The Catechetical
Lectures
of
S. Cyril,
Archbishop of Jerusalem,
Translated
[4th Edition, Parker & Co. and
Rivingtons, 1872]
Preface
{i} S. CYRIL,
the author of the Catechetical Lectures which follow, was born in an
age ill adapted for the comfort or satisfaction of persons
distinguished by his peculiar character of mind, and in consequence
did not receive that justice from contemporaries which the Church
Catholic has since rendered to his memory. The Churches of Palestine,
apparently his native country, were the first to give reception to
Arius on his expulsion from Alexandria, and without adopting his
heresy, affected to mediate and hold the balance between him and his
accusers. They were followed in this line of conduct by the provinces
of Syria and Asia Minor, till the whole of the East, as far as it was
Grecian, became more or less a large party, enduring to be headed by
men who went the whole length of Arianism, from a fear of being
considered Alexandrians or Athanasians, and a notion, for one reason
or other, that it was thus pursuing a moderate course, and avoiding
extremes. What were the motives which led to this perverted view of
its duty to Catholic truths then so seriously endangered, and what the
palliations in the case of individuals, need not be minutely
considered here. Suffice it to say, that between the Churches of Asia
and the metropolis of Egypt there had been distinctions, not to say
differences and jealousies of long standing; to which was added this
great and real difficulty, that a Council held at Antioch about sixty
years before had condemned the very term, Homoüsion, which was the
symbol received at Nicæa, and maintained by the Alexandrians. The
latter were in close agreement with the {ii} Latin Church, especially
with Rome; and thus two great confederacies, as they may be called,
were matured at this distressing era, which outlived the controversy
forming them, the Roman, including the West and Egypt, and the
Asiatic, extending from Constantinople to Jerusalem. Of the Roman
party, viewed at and after the Arian period, were Alexander,
Athanasius, Eustathius, Marcellus, Julius, Ambrose, and Jerome; of the
Asiatic, Eusebius of Cæsarea, Cyril, Meletius, Eusebius of Samosata,
Basil of Cæsarea (the Great), Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebaste,
and Flavian. Of the latter, some were Semi-arian; of the former, one
at least was Sabellian; while the majority of both were, to say the
least, strictly orthodox; some of the latter indeed acquiescing with
more or less of cordiality in the expediency of adopting the important
Symbol of the Nicene Council, but others, it need scarcely be said, on
both sides, being pillars of the Church in their day, as they have
been her lights since. Such was the general position of the Church;
and it is only confessing that the early Bishops and Divines were men "of
like passions with" ourselves, to add, that some of them sometimes
misunderstood or were prejudiced against others, and have left on
record reports, for the truth of which they trusted perhaps too much
to their antecedent persuasions, or the representations of their own
friends. When Arianism ceased to be supported by the civil power, the
controversy between East and West died; and peace was easily effected.
And the terms of effecting it were these:—the reception of the Homoüsion
by the Asiatics, and on that reception their recognition, in spite of
their past scruples, by the Alexandrians and Latins. In this sketch
the main outlines of S. Cyril's history will be found to be contained;
he seems to have been afraid of the term Homoüsion [Note
1], to have been disinclined both to the friends of Athanasius and
to the Arians [Note 2], to have
allowed the tyranny of the latter, to have shared in the general
reconciliation, and at length both in life and death to have received
honours from the {iii} Church, which, in spite of whatever objections
may be made to them, appear, on a closer examination of his history,
not to be undeserved.
CYRIL is said to have
been the son of Christian parents, but the date and place of his birth
is unknown. He was born in the first years of the fourth century, and
at least was brought up in Jerusalem. He was ordained Deacon probably
by Macarius, and Priest by Maximus, the Bishops of Jerusalem; the
latter of whom he succeeded A.D.
349, or 350. Shortly before this, (A.D.
347, or 348,) during his Priesthood, he had delivered the Catechetical
Lectures which have come down to us. With his Episcopate commence the
historical difficulties under which his memory labours. It can
scarcely be doubted that one of his consecrators was Acacius of Cæsarea
[Note 3], the leader of Arianism
in the East, who had just before (A.D. 347) been
deposed by the Council of Sardica; yet, as the after history shows,
Cyril was no friend of the Arians or of Acacius [Note
4]. He was canonically consecrated by the Bishops of his province,
and as Acacius was still in possession of the principal see, he was
compelled to a recognition which he might have wished to dispense
with. He seems to have been a lover of peace; the Council of Sardica
was at first as little acknowledged by his own party as by the Arians;
and Acacius, being even beyond other Arians skilful and subtle in
argument, and admitting the special formula [Note
5] of Cyril on the doctrine in controversy, probably succeeded in
disguising his heresy from him.
A more painful account,
however, of his consecration is given by S. Jerome [Note
6], supported in the main by other writers, which can only be
explained by supposing that Father to be misled by the information or
involved in the prejudices of Cyril's enemies. He relates, that upon
Maximus's death, the {iv} Arians seized upon the Church of Jerusalem,
and promised Cyril the see on condition of his renouncing the
ordination he had received from Maximus, and submitting to
re-ordination from their hands; that he assented, served in the Church
as a mere Deacon, and was then raised by Acacius to the Episcopate,
when he persecuted Heraclius, whom Maximus had consecrated as his
successor. This account, incredible in itself, is contradicted, on the
one hand, by the second General Council, which in its Synodal letter
plainly states that he had been "canonically ordained" Bishop, and on
the other by his own writings, which as plainly show, that in doctrine
he was in no respect an Arian or an Arianizer.
If he suffers in memory from
the Latin party as if Arian, he suffered not less in his life from the
Arians as being orthodox. Seven or eight years after his consecration,
he had a dispute with Acacius about the rights of their respective
Churches [Note 7]. Acacius in
consequence accused him to the Emperor Constantius of holding with the
orthodox; to which it was added that he had during a scarcity sold
some offerings made by Constantine to his Church, to supply the wants
of the poor. Cyril in consequence was deposed, and retired to Tarsus [Note
8]; where, in spite of the efforts of Acacius, he was hospitably
received, and employed by Silvanus the Semi-arian Bishop of the place.
We find him at the same time in friendship with Eustathius of Sebaste
and Basil of Ancyra, both Semi-arians [Note
9]. His own writings, however, as has already been intimated, are
most exactly orthodox, though he does not in the Catechetical
Lectures, use the word Homoüsion; and in associating with these men
he went little farther than S. Hilary [Note
10], during his banishment in Asia Minor, who calls Basil and
Eustathius "most holy men," than S. Athanasius, who acknowledges as "brethren"
those who but scrupled at the word Homoüsion [Note
11], {v} or than S. Basil of Cæsarea, who till a late period of
his life was an intimate friend of Eustathius.
In A.D.
359, two years after his deposition, he successfully appealed against
Acacius to the Council of Seleucia [Note
12], one of the two branches of the great Council of East and
West, which was convened under the patronage of Constantius to settle
the troubles of the Christian world. But the next year, Acacius
contriving to bring the matter before a Council at Constantinople,
where the Emperor was staying, Cyril with his friends was a second
time deposed, and banished from Palestine [Note
13].
On Constantius's death all the
banished bishops were restored [Note
14], and Cyril, who was at that time with Meletius of Antioch,
returned to Jerusalem, A.D. 362. He was
there at the time of Julian's attempt to rebuild the Temple [Note
15], and from the Prophecies boldly foretold its failure.
He was once more driven from
his see, during the reign of the Arian Valens [Note
16], (A.D.
367,) and he remained dispossessed till A.D.
378.
About the time of the death of
Valens, the last of the Arian princes, he was restored, but under what
circumstances is unknown. The Arians fell once for all with their
imperial protectors; and soon after, that union of Christian Churches
took place, which would never have been interrupted, had not a few
bold and subtle-minded men contrived to delude them into the belief of
mutual differences. S. Athanasius, the great peace-maker of the
Church, was gone to his rest; and S. Basil also, who had mourned over
evils which he had no means of remedying. Gregory of Nyssa, the
brother of the latter, Gregory of Nazianzum, Meletius of Antioch,
remained; and were present together with Cyril in the second General
Council [Note 17], which
formally restored the latter to his see, and in {vi} its letter to the
Western Bishops speaks of him as "the most reverend and religious
Cyril, long since canonically appointed by the Bishops of the
province, and in many ways and places a withstander of the Arians [Note
18]." He died about the year 386. Except one or two short
compositions and fragments, nothing remains of his writings but his
Catechetical Lectures.
No ecclesiastical writer could
be selected more suitable to illustrate the main principle on which
the present "Library of the Fathers" has been undertaken, than S.
Cyril of Jerusalem. His Catechetical Lectures were delivered, as we
have seen, when he was a young man; and he belonged, till many years
after their delivery, to a party or school of theology, distinct, to
say the least, from that to which the most illustrious divines of his
day belonged; a school, never dominant in the Church, and expiring
with his age. It is not then on the score of especial personal
authority that his Lectures are now presented to the English reader;
and if the simple object of this Publication were to introduce the
latter to the wise and good of former times, S. Cyril would
have no claims to a place in it beyond many who have lived since.
In saying this, it is far
indeed from being asserted, that the personal claims of the Fathers of
the Church on our deference are inconsiderable; for it happens, not
unnaturally, that the works which have been preserved, were worth
preserving, or rather that their writers would have been extraordinary
men in any age, and speak with the weight of great experience,
ability, and sanctity. To those who believe that moral truth is not
gained by the mere exercise of the intellect, but is granted to moral
attainments, and that God speaks to inquirers after truth by the mouth
of those who possess these, the writings of S. Basil or S. Augustine
must always have an authority independent of their date or their
agreement; nor is it possible for serious persons to read them,
without feeling the authority which they possess as individuals. This,
however, {vii} whatever it be, is not the main subject to which the
present Translations propose to direct attention. The works to be
translated have been viewed simply and plainly in the light of
witnesses to an historical fact, viz. the religion which the Apostles
transmitted to the early Churches, a fact to be ascertained as other
past facts, by testimony, requiring the same kind of evidence, moral
not demonstrative, open to the same difficulties of proof, and to be
determined by the same practical judgment. It seems hardly conceivable
that a fact so public and so great as the religion of the first
Christians should be incapable of ascertainment, at least in its
outlines, that it should have so passed away like a dream, that the
most opposite opinions may at this day be maintained about it without
possibility of contradiction. If it was soon corrupted or
extinguished, then it is obvious to inquire after the history of such
corruption or extinction; such a revolution every where, without
historical record, being as unaccountable as the disappearance of the
original religion for which it is brought to account. At first sight
there is, to say the least, a considerable antecedent improbability in
the notion, that, whereas we know the tenets and the history of the
Stoic or the Academic philosophy, yet we do not know the main tenets,
nor yet the fundamental principles, nor even the spirit and temper of
Apostolic Christianity.
Under a sense of this
improbability, in other words with an expectation that historical
research would supply what they sought, our Divines at and since the
Reformation have betaken themselves to the extant documents of the
early Church, in order to determine thereby what the system of
Primitive Christianity was; and so to elicit from Scripture more
completely and accurately that revealed truth, which, though revealed
there, is not on its surface, but needs to be deduced and developed
from it. They went to the Fathers for information concerning
matters, on which the Fathers at first sight certainly do promise to
give information, just as inquirers into any other branch of knowledge
might study {viii} those authors who have treated of it; and, whether
or not they found what they sought, it surely was reasonable so to
seek it, and cannot be condemned except by the event,—that
is, by showing that their expectation, however reasonable
antecedently, is mistaken in fact, that after the search into history,
no evidence is forthcoming concerning the tenets, nor yet the
principles, nor even the temper which the Apostles inculcated.
A like expectation has
actuated the present Publication; it has been conceived probable, to
say the least, that the study of the writings of the Fathers will
enable us to determine morally, to make up our minds for practical
purposes, what the doctrines of the Apostles were, for instance
whether or not they believed in our Lord's Divinity, or the general
necessity of Baptism for salvation;—or if not the doctrines, still
what were their principles, as whether or not or how far they
allowed of using secular means for advancing Christian truth, or
whether or not they sanctioned the monarchical principle, or again the
centralizing principle, or again the principle of perpetuity in Church
matters, or whether they considered that Scripture should be
interpreted in the mere letter, or what is called spiritually;—or at
least what was their temper, for instance, whether or not it
was what is now called in reproach superstitious, or whether or not
exclusive, or whether or not opposed to display and excitement. On
some or other of these points there are surely grounds for expecting information
from the Fathers, sufficient for our practice, and therefore having
claims upon it.
Recourse then being had to the
writings of the Fathers, in order to obtain information as to this
historical fact, viz. the doctrines, the principles, and the religious
temper of Apostolical Christianity, so far we have little to do with
the personal endowments of the Fathers, except as these bear on the
question of their fidelity. Their being men of strictest lives and
most surpassing holiness, would not prove that they knew what it was
the Apostles taught; and, were they but {ix} ordinary men, this need
not incapacitate them from being faithful witnesses and serviceable
informants, if they were in a position to be such. We should have only
to take into account, and weigh against each other, their
qualifications and disqualifications, for being evidence to a fact; we
should have to balance honesty against prejudice, education against
party influence, early attachments against reason, and so on. Thus we
should treat them, taken one by one; but even this sort of personal
scrutiny will be practically superseded, when we consult them, not
separately, but as our Reformed Church ever has done, together; and
demand their unanimous testimony to any point of doctrine or
discipline, before we make any serious use of them: for it stands to
reason, that, where they agree, the peculiarities of their respective
nations, education, history, and period, instead of suggesting an
indefinite suspicion against the subject-matter of their testimony,
does but increase the evidence of its truth. Their testimony becomes
the concurrence of many independent witnesses in behalf of the same
facts; and, if it is to be slighted or disparaged, one does not see
what knowledge of the past remains to us, or what matter for the
historian. Viewing S. Cyril, for instance, as one of a body who bears
a concordant evidence to the historical fact, that the Apostles taught
that Christ is God [Note 19], or
that Baptism is the remedy of original sin [Note
20], or that celibacy is not imperative on the clergy [Note
21], whether he was Asiatic or African, of the Roman or the
Oriental party, as little matters, as when we consider him as one of a
company bearing witness to the historical fact, that the Apostles and
their associates wrote the New Testament. Indeed, as the matter
stands, there is something very remarkable and even startling to the
reader of S. Cyril, to find in a divine of his school such a perfect
agreement, for instance as regards the doctrine of the Trinity, with
those Fathers who in his age were more famous as champions of it. Here
is a writer, separated by {x} whatever cause from what, speaking
historically, may be called the Athanasian School, suspicious of its
adherents, and suspected by them; yet he, when he comes to explain
himself [Note 22], expresses
precisely the same doctrine as that of Athanasius or Gregory, while he
merely abstains from the particular theological term in which the
latter Fathers agreeably to the Nicene Council conveyed it. Can we
have a clearer proof that the difference of opinion between them was
not one of ecclesiastical and traditionary doctrine, but of practical
judgment? that the Fathers at Nicæa wisely considered that, under the
circumstances, the word in question was the only symbol which would
secure the Church against the insidious heresy which was assailing it,
while S. Cyril [Note 23], with
Eusebius of Cæsarea, Meletius, and others, shrunk from it, at least
for a while, as if an addition to the Creed, or a word already taken
into the service of an opposite heresy [Note
24], and likely to introduce into the Church heretical notions?
Their judgment, which was erroneous, was their own; their faith was
not theirs only, but shared with them by the whole Christian world.
At the same time it must be
granted, that this view of the Fathers as witnesses to Apostolic truth
not individually but collectively, clear and unanswerable as it is,
considered as a view, is open to some great practical inconveniences,
when acted on in such an undertaking as that in which the present
Editors are engaged. For since, by the supposition, no one of the
Fathers is necessarily right in all his doctrine, taken by himself,
but may be erroneous in secondary points, each taken by himself is in
danger, by his own peculiarities, on the one hand of throwing
discredit on all together, on the other of perplexing those who by
means of the Fathers are inquiring after Catholic truth. And whereas
in any publication of this nature, they cannot appear all at once, but
first one and then {xi} another, and at all events cannot be read
altogether, it follows that, during their gradual perusal, unavoidable
prejudice will often attach to the Fathers, and to the Catholic Faith,
and to those who are enforcing the latter by means of the former. And
thus Editors of the Fathers are pretty much in the condition of
Architects, who lie under the disadvantage, from which Painters and
Sculptors are exempt, of having their work exposed to public criticism
through every stage of its execution, and being expected to provide
symmetry and congruity in its parts independent of the whole.
Such are the circumstances in
which we find ourselves, open to remark for every opinion, every
sentence, every phrase, of every Father, before its meaning,
relevancy, importance, or bearings are ascertained; before it is known
whether it will be, as it were, obliterated by others, or completed,
or explained, or modified, or unanimously witnessed. And since the
evil is in the nature of the case itself, we can do no more than have
patience, and recommend patience to others, and with the racer in the
Tragedy look forward steadily and hopefully to the event,—[TOi
TELEI pistin pheron],—when, as we trust, all that
is inharmonious and anomalous in the details, will at length be
practically smoothed. Meanwhile, as regards the condition of the
reader himself, we consider that we shall sufficiently provide for his
perplexity by reminding him of his duty to take his own Church for the
present as his guide, and her decisions as a key and final arbiter, as
regards the particular statements of the separate Fathers, which he
may meet with; being fully confident, that her judgment which he
begins by taking as a touchstone of each, will in the event be found
to be really formed, as it ought to be, on a view of the testimony of
all.
In expressing, however, these
thoughts, it is obvious to anticipate an objection of another sort
which is likely to be urged against our undertaking, to the effect
that all these dangers and warnings are gratuitous, Scripture itself
containing {xii} sufficient information concerning the doctrines,
principles, and mind of the Apostles, without having recourse to the
difficult and, as has been above confessed, the anxious task, whether
ultimately successful or not, of collecting the object of our inquiry
from the writings of the Fathers. This is not the place to treat of an
objection, to which much attention has been drawn for several years
past; yet thus much may be observed in passing:—If the sufficiency
of Scripture for teaching as well as proving the Christian faith be
maintained as a theological truth, the grounds in reason must be
demanded, grounds such as are independent of that inquiry into history
which it is brought forward to prohibit. If it is urged as a truth
obvious in matter of fact, and practically certain, then its
maintainers have to account for the actual disagreement among readers
of Scripture as to what the faith, principles, and temper of
the Apostles were. And if it be urged on the authority of the sixth
Article of our Church, then they must be asked, why if this Article
contained a reason against deferring to Antiquity, the Convocation of
1571, which imposed it, at the same time, as is well known, ordered
all preachers to teach according to the Catholic Fathers, and
why our most eminent Divines, beginning with the writers of the
Homilies themselves, have ever pursued that very method.
Nothing can be more certain
than that Scripture contains all necessary doctrine; yet nothing, it
is presumed, can be more certain either, than that, practically
speaking, it needs an interpreter; nothing more certain than that our
Church and her Divines assign the witness of the early ages of
Christianity concerning Apostolic doctrine, as that interpreter.
Without, however, entering
into a question which our Church seems to have determined for us, a
few words shall be devoted to the explanation of a verbal difficulty
by which it is often perplexed. An objection is made, which, when
analyzed, resolves itself into the following form. {xiii} "Either
Antiquity does or does not teach something over and above Scripture:
if it does, it adds to the inspired word;—if it does not, it is
useless.—Does it then or does it not add to Scripture?" And,
as if showing that the question is a perplexed one, of various writers
who advocate the use of Antiquity, one may be found to speak of the
writings of the Fathers as enabling us to ascertain and revive truths
which have fallen into desuetude, while another may strenuously
maintain, that they impart the knowledge of no new truths over and
above what Scripture sets before us. Now, not to touch upon other
points suggested by this question, it may be asked by way of
explanation, whether the exposition of the true sense of any legal
document, any statute or deed, which has been contested, is an
addition to it or not? It is in point of words certainly; for
if the words were the same, it would be no explanation; but it is no
addition to the sense, for it professes to be neither more nor less
than the very sense, which is expressed in one set of words in the
original document, in another in the comment. In like manner, when our
Saviour says, "I and My Father are One," and Antiquity interprets "One"
to mean one in substance," this is an addition to the wording,
but no addition to the sense. Of many possible means of interpreting a
word, it cuts away all but one, or if it recognizes others, it reduces
them to harmony and subordination to that one. Unless the Evangelist
wished his readers to be allowed to put any conceivable sense upon the
word, the power of doing so is no privilege; rather it is a privilege
to know that very meaning, which to the exclusion of all others is the
true meaning. Catholic Tradition professes to do for Scripture just
which is desirable, whether it is possible or not, to relieve us from
the chance of taking one or other of the many senses which are wrong
or insufficient, instead of the one sense which is true and complete.
But again, every diligent
reader of the Bible has a certain {xiv} idea in his own mind of what
its teaching is, an idea which he cannot say is gained from this or
that particular passage, but which he has gained from it as a whole,
and which if he attempted to prove argumentatively, he might perplex
himself or fall into inconsistencies, because he has never trained his
mind in such logical processes; yet nevertheless he has in matter of
fact a view of Scripture doctrine, and that gained from
Scripture, and which, if he states it, he does not necessarily state
in words of Scripture, and which, whether after all correct or not, is
not incorrect merely because he does not express it in Scripture
words, or because he cannot tell whence he got it, or logically refer
it to, or prove it from, particular passages. One man is a Calvinist,
another an Arminian, another a Latitudinarian; not logically merely,
but from the impression gained from Scripture. Is the Latitudinarian
necessarily adding to Scripture because he maintains the proposition,
"religious opinions matter not, so that a man is sincere," a
proposition not in terminis in Scripture? Surely he is
unscriptural, not because he uses words not in Scripture, but because
he thereby expresses ideas which are not expressed in Scripture. In
answer then to the question, whether the Catholic system is an
addition to Scripture, we reply, in one sense it is, in another it is
not. It is not, inasmuch as it is not an addition to the range of
independent ideas which Almighty God intended should be
expressed and conveyed on the whole by the inspired text: it is an
addition, inasmuch as it is in addition to their arrangement,
and to the words containing them,—inasmuch as it stands as a
conclusion contrasted with its premisses, inasmuch as it does that
which every reader of the Scriptures does for himself, express and
convey the ideas more explicitly and determinately than he finds them,
and inasmuch as there may be difficulty in duly referring every part
of the explicit doctrine to the various parts of Scripture which
contain it. {xv}
Nothing here is intended
beyond setting right an ambiguity of speech which both perplexes
persons, and leads them to think that they differ from others, from
whom they do not differ. No member of the English Church ever thought
that the Church's creed was an addition to Scripture in any
other sense than that in which an individual's own impression
concerning the sense of Scripture is an addition to it; or ever
referred to a supposed deposit of faith distinct from Scripture
existing in the writings of the Fathers, in any other sense than in
that in which asking a friend's opinion about the sense of Scripture,
might be called imputing to him unscriptural opinions. The question of
words then may easily be cleared up, though it often becomes a
difficulty; the real subject in dispute, which is not here to
be discussed, being this, how this one true sense of Scripture
is to be learned, whether by philological criticism upon definite
texts,—or by a promised superintendence of the Holy Ghost teaching
the mind the true doctrines from Scripture, (whether by a general
impression upon the mind, or by leading it, text by text piecemeal
into doctrine by doctrine;)—or, on the other hand, by a blessing of
the Spirit upon studying it in the right way, that is, in the way
actually provided, in other words, according to the Church's
interpretations. In all cases the text of Scripture and an exposition
of it are supposed; in the one the exposition comes first and is
brought to Scripture, in the other it is brought out after examination
into Scripture; but you cannot help assigning some exposition or
other, if you value the Bible at all. Those alone will be content to
ascribe no sense to Scripture, who think it matters not whether it has
any sense or not. As to the case of a difference eventually occurring
in any instance of importance, between what an individual considers to
be the sense of Scripture and that which he finds Antiquity to put
upon it, the previous question must be asked, whether such difference
is likely to arise. It will not arise in the case of the majority, nor
in the case of serious, sensible, and humble minds; {xvi} and where
men are not such, it will be but one out of many difficulties. A
person however, thus circumstanced, whether from his own fault or not,
is in a difficulty; difficulties are often our lot, and we must
bear them, as we think God would have us. We can cut the knot by
throwing off the authority of the Fathers; and we can remain under the
burden of the difficulty by allowing that authority; but, however we
act, we have no licence to please our taste or humour, but we act
under a responsibility.
Two main respects have been
mentioned, in which the concordant testimony of the Fathers may be
considered to throw light upon the sense of Scripture: on these a few
words are now necessary with a special reference to S. Cyril,—first
as regards the doctrine of Scripture, next as regards the interpretation
of texts. Now it will be found that they are more concordant as to
the doctrines themselves contained in Scripture, than as to the
passages in which these are contained and their respective force; and,
again, that they are more concordant in their view of the principles
upon which Scripture is to be interpreted, than in their application
of these principles, and their view of the sense in consequence to be
assigned to particular texts. This was to be expected, as may easily
be made appear.
There seems to have been no
Catholic exposition of Scripture, no traditionary comment upon its
continuous text. The subject-matter of Catholic tradition, as
preserved in the writings of the Fathers, is, not Scripture interpretation
or proof, but certain doctrines, professing to be those
of the Gospel: and since among these we find this, "that Scripture
contains all the Gospel doctrines," we infer, that, according to the
mind of the Fathers, those very doctrines which they declare to be the
Christian faith are contained in and are to be proved from Scripture.
But where they occur in Scripture cannot be ascertained from
the Fathers, except so far as the accidental course of controversy has
brought out their joint {xvii} witness concerning certain great
passages, on which they do seem to have had traditionary information.
The Arian and other heresies obliged them to appeal to Scripture in
behalf of a certain cardinal doctrine which they held by uninterrupted
tradition; and thus have been the means of pointing out to us
particular texts in which are contained the great truths which were
assailed. But while we are thus furnished with a portion of the
Scripture proof of Catholic doctrine, guaranteed to us by the
unanimous consent of the Church, it is natural also, under the
circumstances above mentioned, that many of the discussions which
occurred should contain appeals to Scripture of a less cogent
character, and evidencing the exercise of mere private judgment upon
the text in default of Catholic Tradition. The early Church had read
Scripture not for argument but for edification; it is not wonderful
that though holding the truth, and seeing it in the inspired text, and
often seeing there what we fail to see, she should nevertheless be as
little able to distribute exactly each portion of the truth to each of
its places in the text, and to analyze the grounds of those
impressions which the whole conveyed, as religious persons in the
private walks of life may be now-a-days. Accordingly her divines, one
by one, while they witness to the truth itself most sufficiently, as
speaking from Tradition, yet often prove it insufficiently, as relying
necessarily on private judgment.
For instance, the text, He
that hath seen Me, hath seem the Father, is taken by S. Cyril,
agreeably with other early writers, as a proof that Christ is in all
things like ([homoios en pasin]) to the Father; (Lect. xi. 18.)
and the text, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
as a proof of the necessity of Baptism. (Lect. iii. 4.) But
though there are many of equal cogency, there are many also, about
which there may be fairly difference of opinion, as when he
interprets, Surely God is in thee (Isa. 45, 14) of the
Indwelling of the Father in the Son. (Lect. xi. 16.) {xviii}
And, while it is not at all
surprising even though the Fathers should occasionally adduce texts as
proofs of certain doctrines which are not so, neither is it strange
that they should overlook proofs which did exist, and which we are
able to discern. For they were in the light of a recent Tradition; we
are in the twilight of a distant age; and our minds, like eyes
accustomed to the twilight, may discern much in the dark parts of
Scripture, which were hid from them by their very privilege.
Such imperfections, however,
in the Scripture proofs adduced by the Fathers, whether in excess or
defect, do not interfere at all with their maintenance of the great
principles that there is a Faith, and that it is in Scripture. As far
as S. Cyril is concerned, the following passages witness both truths
clearly. "This Seal," he says, speaking of the Creed, "have thou ever
in mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads,
and, if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our
power with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred
mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual
remark without the Holy Scriptures; nor be drawn aside by mere
probabilities, and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me
because I tell you these things, unless thou receive from the Holy
Scriptures the proof of what is set forth; for this salvation, which
is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the
Holy Scriptures." (Lect. iv. 17.)
Again: "Take thou and hold
that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church
delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since
all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by
business, are hindered from the knowledge of them, in order that the
soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are
few we comprehend the whole doctrine of the faith ... Commit to memory
the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting
season the proof of each {xix} of its parts from the Divine
Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the
good pleasure of man; but the most important points chosen from all
Scripture, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And as the mustard
seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith,
in a few words, has enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of
godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments." (Lect. v.
12.) The doctrine, expressed in these and other passages of S. Cyril,
is implied and assumed in a most striking way in a number of others [Note
25].
So much on the Scripture proof
of doctrine as contained in the Fathers; as to the doctrinal sense of
Scripture, the second point to be spoken of, what has been already
observed is quite consistent, not to say connected with the remark to
be made concerning it, viz. that the Fathers are far more concordant
in assigning principles of Scripture interpretation, than in the
interpretation of particular passages. Indeed the very view they took
of the Bible led to variety, apparent discordance, and private
conjecture in interpreting it. They considered it to be a sort of
storehouse of sacred treasures [Note
26], contained under the letter in endless profusion, piled, as it
were, one on another, with order indeed and by rule, but still often
so deeply lodged within the text, that from ordinary eyes they were
almost hidden [Note 27]. Hence
it was considered as a duty and privilege proposed to the Christian,
to find out the "wondrous things of God's law," and no meaning was so
remote from the literal text as to be proved thereby to be foreign to
it in the Divine intention. While then, according to their disposition
or school of theology, they were led, more or less, to attempt to
search into the deep mysteries of Scripture for themselves [Note
28], they felt little difficulty in multiplicity of
interpretations, little fear of inconsistency. And while such a
principle {xx} as has been described necessarily led them to diversity
in their interpretations, that diversity does but increase our
evidence of the fact of their one and all holding that principle; and
thus, while their value as commentators varies with their personal
qualifications, their adherence to that principle comes to us as a
Catholic tradition.
Instances of individual,
local, or transitory opinion, that is, of what would at present,
rightly or wrongly, be called fancifulness and caprice, are frequent
in S. Cyril's Lectures, and scarcely need specifying. Such, for
example, is his interpreting, "Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn,"
of the Holy Sepulchre, (Lect. xiii. 35.) or "At evening time it shall
be light," of the circumstances of the Crucifixion; (Lect. xiii. 24.)
and much more his considering, "Thou hast wrought salvation in the midst
of the earth," (Lect. xiii. 28.) to allude to Golgotha, and "the
fountain sealed," to Christ in the sepulchre after the sealing of the
stone. (Lect. xiv. 5.)
These interpretations, whether
his own or not, and whether true or not, do not profess to be
traditional, and are but witnesses, to the great principle from which
they proceed, of the everliving intelligence, deep and varied meaning,
and inexhaustible fulness of Holy Scripture. This indeed he himself
declares in one place in words which may be suitably extracted. After
giving two conjectures concerning the doctrinal meaning of the Blood
and Water, which came from our Lord's side, viz. that it typifies the
Jews' imprecation of His blood upon them and Pilate's washing his
hands of it, or again the condemnation of the Jews and the baptismal
pardon of Christians, he adds, "For nothing happened without a
meaning, ([ouden eike gegonen].) Our fathers who
have written comments, have given another reason of this matter. For
since in the Gospel the power of salutary Baptism is two-fold, that
bestowed by means of water on the Illuminated, and that to holy
Martyrs in persecutions through their own blood, there came out of
that salutary side blood and water," &c. (Lect. xiii. 21.) {xxi}
When then it is inquired, what
information is given us by the Fathers, concerning Scripture or
Catholic doctrine, we reply, that they rather declare doctrine and say
that it is in Scripture, than prove it by Scripture, at once
concordantly and in detail; and again, that they rather tell us how we
must set about interpreting Scripture, than authoritatively interpret
it for us. It is presumed that this is on the whole correct; true as
it also is, that on a number of the most important points of doctrine
they have preserved to us, with an unanimity which is an evidence of
its Apostolic origin, the very texts in which they are contained.
Still after all the Fathers are rather led to dwell on Scripture by
itself, and on the doctrinal system by itself, as two distinct,
parallel, and substantive sources of divine information, than to blend
and almost identify the two, as a variety of circumstances has
occasioned or obliged us to do at this day.
It would at first sight seem
unnecessary to add to what has been said, any remark on mistakes or
apparent mistakes committed by S. Cyril in matters of fact; but as
this is often a ground of misconception, the subject shall be briefly
noticed. For instance, as to his statement concerning the discovery of
the True Cross [Note 29], he is
to be treated as any other historical witness under the same
circumstances, and the weight of his evidence, whatever it is, is to
be balanced against the improbability of the fact recorded, whether
antecedent, or arising from the silence concerning it of Eusebius and
Constantine. Again, we may well allow that he was not a natural
historian, without hurting his theological character. It is true that
he believed in the existence of the Phœnix [Note
30], and argued from the analogy afforded by it in favour of the
Resurrection. That is, he was philosophical on false grounds. And in
like manner persons have proved, as they thought, the Noachical deluge
from stones found on the top of hills, or have attributed it to the
action {xxii} of a comet, or have believed or doubted the existence of
the sea-serpent or the dodo, and never have been reckoned worse or
better divines for either success of failure in such conjectures. It
as little follows that a theologian must be an ornithologist, as that
an ornithologist or a comparative anatomist must be a theologian; and
as no one in this day would reckon ignorance of divinity as a bar to
eminence and authority in scientific researches, so it betrays a
poverty of argument to reproach S. Cyril, or Eusebius, or S. Clement
before them, with not being proficients in a branch of knowledge which
has been a peculiar study of modern times. They did not profess to be
natural historians; let it be enough for this age to cultivate
physical science itself, without molesting the Fathers with its new
standards of intellectual superiority. Let it be enough for it to
despise the province of theology, without seeking to remodel it. The
Fathers did not profess the science on which it prides itself; nothing
but inspiration could secure them from shewing ignorance concerning
it; and no one pretends that S. Cyril or S. Clement were inspired.
It is only necessary to add
with respect to the present Translation, that for almost the whole of
it the Editors are indebted to Mr. CHURCH, Fellow of Oriel College. It has been
made from the Benedictine Text compared with the Oxford Edition of
Milles, the Benedictine Sections in the separate Lectures being marked
by numbers at the beginning of the paragraphs, and the Oxford
sections on the margin. The few notes which are introduced are almost
confined to the elucidation of matter of fact, and have been kept
clear as far as possible from the expression of opinions; in drawing
them up, much use has been made of the valuable information contained
in the Oxford and Benedictine Editions. Such words of S. Cyril as have
a theological, controversial, or critical importance, are usually
placed in the margin opposite {xxiii} their place in the Translation.
The quotations from Scripture are given in the words of our received
version, wherever the Greek of Cyril admitted of it; when otherwise,
it has been signified in the margin.
J. H. N.
OXFORD
The Feast of St. Matthew, 1838.
Top | Contents | Works | Home
Notes
1. v. Bened. note iv. 7. xvi.
23.
Return to text
2. Lect.
iv. 8. xi. 12, 16, 17. xv. 9.
Return to text
3. v. Diss.
Beded. P. xviii. sq.
Return to text
4. Theod.
ii. 26.
Return to text
5. The [kata
panta homoion]. Vid. Lecture iv. 7. xi. 4, 9, 18.
Return to text
6. Jer.
Chron. Socr. ii. 38. Sozom. iv. 20.
Return to text
7. Socrat.
ii. 40. Sozom. iv. 25. Theod. ii. 27.
Return to text
8. Theodor.
ii. 26.
Return to text
9. Sozom.
iv. 25. Philostorg. iv. 12.
Return to text
10. Hilar.
de Synod. 77, 88. &c. v. fragm. II. 4. (Ed. Ben. Cyr. p. lx. D.)
Return to text
11. Athan.
de Synod. 41.
Return to text
12. v.
Dissert. 1. Ed. Bened. p. lvi. F.
Return to text
13. Sozom.
iv. 25. Philostorg. iv. 12. v. 1.
Return to text
14. Sozom.
v. 5.
Return to text
15.
Socrat. iii. 20. Ruffin. i. 37.
Return to text
16. Sozom.
iv. 30. Jerom. Script. Eccles. 112.
Return to text
17.
Socrat. v. 8. Sozom. vii. 7. v. Dissert. Bened. p. lxxxii.
Return to text
18. Theod.
Hist. v. 9.
Return to text
19. iv.
7, &c.
Return to text
20.
Introd. 16. ii. 5. iii.4, 11. xii. 15.
Return to text
21. xii.
25.
Return to text
22. iv.
7. vi. 1. x. and xi. xii. 1.
Return to text
23. v.
Hilar. Contr. Const. 3. 12. Athan. de Synod. 12. (ed. Bened. Cyr. lii.
B.)
Return to text
24. vid.
Bull. Defens. F. N. ii. 1.
Return to text
25. xi.
12. xii. 5. xiii. 8, 9. xiv. 2. xvi. 1, 2, 24.
Return to text
26. xi.
12.
Return to text
27. xii.
16. xiii. 14. ix. 13.
Return to text
28. iii.
16. vi. 28, 29. xii. 19.
Return to text
29. Lect.
iv. 10. x. 19. xiii. 4.
Return to text
30. xviii.
8.
Return to text
Top | Contents | Works | Home
Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.
|