Search
The History of the Martyrs in Palestine 12:21Eusebius of CaesareaP. xxxix. l. 6. -- " The baptism of fire." Martyrdom for the sake of Christ was held in antient times to supply the place of baptism to those who had not yet received that sacrament. It was generally called the "Baptism of Blood." Thus Cyprian, letter 57, to Cornelius : -- " Qui martyrium tollit, sanguine suo batizatur." Edit. Dodwell, Amst. 1691, p. 118. And 73, to Jubaianus: -- " Sanguine autem suo baptizatos et passione sanctificatos consummari, et divinse pollicitationis gratiam consequi; declarat in Evangelic idem Dominus." Ibid. p. 208. Exhort, ad Mart. :-- " Nos tantum, qui, Domino permittente, primum baptisma credentibus dedimus, ad aliud quoque singulos praeparemus, insinuantes et docentes hoc esse baptisma in gratia majus, in postestate sublimius, in honore pretiosius: baptisma in quo angeli baptizant, baptisma in quo Deus et Christus ejus exultant, baptisma post quod nemo jam peccat, baptisma quod fidei nostrse incrementa consummat, baptisma quod nos de mundo recedentes statim Deo copulat. In aquas baptismo accipitur peccatorum remissa, in sanguinis corona virtutum. Ibid. p. 168. See also Bingham Antiquit. Book 10, ch. 2, s. 20, and other passages cited by him. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 3, ch. 10:-- [] Eusebius speaks also of Herais, a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire, Book 6, ch. 4: -- [].The Canons 1:8Council of GangraWhen one considers how deeply the early church was impressed with those passages of Holy Scripture which she understood to set forth the superiority of the virgin over the married estate, it ceases to be any source of astonishment that some should have run into the error of condemning marriage as sinful. The saying of our Blessed Lord with reference to those who had become "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," and those words of St. Paul "He that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well, but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better," together with the striking passage in the Revelation of those that were "not defiled with women for they are virgins," were considered as settling the matter for the new dispensation. The earliest writers are filled with the praises of virginity. Its superiority underlies the allegories of the Hermes Pastor; St. Justin Martyr speaks of "many men and women of sixty and seventy years of age who from their childhood have been the disciples of Christ, and have kept themselves uncorrupted," and from that time on there is an ever-swelling tide of praise; the reader must be referred to SS. Cyprian, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Augustine, etc., etc. In fact the Council of Trent (it cannot be denied) only gave expression to the view of all Christian antiquity both East and West, when it condemned those who denied that "it is more blessed to remain virgin or celibate than to be joined in marriage."The Canons 3:23Council of LaodiceaThis synod here declares the baptism of the Montanists invalid, while in the preceding canon it recognised as valid the baptism of the Novatians and Quartodecimans. From this, it would appear that the Montanists were suspected of heresy with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. Some other authorities of the ancient Church, however, judged differently, and for a long time it was a question in the Church whether to consider the baptism of the Montanists valid or not. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria was in favour of its validity: but this Synod and the Second General Council rejected it as invalid, not to mention the Synod of Iconium 235, which declared all heretical baptism invalid. This uncertainty of the ancient Church is accounted for thus: (a) On one side the Montanists, and especially Tertullian, asserted that they held the same faith and sacraments, especially the same baptism (eadem lavacri sacramenta) as the Catholics. St. Epiphanius concurred in this, and testified that the Montanists taught the same regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as did the Catholic Church. (b) Other Fathers, however, thought less favourably of them, and for this reason, that the Montanists often expressed themselves so ambiguously, that they might, nay, must be said completely to identify the Holy Ghost with Montanus. Thus Tertullian in quoting expressions of Montanus, actually says: "the Paraclete speaks"; and therefore Firmilian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, and other Fathers, did in fact, reproach the Montanists with this identification, and consequently held their baptism to be invalid. (c) Basil the Great goes to the greatest length in this direction in maintaining that the Montanists had baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of Montanus and Priscilla. But it is very probable, as Tillemont conjectured, that Basil only founded these strange stories of their manner of baptizing upon his assumption that they identified Montanus with the Holy Ghost; and, as Baronius maintains, it is equally "probable that the Montanists did not alter the form of baptism. But, even admitting all this, their ambiguous expressions concerning Montanus and the Holy Ghost would alone have rendered it advisable to declare their baptism invalid." (d) Besides this, a considerable number of Montanists, namely, the school of Aeschines, fell into Sabellianism, and thus their baptism was decidedly invalid. (Vide Article in Wetzer and Welte Kirchenlexicon s. v. Montanus; by myself [i.e. Hefele] ).The Canons 9:15Council of Laodicea1. The Catechetical Lectures of St, Cyril of Jerusalem, delivered about the year 347.Against the Donatists · Book 1 15:11Optatus of Milevis( c ) The Church is also said to include not only her children on earth, but also the holy dead. Thus St. Augustine ( De Civ. Dei xx, 9): 'Neither are the souls of the holy dead separated from the Church, which even now is the Kingdom of Christ.' In this most comprehensive sense the epithet Catholic is rarely (if ever) applied to the word 'Church.' Should any case perchance exist where a Father so employs the word Catholic, it would be 'less properly' (as opposed to the general patristic usage)----in the sense that the Blessed souls in Heaven and in Purgatory belonged to the Catholic Church when they were living on earth. It seems well to note this, because there has sometimes been confusion on the point amongst Non-Catholic writers. For example Dr. Darwell Stone ( The Christian Church p. 214) philosophises concerning 'two ideas of the unity of the Church which St. Augustine failed to reconcile,' and boldly writes as follows: 'that notion of the nature and unity of the Church which may be illustrated from Clement of Alexandria and from Origen, but also from St. Augustine, which lays stress on the union of the church militant with the departed and with those yet unborn, and which finds points of contact amongst living Christians in the unseen realities, is not really allowed for in the Roman Catholic doctrine.' Of course it is pure imagination to fancy that there were two opposing views in the minds of the Fathers, striving for the mastery, which 'Augustine failed to reconcile,' but which eventually emerged the one in 'Ultramontanism,' the other in some such system as Anglicanism. But there are two ways of looking at the Church, as we regard it from different aspects. We find both of these, as we should naturally expect, in the Fathers. There is the ordinary patristic view, with which St. Optatus for example makes us so familiar, of one Body upon earth, not merely local, but scattered throughout the world, with its members all joined together, one with each other, in an actual, visible, external communion. (This on Anglican theories is admittedly not a necessity, but only a desirable dream-picture.) There is also, no doubt, to be found in the Fathers a conception of the Church as an ideal unity of all the redeemed on earth and in heaven, united by the mystical indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But far from these being mutually exclusive views between which the Fathers oscillate, they are two different entities, each of which represents a great reality, not merely 'allowed for,' but much more----apprehended by 'the Roman Catholic 'as keenly now as in any age of the Church's history. The latter of these, however, is not what the Fathers mean by 'the Catholic Church,' but is the whole Church of the Redeemed----whose 'names are written in heaven '----now in fieri, only to be realised at the Last Day. The former is the Church militant, the Catholic Church, diffused throughout the world (as its name implies) and nowhere else. It is of this visible Catholic Church that the Fathers predicate unity, not merely as a quality, but as an essential quality, and a visible 'note' or characteristic by which (in conjunction with her existence everywhere, or her Catholicity) she is to be instantly recognised. This is the meaning of the definition of Eunomius and Olimpius (as given by St. Optatus), which cut at the root of the Donatist question. On the one side stood a great number of African bishops. On the other side was Caecilian with (probably) but few colleagues in Africa, but in communion with all the rest of the Catholic world. So seventy African Bishops, even with the Primate Secundus, were of no importance, for over against them was 'the Catholic Church.' It is exactly the same touchstone as St. Cyril of Jerusalem had given when he told his hearers to ask in every city not for the kuriakh& (the house of God, or Church), but for 'the Catholic Church,'----the same touchstone that St. Pacian gave against the Novatians, when he said 'Christian is my name, Catholic is my surname.' The visible unity of one visible Church throughout the world is the presupposition and the teaching of all the Fathers. This is seen perhaps with special clearness in this Donatist controversy. But at all times and everywhere the patristic conception of the Church and of Schism is, apart from this presupposition, wholly unintelligible.Life of St. Macrina · English Translation 7:9Gregory of Nyssa8. According to the well-known story, the Cross was discovered by Helena, mother of Constantine the Great (c. 327). The earliest mention of the wood of the Cross as a relic seems to be in Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures, See iv. 10, "The whole world has since been filled with pieces of the wood of the Cross." Cf. x. 19, xiii. 4.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 2 40:3Socrates ScholasticusBut I must now give an account of the other Synod, which the emperor's edict had convoked in the east, as a rival to that of Ariminum. It was at first determined that the bishops should assemble at Nicomedia in Bithynia; but a great earthquake having nearly destroyed that city, prevented their being convened there. This happened in the consulate of Tatian and Cerealis, on the 28th day of August. They were therefore planning to transfer the council to the neighboring city of Nicaea: but this plan was again altered, as it seemed more convenient to meet at Tarsus in Cilicia. Being dissatisfied with this arrangement also, they at last assembled themselves at Seleucia, surnamed Aspera, a city of Isauria. This took place in the same year [in which the council of Ariminum was held], under the consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius, the number of those convened being about 160. There was present on this occasion Leonas, an officer of distinction attached to the imperial household, before whom the emperor's edict had enjoined that the discussion respecting the faith should be entered into. Lauricius also, the commander-in-chief of the troops in Isauria, was ordered to be there, to serve the bishops in such things as they might require. In the presence of these personages therefore, the bishops were there convened on the 27th of the month of September, and immediately began a discussion on the basis of the public records, shorthand writers being present to write down what each might say. Those who desire to learn the particulars of the several speeches, will find copious details of them in the collection of Sabinus; but we shall only notice the more important heads. On the first day of their being convened, Leonas ordered each one to propose what he thought fit: but those present said that no question ought to be agitated in the absence of those prelates who had not yet arrived; for Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra, and some others who were apprehensive of an impeachment for their misconduct, had not made their appearance. Macedonius pleaded indisposition, and failed to attend; Patrophilus said he had some trouble with his eyes, and that on this account it was needful for him to remain in the suburbs of Seleucia; and the rest offered various pretexts to account for their absence. When, however, Leonas declared that the subjects which they had met to consider must be entered on, notwithstanding the absence of these persons, the bishops replied that they could not proceed to the discussion of any question, until the life and conduct of the parties accused had been investigated: for Cyril of Jerusalem, Eustathius of Sebastia in Armenia, and some others, had been charged with misconduct on various grounds long before. A sharp contest arose in consequence of this demur; some affirming that cognizance ought first to be taken of all such accusations, and others denying that anything whatever should have precedence of matters of faith. The emperor's orders contributed not a little to augment this dispute, inasmuch as letters of his were produced urging now this and now that as necessary to be considered first. The dispute having arisen on this subject, a schism was thus made, and the Seleucian council was divided into two factions, one of which was headed by Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, GeOrge of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Eudoxius of Antioch, who were supported by only about thirty-two other bishops. Of the opposite party, which was by far the more numerous, the principal were George of Laodicea in Syria, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, and Eleusius of Cyzicus. It being determined by the majority to examine doctrinal matters first, the party of Acacius openly opposed the Nicene Creed, and Wished to introduce another instead of it. The other faction, which was considerably more numerous, concurred in all the decisions of the council of Nicaea, but criticised its adoption of the term homoousion. Accordingly they debated on this point, much being said on each side, until late in the evening, when Silvanus, who presided over the church at Tarsus, insisted with much vehemence of manner, `that there was no need of a new exposition of the faith; but that it was their duty rather to confirm that which was published at Antioch, at the consecration of the church in that place.' On this declaration, Acacius and his partisans privately withdrew from the council; while the others, producing the creed composed at Antioch, read it, and then separated for that day. Assembling in the church of Seleucia on the day following, after having closed the doors, they again read the same creed, and ratified it by their signatures. At this time the readers and deacons present signed on behalf of certain absent bishops, who had intimated their acquiescence in its form.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 2 43:3Socrates ScholasticusAcacius, Eudoxius, and those at Constantinople who took part with them, became exceedingly anxious that they also on their side might depose some of the opposite party. Now it should be observed that neither of the factions were influenced by religious considerations in making depositions, but by other motives: for although they did not agree respecting the faith, yet the ground of their reciprocal depositions was not error in doctrine. The Acacian party therefore availing themselves of the emperor's indignation against others, and especially against Macedonius, which he was cherishing and anxious to vent, in the first place deposed Macedonius, both on account of his having occasioned so much slaughter, and also because he had admitted to communion a deacon who had been found guilty of fornication. They then depose Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus, for having baptized, and afterwards invested with the diaconate, a priest of Hercules at Tyre named Heraclius, who was known to have practiced magic arts. A like sentence was pronounced against Basil, or Basilas,-as he was also called,-who had been constituted bishop of Ancyra instead of Marcellus: the causes assigned for this condemnation were, that he had unjustly imprisoned a certain individual, loaded him with chains, and put him to the torture; that he had traduced some persons; and that he had disturbed the churches of Africa by his epistles. Dracontius was also deposed, because he had left the Galatian church for that of Pergamos. Moreover they deposed, on various pretenses, Neonas bishop of Seleucia, the city in which the Synod had been convened, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, Elpidius of Satala, in Macedonia, and Cyril of Jerusalem, and others for various reasons.Five tomes against Nestorius · Introduction 7:1Cyril of AlexandriaYet the term Theotocos had been in such familiar use by every school for nearly two centuries, that the aversion of Nestorius to it can hardly have been simple ignorance. It was probably the instinctive aversion of heresy to the term which condemns it. Socrates himself mentions that it was used by Origen and Eusebius: it was used alike by Alexander, the predecessor of S. Athanasius , whose Council first condemned Arius; by |xlvii S. Athanasius himself ; by the Arian Eusebius ; and by S. Cyril of Jerusalem , who did not use the word Homoousion. The Apostate Emperor Julian said, in controversy with the Christians, ' Did Isaiah say that a Virgin should bear God? but ye do not cease calling Mary Theotocos,' attesting that the word was in the mouths of all Christians. A little later it was used by the two S. Gregories . It was used also by the great predecessor of Nestorius in the see of Constantinople, S. Chrysostom, as also by Ammon Bishop of Adrianople in Egypt, and by Antiochus Bishop of Ptolemais in Phoenicia . The corresponding title, Mater Dei, was used in the Latin Church by S. Ambrose , Cassian , and Vincent of Lerins .Five tomes against Nestorius · Introduction 13:25Cyril of AlexandriaS. Cyril thought it indeed right to correct in writing the errors of Theodore; but this disturbed no peace, since Theodore was gone. Theodoret, as usual, wrote against him, but Theodoret had not S. Cyril's accurate Theological mind. S. Cyril, in his 9th Anathematism, called God the Holy Ghost, 'the Very own Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ' adopting the language of S. Athanasius, that ' the Holy Spirit was the Very own Spirit of the Son.' Theodoret declaimed chiefly, as if S. Cyril had said this of the Humanity of our Lord, not of His Godhead; but adds, at the end, the sad words, 'If he so calls Him as One in Nature and proceeding from the Father, we will receive it; but if, as having His existence from the Son or through the Son, we will fling it away as blasphemous and ungodly.' Theodoret could not have been, at that time, acquainted with the great writers before him, S. Dionysius of Alexandria, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, S. Epiphanius, S. Cyril of Jerusalem , who used the 'from' or the 'through' which he 'flings' from him. S. Cyril's well-weighed and |xcviii full language has continued to teach man until now. The impetuous language of Theodoret, if it had had any lasting weight, would have fostered the disbelief of any relation between God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, contrary to our Baptismal Creed.The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret · Book 5 9:4Theodoret of CyrusThe council was also attended by Pelagius of Laodicaea, Eulogius of Edessa, Acacius, our own Isidorus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gelasius of Caesarea in Palestine, who was renowned alike for lore and life and many other athletes of virtue.Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 11:7Pirkei DeRabbi EliezerThe day had twelve hours; [ Luria thinks that the order of the hours of the day whereon Adam was created is a gloss added by a copyist who knew the legends of the Talmud; cf. T.B. Synhedrin, loc. cit. See Aboth de R. Nathan (a) i. p. 3a; Pesiḳta Rabbathi, § xlvi. p. 187b, note 7; Lev. Rab. 29 I; Shocher Ṭob, Ps. 92:3; Tanchuma, Shemini, § viii. R. Bechai on Gen. 2:7 gives parallel readings to our text. The Church literature also has many legends of the Haggadic type concerning the creation of Adam; thus the Apostolic Constitutions, vii. 34, says: “Thou hast exhibited man (Adam) as the ornament of the world, and formed him a body out of the four elements.” Irenæus (adv. Hœr. v. 23) says: “Adam sinned on the sixth day of the Creation.” See also Aphraates, Homilies, ed. Wright, p. 168; other references are given by Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern, p. 50; and cf. Kohut in Z.D.M.G. xxv. pp. 59–94, and J.E. i. 174 ff.] in the first hour He collected the dust for (the body of) Adam, in the second (hour) He formed it into a mass, [ See Hippolytus (in A.N.C.L. vi. p. 130) for Adam legends, and cf. Clementine Homilies, ii.] in the third (hour) He gave it its shape, in the fourth (hour) He endowed || it with breath, [ Or, “a soul was cast into him.” The first editions read: “He cast a soul into him.” See Jalḳuṭ, Gen. § 15, and Midrash Abkhir, and cf. W. R. Harper Memorial Vols. i. p. 258.] in the fifth (hour) he stood on his feet, [ The first editions read: “He made him stand on his feet.”] in the sixth (hour) he called the (animals by their) names, in the seventh (hour) Eve was joined to him (in wedlock), in the eighth (hour) they were commanded concerning the fruits of the tree, in the ninth (hour) they went up to (their) couch as two and descended as four, [ See Jubilees iii. 34, and cf. Gen. Rab. 22:2 and Book of Adam and Eve (ed. Malan) 1. lxxiii. Perhaps our book refers to the conception of Abel and his twin-sister. The Church Fathers deal with similar legends, see Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechism, xii. 6; cf. Schatzhöhle, p. 7, and the Book of the Bee, p. 24.] in the tenth (hour) [ The first editions add: “They were brought into the Garden of Eden and.” This reading is contradicted by our book, see infra, p. 84. See also the Book of the Bee, p. 23.] they transgressed His commandment, in the eleventh (hour) they were judged, in the twelfth (hour) they were driven forth, as it is said, "So he drove out the man" (ibid. 24).Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 25:11Pirkei DeRabbi EliezerA certain young man of the people of that city saw them, and he ran and told all the men of that city, and they all gathered together at the door of the house to do according to their wont, even deeds of sodomy, [ The first editions omit “deeds of sodomy.” A parallel occurs in Clement of Alexandria, Pæd, iii. 8.] as it is said, "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, || Where [ The MS. does not give this part of the verse.] are the men who came to thee to-night? bring them forth unto us that we may know [ “Know” in the sense of punishing offenders, cf. Judg. 8:16; see Parchon’s Heb. Lexicon, s.v. ידע; or perhaps it is used here in the sense of carnal knowledge.] them" (ibid. 5). What did Lot do? Just as Moses gave his life for the people, [ The first editions read “Israel.” See Mekhilta, p. 34b.] so Lot [ The first editions read: “So Lot gave his life for them.” By going out to reason with the men of Sodom, who threatened to deal with him according to their wont.] gave up his two daughters instead of the two angels, as it is said, "Behold, now, I have two daughters" (ibid. 8). But the men [ Of Sodom.] would not agree (and did not accept them). What did the angels do to them? They smote them with blindness until the dawn of the (next) morning. All were treated with (measure for) measure. [ See Pal. Targum, Gen. 19:24: “And the word of the Lord had caused showers of favour to descend upon Sodom and Gomorrah that they might repent, but they did not.”] Just as he had taken them by the hand without their will and taken them into his house, so they took hold of his hand, [ Cf. Gen. 19:16 ff. Some of the later editions omit the words “the hand of his wife.” See Midrash Haggadol, c. 291 f.] and the hand of his wife, and the hand of his two daughters, and took them outside the city, as it is said, "But he lingered; and the men laid hold upon his hand" (ibid. 16). And they [ The angels.] said to them: [ Lot and his family. The text in Gen. (19:17) says, “Do not look behind thee”; note that the singular number is employed.] Do not look behind you, for verily the Shekhinah of the Holy One, blessed be He, has descended in order to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire. [ Pal. Targum, Gen. 19:24, reads: “There are now sent down upon them sulphur and fire from before the word of the Lord from Heaven.” See Ẓohar, Gen. 107b f.] The pity of 'Edith [ The MS. reads either “‘Erith” or “‘Edith.” Midrash Haggadol, c. 293, has “‘Edith.” In Jalḳuṭ, in loc., “‘Erith” is the reading. ’Edith points to “‘Ed,” witness, for such was the pillar of salt. “Ado” is the reading in the Book of Jashar (xix. 52). Pal. Targum, loc. cit. 26, reads: “And his wife looked after the angel to know what would be the end of her father’s house, for she was of the daughters of the men of Sodom, and because she sinned by salt she was manifestly punished; behold, she was made a statue of salt.” The Second Version adds: “until the time of the resurrection shall come when the dead shall arise.”] the wife of Lot was stirred for her daughters, who were married in Sodom, [ See Midrash Haggadol, loc. cit.] and she looked back behind her to see if they were coming after her or not. And she saw behind [ The first editions read: “behind her.”] the Shekhinah, and she became a pillar of salt, as it is said, "And his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt" (ibid. 26). [ The first editions add the following: “And she stands even now. All day the oxen lick it and it decreases up to her feet, and in the morning (the pillar of salt) grows afresh, as it is said: ‘And his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt’” (Gen. 19:26). In the days of Maimonides all trace of the pillar had been lost. The Book of Jashar (xix. 54) reads: “And the oxen which stood in that place daily licked up the salt to the extremities of their feet, and in the morning it would spring forth afresh and they again licked it up, unto this day.” For a parallel Christian Midrash, see “A Strain of Sodom” in A.N.C.L. xviii. p. 230. See Jalḳuṭ, Esth. § 1055; Jalḳuṭ, Exodus, § 256. See Koran (ed. Rodwell), lxxxvii. p. 301, and Josephus, Ant. i. 11. 4, for references to Sodom. On Lot’s wife, see Wisdom x. 7; Cyril of Jerusalem; Mystagogue’s Catechism viii.; Augustine, de Civ. Dei, x. 8. On the Flight from Sodom, see Ambrose, Flight from the World, 54; Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule, iii. 27. On Lot’s hospitality, see Chrysostomus, Hom, xxxiii. 2; cf. Heb. xiii. 2. See also Grünbaum, op. cit. pp. 132 ff., and Ginzberg, op. cit. pp. 108 ff.]The Letter of Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, to the Emperor 1:21Council of Constantinople of 681There are not lacking most telling passages in other of the venerable fathers, who speak clearly of the two natural operations in Christ, not to mention St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John of Constantinople, or those who afterwards conducted the laborious conflicts in defence of the venerable council of Chalcedon and of the Tome of St. Leo against the heretics from whose error the assertion of this new dogma has arisen: that is to say, John, bishop of Scythopolis, Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, Euphraemius and Anastasius the elder, most worthy rulers of the church of Theopolis, and above all that emulator of the true and apostolic faith, the Emperor Justinian of pious memory, whose uprightness of faith exalted the Christian State as much as his sincere confession pleased God. And his pious memory is esteemed worthy of veneration by all nations, whose uprightness of faith was disseminated with praise throughout the whole world by his most august edicts: one of these, to wit, that addressed to Zoilus, the patriarch of Alexandria, against the heresy of the Acephali to satisfy them of the rectitude of the apostolic faith, we offer to your most tranquil Christianity, sending it together with this paper of our lowliness through the same carriers. But lest this declaration should be thought burdensome on account of its length, we have inserted in this declaration of our humility only a few of the testimonies of the Holy Fathers, especially [when writing to those] on whom the care and arrangement of the whole world as on a firm foundation are recognized to rest; since this is altogether incomparable and great, that the care of the whole Christian State being laid aside for a little out of love and zeal for true religion, your august and most religious clemency should desire to understand more clearly the doctrine of apostolical preaching. For from the different approved fathers the truth of the Orthodox faith has become clear although the treatment is short. For the approved fathers thought it to be superfluous to discourse at length upon what was evident and clear to all; for who, even if he be dull of wit, does not perceive what is evident to all? For it is impossible and contrary to the order of nature that there should be a nature without a natural operation: and even the heretics did not dare to say this, although they were, all of them, hunting for human craftiness and cunning questions against the orthodoxy of the faith, and arguments agreeable to their depravities.An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith · Book 4 28:476John Damascene4 Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 15Commentary on Hebrews · Chapter 12 4:22Theophylact of OhridDid the blood of Abel speak? Yes. For it is said: "the voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me" (Gen. 4:10). Or what was said above, that same thing it speaks even now, known and celebrated by all. But the Blood of Christ utters a brighter and clearer voice, crying out by its very deed that It has sanctified all. But it also speaks in another way: where there is no pure thought, it awakens and urges one to speak out. For "the Spirit Himself intercedes... with groanings that cannot be uttered" (Rom. 8:26). And Saint Cyril of Jerusalem understood it further in this way: that the blood of Abel cried out against murder, but the Blood of Christ intercedes for us before His Father.Commentary on Luke · Chapter 1 13:2Thomas AquinasCYRIL OF JERUSALEM . But these words may be more appropriately taken to refer to the hostile ranks of the evil spirits. For they were raging on the earth, when our Lord’s coming put them to flight, and restored those whom they had bound, to His obedience.The Brethren of the Lord 3:17JB Lightfoot14. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM († 386) comments on the successive appearances of our Lord related by St. Paul, first to Peter, then to the Twelve, then to the five hundred, then to James His own brother, then to Paul His enemy; and his language implies that each appearance was a step in advance of the testimony afforded by the former ( Catech. xiv. 21, p. 216, ed. Touttee). It may be gathered thence that he distinguished this James from the Twelve. As this however is only an inference from his language, and not a direct statement of his own, too much stress must not be laid on it. In another passage also ( Catech. iv. 28, p. 65, kai toiV apostoloiV kai Iakwbw tw tauthV thV ekklhsiaV episkopw) Cyril seems to make the same distinction, but here again the inference is doubtful.The Brethren of the Lord 4:16JB LightfootA. or B. ‘Brethren’ in a strict sense. James the Just not one of the Twelve : Early Versions; Clementine Homilies (?); Ascents of James; Hegesippus; Apost. Constitu.; Cyril of Jerusalem (?); Victorinus the Philosopher.Apologia 7:196Apologia pro Vita SuaI say in that volume first, that our Lord has given us the principle in His own words--"Cast not your pearls before swine;" and that He exemplified it in His teaching by parables; that St. Paul expressly distinguishes between the milk which is necessary to one set of men, and the strong meat which is allowed to others, and that, in two Epistles. I say, that the apostles in the Acts observe the same rule in their speeches, for it is a fact, that they do not preach the high doctrines of Christianity, but only "Jesus and the resurrection" or "repentance and faith." I also say, that this is the very reason that the Fathers assign for the silence of various writers in the first centuries on the subject of our Lord's divinity. I also speak of the catechetical system practised in the early Church, and the disciplina arcani as regards the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, to which Bingham bears witness; also of the defence of this rule by Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Theodoret.The Essay 26:32An Essay on the Development of Christian DoctrineThe original Syrian School had possessed very marked characteristics, which it did not lose when it passed into a new country and into strange tongues. Its comments on Scripture seem to have been clear, natural, methodical, apposite, and logically exact. "In all Western Aramaea," says Lengerke, that is, in Syria, "there was but one mode of treating whether exegetics or doctrine, the practical."[287:3] Thus Eusebius of Caesarea, whether as a disputant or a commentator, is commonly a writer of sense and judgment; and he is to be referred to the Syrian school, though he does not enter so far into its temper as to exclude the mystical interpretation or to deny the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Again, we see in St. Chrysostom a direct, straightforward treatment of the sacred text, and a pointed application of it to things and persons; and Theodoret abounds in modes of thinking and reasoning which without any great impropriety may be called English. Again, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, though he does not abstain from allegory, shows the character of his school by the great stress he lays upon the study of Scripture, and, I may add, by the peculiar characteristics of his style, which will be appreciated by a modern reader.