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

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".

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, 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. 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, they felt little difficulty in multiplicity of interpretations, or fear of inconsistency.

b xi. 12. xii. 5. xiii. 8, 9. xiv. 2. xvi.

1, 2. 24.

cxi. 12.

And while such a prin

d xii. 16. xiii. 14. ix. 13.

e iii. 16. vi. 28, 29. xii. 19.

C 2

ciple 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, (ovdèv eix yeyovev.) 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.)

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. % 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