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 they 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', 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 he was not a natural historian, without hurting his theological character. It is true that he believed in the existence of the Phoenix, 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 bones found on the top of hills, or have attributed it to the action of a comet, or have believed or doubted the existence of the f Lect. iv. 10. x. 19. xiii. 4.

g xviii. 8.

sea serpent or the dodo, and never have been reckoned worse or better divines for either success or failure in such conjectures. It as little follows that a theologian must be an ornithologist, as that an ornithologist or 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

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.

OXFORD,

The feast of St. Matthew, 1838.

J. H. N.

Notice concerning the Churches in which the Lectures were delivered.

IT has already been observed, that St. Cyril delivered the following Lectures in the year 347 or 348. He delivered them without book, in the Churches raised over the spot made sacred by our Lord's death, burial, and resurrection; those addressed to the Catechumens, excepting the Introductory Lecture, in the evening, that being the usual time for religious meetings during Lent; and those on the Mysteries, at

noon.

It may be interesting to the reader to be put in possession of Eusebius's description of the Basilica and Church, which Constantine erected, in which the Lectures were delivered. The circumstance of its being contemporaneous history will be considered perhaps to compensate for the turgidness of the style. In his panegyric upon Constantine, he briefly noticed the buildings in question thus:

"As regards Palestine, in the midst of the royal home of the Hebrews, at the very place of the Saving Witness", he employed himself in ornamenting richly and with munificent earnestness a vast House of prayer and Holy Temple to the Saving Sign; and paid honour to the Great Saviour's tomb of eternal memory, His very trophy raised over death, with decorations not to be described." c. 9.

And more at length in his life of the same Emperor. "He considered it his duty to constitute that most blessed spot in Jerusalem of the Saving Resurrection, an object of admiration and reverence to all. Accordingly he gave orders to construct there a House of Prayer, not projecting it apart from God, but moved in spirit by the Saviour Himself. For in former

a Vid. Cyril, Lect. xiv. 6.

XXV

days irreligious men, or rather the whole race of evil spirits by means of them, had made it a point to consign over that divine monument of immortality to darkness and oblivion. . . . Not sparing their labour in the work, and bringing earth from other places, they conceal the whole place; and then raising it up high and paving it with stones, they bury the divine treasure somewhere beneath under this vast mound. Then as though nothing more was to be done, above that ground, they contrive a sepulchre, dreadful indeed for souls; by building a dark shrine of dead idols to the unchaste spirit called Venus. And there they offered impure sacrifices upon profane and guilty altars..... No one ever, governor, or general, or emperor himself, was found equal for the overthrow of this daring deed, but one, the favoured of the All Sovereign God. Influenced then by a Divine Spirit, he bore not that the place aforenamed should be hidden under that unholy mass, by the counsels of enemies, forgotten and unknown; he yielded not to the wickedness of the perpetrators of the deed; so, invoking God his Helper, he bids purify the place, deeming it fitting that what had been the most polluted by our enemies, should receive the noblest work of good through him. And upon the word the structures of falsehood began to fall upon the ground from their height above; and images, evil spirits, and the whole edifice of error fell into pieces and were demolished. Nor did the Emperor's zeal rest here; but he orders to carry off and cast away, far away from the spot, the materials, wood and stone. Deeds followed upon word; yet even at this point was he not satisfied. Again, divinely moved, he commanded to dig deep and carry out the soil itself, together with the mound, far away, as having been polluted by the mire of devilish sacrifices. This too was instantly done; on which another foundation instead of the first came to light, one in the depth of the earth, and the awful and all-holy Witness of the Saving Resurrection came to light beyond all hope; and then that cave, a holy of holies, began to image forth the scene of the revival of the