outside the sepulchre) 418 and the "outer walls," not those of the old Jerusalem (to which no outer walls were added after its ruin), but those of the city of Aelia. We believe, therefore, that those outer walls were added after Hadrian—and, as we think, by Constantine for the defense of his works and for the expansion of the city, which was growing day by day after the conversion of the emperors and was being visited more and more by pilgrimages; and that whatever was included within them, together with the buildings of the church, was called the "new Jerusalem" by Eusebius in *Life of Constantine*, bk. III, ch. 35. Furthermore, the place of Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre is represented as entirely wild, uncultivated, and desolate, and it still retained certain traces of the old garden, both in Hadrian’s time and even in Cyril’s time, as in Catechesis 14, no. 5. These are signs of a place situated outside the walls, and not enclosed by them for two hundred years.
3. *On the Holy Sepulchre and the stone of the monument.* The Basilica of the Resurrection, taken as a whole, consisted of a double part: the Holy Sepulchre, or the shrine/church built at the monument itself, to which the name *Anastasis* is properly attributed; and the basilica itself. The Holy Sepulchre, before the changes made to it by Constantine, consisted, according to the ancestral custom—as witnessed by Cyril, Catechesis 14, no. 9—of a double cave: an outer one, which served as a vestibule for the other, and was erased by Constantine, and an inner one. Of this inner cave, which was left intact by Constantine, you have this description in Bede, *On the Holy Places*, ch. 2, p. 488: "In the middle of this (he calls it the church of the Anastasis) is the Lord’s monument, round, hollowed out of the rock, whose ceiling one standing inside can touch with his hand; it has an entrance from the east, to which that greatest stone was placed (by the Jews), for which traces of ironwork inside still show to this day; for outside, up to the top of the ceiling, it is entirely covered in marble; the very top is adorned with gold and bears a large golden cross." These exterior ornaments of the Holy Sepulchre, about which Eusebius and the ancients are silent, were perhaps added in later times. Bede continues: "In the northern part of this monument, therefore, is the Lord’s sepulchre, hollowed out of the same rock, seven feet in length, and, by the measure of three palms, it rises higher than the pavement, having an entrance from the southern side, where twelve lamps burn by day and by night, four inside the sepulchre, and eight above on the right edge... The color of the same monument and sepulchre is a mixture of white and red.
A Likewise, Paschasius Radbertus confirms this from the authority of "many who saw that place" (in Matt. xxvii, 60), and adds that the sepulchre was not open from above, but from the side. "It was not," he says, "made open from above in the manner of ordinary sepulchres, but from the southern side, from which part the body could be inserted... Nor, however, were the places there divided, but all these were continuous, not divided from one another, as being cut out in one and the same rock." The stone placed by the Jews sealing the sepulchre, and rolled away by the angel, was not placed upon the very niche and sarcophagus in which Christ's body was laid, but at the opening of the inner cave in which the niche was excavated. For it was "rolled unto the opening of the monument" (Mark xv, 46; xvi, 3), and by its being rolled away by the angel, the women entered into the monument (ibid. 4, 5). That stone lay in Cyril’s time very close to the monument, *παρὰ τῷ μνημείῳ κείμενος*. Whether it was inside the cave of the sepulchre or outside, nothing can be gathered from this; but many manuscripts, in place of *παρὰ*, "near," have *πρὸ*, "before the monument." From two testimonies of Jerome, however, which I cited in the note to catechesis 43, no. 39, it can be gathered that it was then hidden inside the sepulchre. Concerning this stone, Bede says in the already cited passage: "The stone which was placed at the opening of the monument, is there broken; the smaller part of which nonetheless stands as a square altar before the opening of the same monument; the larger part, however, exists in the eastern part of the same place, as another quadrangular altar under the linens." B 4. Concerning the house of the Holy Sepulchre or the Anastasis. In order to remove all memory of the holy places from the minds of Christians, the Emperor Hadrian had placed a statue of Venus, along with a shrine sacred to her, in the place where Christ was crucified. He completely hid the Holy Sepulchre with much earth brought in from elsewhere, and having raised the place to a moderate height, he set up a simulacrum of Jupiter there. Jerome, in Epistle 13, to Paulinus, is a witness to both defilements in these words: "From the times of Hadrian until the empire of Constantine, for about one hundred and eighty years, in the place of the resurrection, a simulacrum of Jupiter, and on the rock of the cross a marble statue of Venus, were worshipped by the Gentiles." Constantine, having dispersed the monuments of idols, opened the sepulchre, the earth having been removed with which it was covered; and in that very place he found the cross which the Jews had buried there in the mound; from Chrysostom’s homily 84 on John. Paulinus says that this was found by him "in the place of testimony, having been excavated by the clearing away of the deep earth" (Epist. 31, no. 5). Calling this place in no. 3 "the place of the passion," he says it was contaminated by the placing of the simulacrum of Jupiter. But that was not the place of the crucifixion, but of the burial. Therefore, the cross was found in the place of the burial, not of the crucifixion, as William of Tyre seems to have thought, whom we shall cite below in no. 14. Constantine decided to adorn the Holy Monument by building a most elegant house over it, and adding a basilica. Eusebius, in Life of Constantine, book 3, cap. 34, says that beginning with the ornaments of the holy tomb, he "adorned it, as the head of the whole work, with extraordinary columns and the greatest care, illustrating it with ornaments of every kind." And in his book On the Praises of Constantine, chap. 9: "He adorned the monument of the Savior, worthy of eternal memory, and its trophies erected against death, with ornaments which cannot be described in words." This much from Eusebius. And from Cyril, Jerome, and other authors, we receive that a large and spacious house was erected by Constantine in that place, which is sometimes called a church: in which Cyril pronounced his mystagogical catecheses. See catechesis 18, no. 33. Epiphanius was preaching before the people, the clergy, and the bishop, as witnessed by Jerome, Epistle 38, alias 61, and altars were arranged for the sacrifice, at least in Bede’s time, as he was just saying at the end of the previous number. C Thinking to make a place for the ornaments of the sepulchre, the emperor destroyed the greater part of what remained of the old garden dating from Christ’s time, according to Cyril, cat. 14, no. 4, and erased the front cave of the monument, ibid. no. 9. But he must also be said to have cut away and severed the monument itself from the neighboring rock, if the description of the Anastasis which we are about to give from later authors is true. Although Cyril in the cited place seems to indicate that, and that the sacred cave was still attached to the rock or stone in which it had been excavated, and that the rock itself had been joined to the new outer walls of the city. But his words concerning the former are not sufficiently clear: indeed if the anterior cave encompassed the whole monument, it follows, once it was erased, that the sepulchre had been cut away from the rock. The house built over it, as I said, had the name "Anastasis" properly attributed to it: which Bede describes in the book already cited quite often: "To the west of this church (he speaks of the Golgotha, concerning which in no. 6) is the Anastasis, that is, of the Lord’s Resurrection, a round church, increased by three walls, supported by twelve columns: having between the individual walls a wide space of a path, which contains three altars in three places of the middle wall, that is, the southern, northern, and western. It has eight gates, that is, entrances, through three walls in the region; of which four look to the southeast and four to the east. In the middle of this is the round monument of the Lord, cut in the rock, etc.," as above in no. 3. In almost the same way, Paschasius in the place already alleged: "Now, however, as those who come to us from there relate, the church there is round, of excellent workmanship, distinguished by a triple wall, in the middle of which is the monument: having to the east the church which is still called Golgotha today." D I do not sufficiently understand what this triple wall is, or from where the light was received to illuminate the spaces interspersed between the walls. Furthermore, there being only twelve columns placed in so capacious a house does not match the magnificence with which it is said to be decorated. Having consulted skilled architects of that art about this matter, they answered with one voice that, except for the outer wall that encircles and encloses the house, that wall which the aforementioned authors call the middle and third, seemed to them to be nothing but rows of columns; because there were perhaps thicker pillars than in common 420 porticos, and the intercolumniations were less wide and open, the name of walls had been given to them. For the rest, the outer wall and the middle row of columns or middle porticos were lower in that row of columns which encircled the great area, from which, besides the exedra arranged in the circuit of the area, two rows of porticos of the same height, I think, had been constructed; and in that way magnificence and light were attributed to that house. Bede counts eight doors, all facing towards the east, whether summer or winter, and the outer walls of the city: but he omits the western one, perhaps the most magnificent of all, through which one proceeded from the Anastasis to the basilica, or from the basilica into the Anastasis, in the solemn processions often made by the bishop with all the clergy and the people. The Anastasis was separated from the basilica by a vast open-air atrium, the ground of which Constantine paved with splendid stone, with very long porticos added everywhere on three sides—the eastern, southern, and northern—so that it might resemble a monastic cloister; but for the western side, which, situated "opposite the cave," looked towards the sunrise, since the basilica was joined to it (1), the portico itself took the place of this, decorated with magnificent steps by which one ascended to it and gates: which vista the attached portico would have hindered, and would have taken away no small amount of light from the basilica. I think I know what place Jerome is speaking of in ch. 11 of Joel, verse 48, when he says: "In our times we have seen swarms of locusts cover the land of Judea: which afterwards by the mercy of the Lord [were driven away] between the vestibule and the altar..."
with priests and people praying to the Lord, and saying, *Spare Thy people*, etc., were cast into the sea, the first and the last. Perhaps the Frankish monks living in Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives mention this same thing, according to P. Le Quien, *Dissert. Damasc.* 1, no. 13: "On the holy day of Sunday, the priests with the clergy and people were gathered against the tomb of the Lord and between the holy place of Calvary," unless they were placed outside the atrium. There are some who say that in that open-air atrium, the remains of the old garden, of which Cyril speaks (*Cat.* 14, no. 5), and the little mount Golgotha, or the place of the cross, were contained. This opinion cannot be proven to me for many reasons. For first, how could traces of a garden be preserved in soil paved with stones, which was the nature of the atrium of which we speak; or for what good would Constantine have preserved it, when he had not spared the very original cave of the holy monument? Second, the same reason of the stone paving makes us not believe that the little mount Golgotha was placed there; for since it preserved a visible fissure in the rock, according to *Cat.* 15, no. 39, the rock was not paved with stone. Third, our atrium would barely have sufficed to contain and enclose it, which, together with the Anastasis, seems to have consisted in breadth, whereas it was much longer than it was wide. Fourth, from the basilica, the holy monument seems to have been seen; a mount would have obstructed this [view]. B
6. *On the location of Golgotha.* We cannot doubt, however, that the place of Calvary was halfway between the Anastasis and the basilica. Sirmond, *Operum* vol. IV, page 437, in the explanation of a triple coin, chap. 1, cites this testimony from the booklet of Eucherius of Lyon to Faustus the presbyter, that is, the Lérins [monk], afterwards Bishop of Riez, *On the site of the city of Jerusalem*, seen by him in the Vatican library: "First, regarding the holy places, one must turn aside from the condition of the streets to the basilica, which is called the Martyrium, adorned by Constantine the Great with much care. Then from the west (that is, looking toward the west with its doors, unless Eucherius is mistaken in the layout) are Golgotha and the Anastasis; but the Anastasis is in the place of the resurrection, while Golgotha is halfway into the Anastasis. But the Martyrium is the place of the Lord’s passion, in which also the rock appears, which once bore the cross with the Lord’s body attached." Valesius, in a letter to his friend in the notes added to Eusebius, corrects it thus: "Golgotha is a place halfway between the Anastasis and the Martyrium," etc. Bede, who saw these things and transcribed them in part, supports this reading. We say, therefore, that both the mount of Golgotha and the remains of the ancient garden were outside the open-air atrium to the North, separated, from the *Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum*, by a stone's throw, both from the Anastasis and from the basilica of the mount of Calvary; eight paces, from the *Itinerarium of Antoninus the Martyr*, page 15. The distance certainly was not great; for from the basilica of the Resurrection, with the doors open, it could be seen, from *Cat.* 13, no. 23. C I believe in the atrium in the region of Calvary there was an open door that led there. In Cyril’s time, the church had not yet been built at Calvary, which was erected in that place in succeeding times. For Antiochus, a monk of the laura of St. Sabas, in the preliminary letter to Eustachius, mentions three distinct buildings: "The Holy Calvary, the Holy Anastasis, and the venerable basilica of the Cross, which is the mother of all churches." This church of Holy Calvary was destroyed and burned by Chosroes, in the year 615, as witnessed by Eutychius, *Annal.*, vol. II, page 212: "He destroyed," he says, "the churches of Constantine, of the Cranium, and of the Sepulcher; fire having been thrown into the Cranium and the Sepulcher." But not long after they were repaired by the patriarch Modestus: who, he says, went into Syria to collect alms from Christians. "Great, says the same Eutychius, page 219, was the amount of wealth collected; having returned to Jerusalem, he built the churches of the Resurrection, of the Sepulcher, of the Cranium, and of St. Constantine, the structure which already exists." This church of Calvary, one hundred years later, was described thus by Bede in the place already cited: "Then from the west (of the church of the Resurrection, or of the Holy Cross) the Golgothan church is seen, in which also appears that rock which once bore the cross itself to which the Lord was affixed; it now supports a very large silver cross, with a great bronze wheel hanging from above with lamps. Below the very place of the Lord's cross, a crypt is carved into the rock, in which, over an altar, sacrifice is wont to be offered for the honor of the departed, with the bodies meanwhile placed in the street." D
...interiors and exteriors decorated. Concerning the outer roof and the inner chambers. — To the western side of the open-air atrium or cloister, which was positioned in the region of the cave and looked toward the sunrise, was joined the basilica of the Holy Resurrection. These are the words of Eusebius, chap. 36. Certainly, [this is] more credible than Eucherius, who writes that Golgotha and the Anastasis were placed to the west of the basilica; and Bede, who places the Holy Sepulcher to the west of the Golgothan church, between the basilica and the Holy Sepulcher; and Paschasius, who places the Golgothan church on the eastern side of the Holy Sepulcher. Bede perhaps transcribed Eucherius, and Paschasius, Bede and Eucherius. From the description of Eusebius, it is evident that the Holy Sepulcher and the Anastasis were to the east, but the basilica of the Cross was placed in the region to the west, facing [in that direction]; with the doors looking toward the Holy Sepulcher turned to the rising sun, but the opposite doors pertaining to the middle of the city. The church was, therefore, turned not to the east, as was almost always the custom, but to the west; a fact which was common to some churches of this age. This church, as it seems, was open-air, and higher than the ground of the holy monument. I deduce this from the passage of Eutychius, *Annalium* vol. II, page 284, reporting that Omar the Saracen, having captured Jerusalem under the patriarch Sophronius, when he had entered the city and was taken by the patriarch into the inner sanctuary of the Resurrection (which must be understood from the context not of the temple itself, but of the adjacent buildings and perhaps the patriarchal house itself), upon the arrival of the time of prayer, requested of Sophronius, under the laws of his own religion, to lead him to a place suitable for performing prayer: having been introduced into the middle of the temple, with a mat spread out there, he refused to pray: but having gone out to the steps which are at the door of the church of St. Constantine, where it looks to the east, he prayed there alone upon the steps. These things can be understood of the steps of the other church dedicated to St. Constantine, of which Eutychius spoke in the preceding number cited by me, but they seem to better suit the church of the Resurrection built by Constantine. Now there were three doors arranged suitably to the rising sun, from Eusebius, chap. 38, through which the Sepulcher, and, as I said, the mount Golgotha could be seen. This basilica was not, like ours commonly, in the form of a cross, with the farthest part arched into a semicircle or oval figure, but built in the form of a rectangular parallelogram, open with doors corresponding to each other at the front and at the back. Eusebius describes the magnificence of this structure in these words, book III, *Vit. Constant.*, chap. 56: "An admirable work elevated to an immense height, and expanded in maximum length and breadth. The interiors of which were covered with polychrome marble veneers; but the outer surface of the walls was decorated with stones properly joined together, showing an exceptional beauty, in no way inferior to the appearance of marble. As for the roof and the chambers, he covered the outer roofs with lead as a very firm kind of fortification to ward off winter rains; but the inner roof, knit together with carved coffers, and like a vast sea, dilated through the whole 422 basilica with planks joined together, and all covered in the purest gold, the entire basilica...
made it shine as if with certain rays. A Our Cyril says more briefly in Catechesis 14, no. 14: "The emperors of this time constructed this holy church of the Resurrection of God our Savior, in which we are, covered with silver and adorned with inlaid gold; and they decorated it with precious gifts of gold, silver, and gems."
8. *Of the lateral porticoes. Of the hemicycle and the altar.*—There is a double part to be distinguished in the basilica: the nave and the altar. Porticoes, described thus by Eusebius (cap. 37), surrounded both along their entire length: "Furthermore, on either side, twofold porticoes, both underground and rising above the ground, equaled the length of the entire basilica. Of these, those that were in front of the basilica (that is, the exterior ones) were supported by huge columns; those that were interior, however, were supported by piers (or stone pillars) which were externally decorated with great refinement." There are some things in this text that need explanation: 1° That the porticoes are called "underground and rising above ground" (στοῶν ἀναγείων τε καὶ καταγείων): although this might be understood literally as underground porticoes, it is rather to be thought, as Valesius notes on this passage, that it signifies some were level with the floor of the basilica itself, while others were superimposed upon them, of the sort we see in our major churches, for instance in the one in Paris. Such porticoes the ancients called *diorophous* or *diategous*. 2° There were twin porticoes on each side, both lower and upper, as is common in our larger basilicas. The words *stoōn te anageiōn te kai katageiōn didymoi parastades* mean this. The following passage proves this most clearly. For Eusebius says there were others in the front of the basilica; he does not understand this as the gates, which are properly the front of the basilica, but of the exterior aspect of the sides, so that they were placed outside the common roof of the basilica and were supported by large columns on the exterior side. Others are called "interior" by Eusebius, which were perhaps supported not by columns, but by piers and thicker, quadrangular pillars; for it would seem that the roof of the basilica rested upon these, while the others were placed and applied externally.
In the nave there was an *ambo* or pulpit, both for readings and for sermons, the form of which, according to ancient usage, we can describe thus: the pulpit was situated around the middle of the nave and applied to one of the sides, with the throne of the bishop who was preaching standing above it; the lower part, with a few steps, was the place for the readers, and it was level with the floor where the presbyters and clergy sat in the circuit, enclosed on all sides by rails. In the highest part of the church was the altar, placed in the middle of the hemicycle, or rather the semicylinder, constructed of twelve columns. Regarding this, Eusebius says (cap. 38): "Opposite these gates (namely the three gates disposed toward the rising sun against the sepulcher) was a hemisphere, which is the head of the entire work, extending up to the summit of the basilica itself. It was surrounded by twelve columns according to the number of the holy apostles of our Savior, the tops of which were adorned with very large silver craters." The middle altar, it seems, occupied the space, closed off by veils outside the time of the sacrifice, according to the custom of the ancient Greeks. Behind the altar and in the floor of the hemicycle was the bishop's throne, and on this side and that, lower benches for the presbyters. The altar was separated from the nave by rails; which, in this church at least, did not exceed the average height of a man. For when someone leaned on them with his elbows, he was rebuked, as is narrated in the *Life of Saint Euthymius*, page 60. Those rails seem to have been carried around the entire hemicycle. Besides the principal altar, there were, as Paulinus bears witness (Ep. 51, no. 6), other altars which he calls golden. Behind the hemicycle, the structure of the basilica was continued as far as the gates leading to the city.
9. *Of the rear part and the propylaea.*—To those exiting from the basilica into the city, there occurred an open courtyard, adorned with porticoes on each side, B and having passed through the exterior propylaea or vestibules. Eusebius (cap. 39) speaks of this in this fashion: "From here, to those progressing to the entrances that are before the temple, he placed a court (Gr. *aithrion*) in between. There was in that place first a courtyard (Gr. *aulē*), then porticoes on each side, and finally the gates of the courtyard. After these, the vestibules of the entire work (Gr. *propylaea*) were in the very middle of the square where the forum of venal things is, adorned with ambitious refinement; which, to those looking from the outside, exhibited a view of those things that were seen inside, not without a certain astonishment." That square courtyard was common, adorned with a fountain gushing in the middle for the use of those who were entering the church. That one of ours at 423 had porticoes on only two sides, with the doors of the church in the east, and the doors of the courtyard itself in the west, occupying the place of the porticoes. In the porticoes of the courtyard, at least later on, pious images were seen depicted. Mary of Egypt, as is narrated in her *Life*, chapter 16, having been repelled from the entrance of the church, withdrew to a certain corner of the courtyard of the temple, and there looked up at an image of the holy Mother of God standing there. From there was the exit to the propylaea and vestibules of the entire work, which Eusebius recounts were indeed magnificently and ambitiously decorated; but how much space they occupied, in what windings they were sinuous, what figure they presented, he would have made us grateful had he spelled it out. The ends of these reached to the forum in the middle of the city; almost according to the custom of those times, in which squares were placed before the major basilicas, either so that there might be a more beautiful view of the building, or so that goods for sale might be available in the forum to those arriving for the feasts of the martyrs. Since the holy sepulcher was contiguous to the walls of the city, from Cyril, Cat. 14, no. 9, and because the vestibules of the entire work led to the middle of the city, the length of the building can be estimated from there. Hence Eusebius, in his book *On the Praises of Constantine*, chapter 9, page 360, says that our church was built "in the very middle of the city." Here are his words: C *Tēs Hebraiōn basilikēs hestias en mesō, kat’ auto tēs dē to sōtērion, oikon euktērion pammegethē, naōn te hagion tō sōtēriō sēmeiō.* "In the province of Palestine, near the city that was once the royal seat of the Hebrews, in the very middle of the city, at the place of the Lord's sepulcher, he adorned a basilica of immense amplitude and a sacred temple in honor of the holy cross with every kind of magnificence." In the courtyard and the propylaea of the major churches there were chambers, houses, small gardens, baths, etc., as is clear from this law of Theodosius (4, tit. *De his qui ad ecclesias confugiunt*): "That between the temple which we have described by the enclosure of walls, and the first doors of the church, whatever lies between, whether in chambers, or in houses, gardens, baths, courtyards, and porticoes, may be protected in the place of the interior temple." These dwellings were assigned to the bishop, the clerics, the sextons, etc., or for the guarding of sacred vessels. From Eutychius, cited by us at no. 7, we saw that Sophronius had received the Caliph Omar in the dwellings connected to the Church of the Resurrection.
10. *Of baptism. Of the chapel where the cross was kept.*—Two shrines about which Eusebius is silent must be assigned to their places: the baptistery, and the chapel in which the holy cross was stored. Regarding the former, we can interpret these words of the *Jerusalem Itinerary*: "The basilica was made of wondrous beauty, having on the side reservoirs from which water is drawn, and a bath at the back where infants are washed." Baptisteries were commonly before the doors of churches. Since there were double doors in the Church of the Resurrection, some toward the city, others toward the holy sepulcher, it is doubted to which the baptistery was nearest. The back of the church was the holy sepulcher with respect to the city; we might place the baptistery at the doors looking toward that, below and outside the steps of the church for the convenience of conveying water, with the reservoirs of water not far away, perhaps around the western courtyard. The Jerusalemite baptistery consisted of a double part: a vestibule, in which according to the custom of that church, the renun... D
renunciation and the profession of faith were recited before baptism, according to Cyril, *Cat.* 19, n. 2, and the baptistery itself in which the mystery was performed, *ibid.*, n. 11. Cyril, in the cited passage, calls this the “Holy of Holies,” and in the *Procatechesis*, n. 1, the “royal palace.” The baptisteries were commonly arranged in the form of a round building with a chamber set above it. A Concerning the small chapel in which the holy cross was preserved, Paulinus had received this information from Melania returning from Jerusalem; he writes this to his friend Severus, *Epist.* 31, [n. 6]: “The cross of Christ, having been discovered and proven, was soon consecrated within a worthy boundary, set in a basilica at the place of the Passion, which, gleaming with gilded ceilings and rich with golden altars, guards the cross placed in the secret sanctuary.” In which part that sanctuary was built, we have not been able to learn from any source. After the cross was adored, travelers were accustomed to go to the Anastasis, according to the *Pratum Spirituale*, ch. 105, toward the end. In the cited location of the *Pratum Spirituale* it is called the temple, and it was approached through an atrium, on the threshold of which Christopher saw a man hesitating, neither entering nor exiting. B A lamp burned before the cross, by the sprinkling of whose oil many miracles are said to have been performed by the holy Sabas and Cyriacus. A presbyter was in charge of guarding the cross, called from this office the *staurophylax*. It was enclosed in a silver casket, according to Rufinus, *Hist.*, lib. 1, ch. 8, 424, and Paulinus, *Epist.* 31, n. 6. Marcus, however, in his *Life of St. Porphyry of Gaza*, says it was a golden casket; this was perhaps written in later times under the name of Marcus by Metaphrastes or another editor of this *Life*. The holy cross was covered with a pall, which was given to no one. Yet a certain person obtained a portion and carried into Gaul a piece remarkable for many signs. The one who reports this, Gregory of Tours, *Mirac.*, lib. 1, ch. 6, calls it a silk pall.
11. *Of the gifts bestowed upon this church.* — The piety of the emperor did not consist in the construction of buildings, but he attributed many gifts to it; concerning which Eusebius says thus, ch. 40: “The emperor erected this temple as a conspicuous testimony to the salutary resurrection” (Cyril later said the same, *Cat.* 14, n. 22, calling this church built by Constantine one among the witnesses of the resurrection), “and he decorated it with magnificent and clearly royal apparatus.” It cannot be said how many and how great were the ornaments and gifts, partly of gold and silver, partly of gems, with which he adorned it in diverse ways. Their apparatus, prepared with the highest skill, and remarkable for its size, number, and variety, there is no time here to explain in detail. Besides the ornaments of the building and the hung votive offerings, with which Eusebius says (lib. iv *Vita Constant.*, ch. 44) the whole temple was adorned in diverse ways, one can count: 1st, lamps, lights, candelabra, etc., of which an infinite number was necessary for church vigils, and especially for the Easter vigil. These were already said to be made of gold among Christians in the third century. 2nd, Veils, perhaps painted, palls, mats, sacred garments; especially, Constantine was said to have given to the bishop a pall woven with golden threads for the celebration of holy baptism, which, in public poverty, Cyril was reported to have sold, from Theodoret, *Hist.*, lib. 2, ch. 27. 3rd, Chalices, patens, platters; which ecclesiastical use demanded to be much more numerous and heavier than they are today; forty books and codices both sacred, already written at that time on purple parchment with golden and silver letters, and covered with gold, silver, and gems; also ritual and ecclesiastical books. 4th, Perhaps estates and revenues attributed to the repair of the buildings. Eusebius makes Constantine the sole author of the building, both in lib. 3 *De vita Constant.* and in his book *On His Praises*. Likewise Cyril, *Cat.* 14, n. 22, who, however, in n. 14 adds his sons to him, for at the time of the dedication of the church all the Caesars and partners in the empire were already present, from Eusebius, lib. IV *Vit. Constant.*, ch. 40. In contrast, Paulinus, *Epist.* 31, n. 4, Socrates, lib. 1 *Hist.*, ch. 17, and Theodoret, lib. 1 *Hist.*, ch. 18, ascribe the work to his mother Helena. These things are easily reconciled, so that Helena was the leader and discoverer of the work, transferring herself to those places; but Constantine, with the treasury provided and the necessary things ordered and performed, contributing no less will and eagerness than his mother, and uniquely continuing the works after her death, might deservedly be considered their author.
12. *Of the dedication of the work.* — The year when it was begun can scarcely be defined. Since Helena died before the year 330, it is necessary that it was begun before that time. In the year 333, when the author of the *Itinerary from Bordeaux* came to Jerusalem and to those places, the work was in full swing, and many buildings had already been constructed, nor yet do we believe the construction was perfect and absolute before the year 335, when the church was dedicated. That solemn dedication took place, with the emperor having summoned to it those bishops who were celebrating the council at Tyre against Athanasius, as well as others who had not been at Tyre, Eusebius, lib. IV *Vit. Const.*, ch. 42. Eusebius describes this dedication at length in the same book, ch. 40, 41 et seqq. Namely, the bishops celebrated this dedication partly with prayers, partly with unbloody sacrifices and mystical offerings, partly with sermons delivered to the people concerning the clemency of the emperor and the magnificence of the temple, concerning the sacred dogmas of theology adapted to the present festival, or with the arcane and mystical interpretation of the sacred volumes. Eusebius, *ibid.*, ch. 45. But eternal infamy attached to this council, from Arius and his associates being received into communion against divine and ecclesiastical laws. Valesius, in his notes to the cited chapter of Eusebius, assigns the dedication of the Jerusalem church to the 13th of September, on the authority of Nicephorus, lib. VIII, c. 30, the *Typicon* of St. Sabas, and the *Menology of the Greeks*; Sophronius also in his oration *On the Exaltation of the Holy Cross*, and the *Alexandrian Chronicle*, which on p. 666 reports that the church was dedicated on the 17th of September. We do not deny that the church's dedication festival was celebrated on that day; but that we should think the same was the day it was dedicated, the undoubted monuments among Athanasius stand in the way, by which it is proven that the council of Tyre had still been in session at that time.
425 13. *Of the name and title of the church.* — It is dedicated in honor of the Resurrection and Cross of the Lord, whence it has this double appellation. For Cyril, *Cat.* 14, n. 14, calls it the “Holy Church of the Resurrection of the Savior God,” and other authors do so throughout the centuries. Yet the name “Resurrection,” in Greek *Anastasis*, was especially attributed to the holy sepulcher. Cyril himself, *Cat.* 18, n. 33, calls it the “holy place of the Resurrection,” *τὸν ἅγιον τῆς Ἀναστάσεως τόπον*. To avoid ambiguity, I think it happened that the basilica was called by either both names or solely by the name of the Holy Cross. For it is certain that it bore the name of the holy cross, either because it was consecrated in honor of the cross, or because the cross was preserved in it. Eusebius, in his book *On the Praises of Constantine*, c. 9, says our church built by Constantine is *τὸ σωτήριον σημεῖον*, in honor of the sign of the Savior. To this can be referred what Cyril says, *Cat.* 13, n. 40: “Who now brought you to this assembly? The cross, the salutary trophy of Jesus, drove everyone here.” A similar sentiment is found in the homily of Cyril of Alexandria pronounced at Ephesus in the church of St. Mary: *Σύστημα τῶν ἁγίων προθύμως, κεκλημένων ὑπὸ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ Θεοτόκου Μαρίας·* “A congregation of the saints who arrived eagerly, called by the holy and Theotokos Mary.” In this sense can be explained that passage of St. Jerome, tossed about by the interpretations of many, *Ep.* 38, “When you journeyed from the Anastasis to the Cross”; that is, when you journeyed from the Holy Sepulcher to the Church of the Holy Cross. Certainly this church, both in Theodoret, *On Ezekiel*, ch. XLVII, p. 538, and in the *Alexandrian Chronicle*, p. 666, and in Antiochus, n. 6 cited above, has only the name of the Holy Cross. But Basil of Seleucia, *Orat.* 58, p. 199, clearly testifies that it had both names, of the Resurrection and of the Cross, in his time.
A Commonly, it was called the "Martyrion," bearing the Lord's sufferings even until now—that is to say, of the Cross and of the Resurrection. Furthermore, the bishops, who gathered for its dedication, say in a letter, the beginning of which is cited by Athanasius in his *Apology against the Arians*, no. 84, that they met "for the consecration of the Savior's Martyrion." Eusebius attributes this same name to it in *Life of Constantine*, Book III, ch. 40, "The emperor erected the temple as an obvious testimony to the Savior's resurrection." He plays clearly on the word *martyrion*, which was the name of the church and signifies "testimony." He is more explicit in Book IV, chapters 40, 45, and 47. In the last place, "The emperor consecrated the Martyrion around the Savior's monument." To omit the Greek inscriptions of heads 28, 30, and 33, Book I, and chapters 40 and 46. Sozomen, Book II, ch. 26, testifies that this same basilica was called the great "Martyrion." We have seen above, no. 6, the testimony of Eucherius, from which Bede fashioned these words of his own in *On the Holy Places*, ch. 2: "First among the holy places, one must turn aside according to the condition of the streets to the Constantinian church, which is called the Martyrion. This Emperor Constantine built with magnificent and royal splendor, because the Lord's cross was found there by his mother Helena." But I will provide a witness to this name who is greater than any exception, namely Cyril, who in Catechesis 14, no. 6, says that the Golgotha basilica of the Resurrection is not called a church like the others, but "Martyrion"; and to this he draws that prophetic word of Zephaniah 3:8: "Wait for me, says the Lord, in the day of my resurrection, as a testimony," which is called *martyrion* in Greek. In truth, since the name "martyrion" is attributed to churches because churches were accustomed to be built over the tombs of martyrs, in the place of their passion, and to celebrate the glory of their testimony; from the three churches of the Resurrection, Nativity, and Ascension, built by Helena in Jerusalem or nearby in honor of Christ's mysteries, only the basilica of the Resurrection could bear the name of "Martyrion" because it was built over Christ, the head of the martyrs, in the place of his martyrdom and passion, and at his own tomb. That name of "Martyrion" is sometimes attributed by Eusebius especially to the holy sepulcher. He says in Book III, *Life of Constantine*, ch. 28, that when the holy sepulcher was being sought, the material with which it had been hidden was dug up and carried away, "And the holy and most sacred testimony of the Savior's resurrection appeared beyond all hope." B And in chapter 53 concerning the church of the Resurrection built around the sacred monument: "And indeed at this very Savior's *martyrion* the new Jerusalem was being constructed." A little after, it was repaired. Destroyed by Hequen in the year 1011, rebuilt in the year 1048, and enlarged by the Latins. The church of the Resurrection was the head and preeminent of all the churches of Jerusalem. In it was the episcopal seat; in it also were held almost all the synaxes and catecheses, the church of the Apostles on Mount Sion—which had been consecrated on the arrival of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles—being relegated, as per Cyril, Cat. 16, no. 4. In it, unceasing psalmody was carried out by the chanters, as per Cat. 13, no. 26. First, in the year 615, Jerusalem, having been captured by the Persians, suffered a certain ruin, and the cross was carried off from there. The Holy Sepulcher, or the Anastasis, is said to have been destroyed by having fire cast into it. C But Modestus repaired it not long after those ruins, as we have recalled above from Eutychius, no. 6. Omar, prince of the Saracens, having occupied the city around the year 640, spared the churches of the Christians and wished to convert none of them to the use of his own superstition; he raised for himself and his own people a new [temple] only in the place where the temple of the Jews had been, according to Eutychius, *Annales*, vol. II, p. 284 and 287. Variable was the fortune of the Christians according to the customs of the caliphs ruling Jerusalem, until the caliph Hequen, of the sect of the Egyptian Muhammadans, in the year of our Lord 1011, razed the church of the Resurrection from the foundations under the patriarch Orestes, who was his uncle through his mother. This event William of Tyre describes in these words in his *Belli sacri*, Book I, ch. 4: "He commanded that, among other things, the church of the Lord's Resurrection, which had been built—one might have said rather completed and dedicated—by the venerable man Maximus, bishop of that same place, at the command of the lord Constantine Augustus, and later repaired by the most reverend Modestus in the time of the lord Heraclius, be razed to the ground. A certain agent of his, named Hyaroe, receiving the rescript of that command directed to him, carried the royal decree into effect, the aforesaid church being destroyed down to the ground." The same author narrates in ch. 6 that, the most wicked prince being removed from the living, his son Daher, at the request of the Roman emperor of the Greeks, granted to the Jerusalemites the power of rebuilding that church; but the faithful, afflicted by poverty, implored help from Constantine Monomachus, who had succeeded Romanus. He providing the expenses, "They built," he says, "the church of the Holy Resurrection which is now in Jerusalem, in the year 1048 after the Incarnation of the Lord, after it had been destroyed for 37 years." This was done under the patriarch Nicephorus. Furthermore, they did not place the church on the same foundations on which the former one had been, but around and above the sacred monument. The same author speaks thus, lib. VI, c. 3: "In the same place also (on the western mountain of Sion), but on the slope which looks toward the east, the church of the Holy Resurrection is situated, round in form. And because it is situated on the slope of the aforesaid mountain, so that the hill rising and contiguous to the church almost exceeds the height of the church and makes it dark, it has a roof, with beams raised to the height and woven in the manner of a crown with wondrous art, open and perpetually gaping, from whence the necessary light is poured into the church: under which wide opening the monument of the Savior is placed." D The same is reported by James of Vitry, *Hist. Jerosolym.*, ch. 61: "In the place of the Lord's sepulcher, the Christians built with skillful work, in a decent layout, in a round form, the glorious church of the Lord's Resurrection, open above by only one hole, which not undeservedly obtains the primacy among the holy and venerable places." William adds in the cited place that, before the entry of our Latins into Jerusalem, the place of the Lord's passion which is called Calvary or Golgotha, and where it is also said the wood of the life-giving cross was found, and where also the Savior's body is said to have been anointed with ointments and spices and wrapped in a shroud after being taken down from the cross, were very small oratories outside the ambit of the aforesaid church; but after our people, with divine grace assisting, obtained the city with a strong hand, the aforesaid building seemed to them too narrow; and the former church having been enlarged with most solid and very lofty work, they included the aforesaid places within the new building, continuous and inserted into the old. Here I shall make an end of this history, which now pertains nothing to the Constantinian church. Whosoever desires the rest will receive it from the Jerusalem Itineraries and from the descriptions of the present state of Palestine.