A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

S. CYRIL Patriarch of Alexandria.

S. CYRIL, Nephew a 1.1 of Thcophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, was ordained in his Place b 1.2, three Days after his Death, Octob. 16. anno 412. The Bishop of Alexandria had already * 1.3 gotten a great Authority and Power in the City, and exercised it with a great deal of Majesty: S. Cyril was so far from remitting any thing of this Authority, that he sought all Opportuni∣ties to confirm and enlarge it. He was no sooner made Bishop but he banished the Novatians, and deprived their Bishop Theopemptus of all he had. A little Time after, the Jews having committed some Outrages upon the Christians of Alexandria, S. Cyril having put himself at the Head of his People, went to assault the Synagogues of the Jews, took them away from them, and drove them out of the City, and suffered their Estates to be plundered by the Christians. This Action much displeased Orestes, Governour of the City, who was already much troubled to see that the Bishop of Alexandria: had an Authority, which extreamly lessen'd the Governour's. This began to put all things in Confusion, and rendred them pro∣fessed Enemies. They had each of them their Party, and as the People of Alexandria are naturally very seditious, this Division caused frequent Skirmishes in the City. One Day, as Orestes went in his Coach, he was encompassed with Five hundred Monks, who sallied out of the Monasteries, to revenge the Quarrel of their Bishop; they pursued him, wounded him with the Blow of a Stone, and had slain him, if his Guards had not come to his Assistance, and the People had not stopp'd their Fury. Orestes caused one of these Monks to be appre∣hended, named Ammonius, and examined him upon the Rack, with so great Severity, that he died in the Torments. S. Cyril honoured him as a Saint, and publickly commended his Zeal and Constancy. There was at that Time in Alexandria a famous Heathen Philosophess, named Hypatia, whose Faine was spread so far, that they came from all parts to see her, and consult her. Now because Orestes went often to see her, it was imagined, that it was she that cherished him in the Aversion which he had toward the Bishop. Some of the Seditious, headed by a certain Reader * 1.4, set upon her, as she returned home, dragged her through the Streets, and cut her in a Thousand Pieces. This Story is not only related by Socrates, but is also attested by Damascius, who, in the Life of Isidore, the Philosopher, describes the tragical Death of this Illustrious Woman, and accuseth S. Cyril to be the Author of it. But we must not believe that Historian. S. Cyril was no ways concerned in her Death. They were some Seditious Persons, who took the Opportunity of the Division between him and Orestes, to com∣mit this cruel and bloody Murther.

The Contest with Nestorius was that which made S. Cyril so very eminent: This Bishop of Constantinople having delivered in his Sermons, That we ought not to give the Virgin Mary the Name of Mother of God, gave great Scandal in the Church; some of his Homilies being brought into Aegypt, and there causing great Disturbances among the Monks. S. Cyril wrote a Letter to them; in which he maintained, That the Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God. Nestorius knowing that S. Cyril had written against him, declared openly. That he looked upon him as his Enemy, and would not have Communion with him. S. Cyril wrote a very courteous Letter to him, yet without approbation of his Doctrine. Nestorius also returned him a civil Answer, but without retracting his Opinions. They also wrote two other Letters to each other, wherein they disputed of the Question in Controversy, but without coming to an Agreement; yet these Writings which passed pro and con between them exasperated their Spirits. The Business was brought before S. Coelestine. S. Cyril, forti∣fied with his own Authority, proceeded against Nestorius, and composed Twelve Anathema's against his Doctrine; which became a fresh Subject of Contest. The Eastern Bishops disap∣proved them. Lastly, the Quarrel grew so great that a General Council at Ephesus was forced to be called, to quench the Flame. S. Cyril presided in it, and was much crossed in his Designs: But this is not the place to write that History, which shall be found at the End of this Tome. We must here betake our selves to S. Cyril's Works. They have been collected together, and printed in Greek and Latin at Paris, in 1538. in Six great Volumes in Folio, by the Care of Johannes Aubertus, Prebendary of † 1.5 Laudunum, President of the College of the same Name, and Regius Professor.

The First contains Seventeen Books, of the Adoration and the Worship of God in Spirit and * 1.6 Truth Translated by Antonius Agellius, a * 1.7 Theatin Priest of Naples; who caused them to be printed at Lyons and Rome, and his Books called Glaphyra, or a curious and elegant Commentary upon

the Five Books of Moses, which are Translated by the Jesuit Schottus [and printed by them∣selves at Antwerp 1618.]

The 17 Books of God's Worship in Spirit, are composed in form of a Dialogue. The de∣sign of this Work is to shew, That all the Law of Moses; as well-as-the Precepts, and all the Ceremonies which it prescribes, being understood aright, relate to the adoration of God in Spirit and in Truth, which the Gospel hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉. To prove this Proposition, he seeks out all the Allegories in the Hi••••o••ies of the Old Testament. In the first Book he shews, That that which happened to Ad••••, Abraham and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, teaches Men how they fall into Sin, and a••••er what manner they may raise themselves agai••. The Pleasure which allures them, is figured by the Woman, by the delights of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by earthly good Things: The Grace of our Saviour by the calling of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by the Pro••ection which God vouchsafed Lot, by the care which he takes of his People; lastly, Repentance, light from Sin, love of Vertue by the Actions of the ancient Parriarchs. In the Second and Third, he makes use of several places of the Law to shew, That the Fall of Man could not be repaired but by the coming of Jesus Christ, That he alone can deliver him from the l•…•…table Consequents of Sin, which are Death, the tyranny of the Devil, an inclination to Evil and Concupiscence. Lastly, That he alone can redeem and justifie Man. He finds Baptism and Redemption by Jesus Christ figured in many places of the Law and Prophets. In the Fourth, he uses the Exhortations, Promises and Threatnings laid down in the Law, to encline Christians whom Jesus Christ hath redeemed, to follow their Callings, renounce Vice and embrace Vertue. In the Fifth he affirms, That the Constancy and Courage of the Ancients in suffering Evils and opposing their Enemies, is a figure of the Strength and Vigour with which Christians ought to nesist their Vices and irre∣gular Passions. In the Sixth he demonstrates, That the Law commands the Worship and Love of one God only, and that it hath condemned all Superstitions and Prophaneness contrary to that Worship. In the Two following Books, he also prescribes Charity towards our Brethren and Love towards our Neighbour. In the Ninth and Tenth he finds infinite resemblances be∣tween the Tabernacle and the Church. The Priesthood of the Old Law, the Consecration of the High Priests, the Sacerdotal Vestments, the Ministry of the Levites, &c. furnish him with abundance of Matter for Allegories, which he treats of in the Three following Books. The Prophane and Unclean Persons under the Law, who were shut out of the Tabernacle and Temple, are the figure of Sinners, which ought to be expelled out of Churches, and do teach us, That none but those that are pure may present themselves before God. Clean and Unclean Beasts are the subject of some Allegoties: These are the subject of the Four∣teenth and Fifteenth Books. Lastly, The Obligations and Sacrifices of the Law are Types of the Spiritual Obligations which we ought to offer to God; and the solemn Festivals of the Jews denote to us the Celestial Rewards: This is the subject of the Two last Books. It is easy to judge, by what we have said, how mystical a Work this is, and how full of allegorical and unusual Explications. He must needs have an inexhaustible Fund of them to furnish out Seventeen Books, so long as these are, which are all-a-long carried on with con∣tinual Allegories.

His * 1.8 Glaphyra upon the Pentateuch are not less full of Mystical Notions: In them he referrs to Jesus Christ and his Church all that is said in the Pentateuch. There is not any History, Circumstance or Precept which he applies not to Jesus Christ or the New Testament. These sorts of Commentaries are of little use, for they help nothing towards the literal Explication, they teach little Morality, they prove no Doctrine, all passes into Metaphysical Considerations and abstract Comparisons, which are not proper either to convince Unbelievers, or edify the Faithful.

The long Commentary upon Isaiah, which is contained in the Second Tome, is much more rational: S. Cyril therein applies himself to the literal Sence of this Prophet, and doth not digress so much from the Natural Sence, to find out Jesus Christ, because the Prophecy of Isaiah agrees more naturally to him. This Commentary is divided into Six Parts. The same Judgment may be given upon the Commentary upon the Twelve Prophets; in which also he sets himself to the literal Explication, so that there is a great deal of difference between the Commentaries of this Father upon the Prophets, and his Writings upon the Pentateuch. M. Simon doth not think so, but having spoken of the Commentaries of this Father upon the Pentateuch, as a Work purely allegorical, he adds, That he passes over in silence his Com∣mentaries upon the Prophet Isaiah, because this Father is very uniform in his Method. But whosoever will give himself the trouble to read any Place of his Commentaries upon Genesis and Exodus, and compare them with some other Place of his Commentary upon Isaiah or the Minor Prophets, he will find in them a very considerable difference.

The Commentaries upon the Gospel of S. John, which make up the Fourth Tome, do explain also the Letter and Connexion of the Gospel; but he now and then intermixes with it some Theological Questions. And because those which concern the Trinity, come in naturally in the Gospel of S. John, he ordinarily treats of them in proving the Divinity, Consubstantiality and Equality of the Son of God. He also speaks of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and observes that it proceeds from the Son, and takes his Nature of the Son. Sometimes he proves, that the Law was Figurative, and that Salvation and Grace are passed from the Jews to the Gentiles. There is also a Chapter in it about Liberty and Man.

These are the principal Points he treats of. This Commentary is very long, and divided into Twelve Books. We have only some Fragments of the Seventh and Eighth. The Fifth and Sixth are not extant in this, no more than in the preceeding Editions. But Jodo••us Clictovaeus, a Doctor of Paris, who hath translated this Commentary of S. Cyril, hath composed Four Books, to supply those that are wanting; which hath given occasion to some Authors to quote them as S. Cyril's: It is true, that they are almost all taken out of the ancient Fathers, but 'twas * 1.9 Clictovaeus that collected them, not S. Cyril.

The Fifth Tome of S. Cyril's Works, hath Two Parts, which make Two Volumes. The First contains his Thesaurus, and Dialogues upon the Trinity and Incarnation, and the Second is made up of his Homilies and Letters.

His Thesaurus is a Work upon the Trinity, in which he lays down Thirty five Propositions about the Divinity and Consubstantiality of the Son and Holy Spirit; which he proves exactly after the manner of the Schools, by Texts of Scripture, upheld and supported by Arguments and Syllogisms in Form, which he uses to subdue the Arians and Eunomians, and to retort upon them those Testimonies of Holy Scripture, which they commonly alledged. He propounds their Objections in the same manner, and answers them with the like Subtilties.

Georgius Trapezuntius hath published a very imperfect Version, or rather a Latin Abridg∣ment of this Book; in which he hath taken out, changed and added several things, and quite inverted the Order of S. Cyril. But since Vulcanius Brugen••••s hath made a faithful Translation, which was published at Basil in 1576. There can be no doubt that this Work is S. Cyril's, since Photius had read it, and described it to be such as we have in the 136th. Volume of his Bibliotheca.

S. Thomas often quotes a Passage in favour of the Court of Rome, as being taken out of the Second Book of S. Cyril's Thesaurus, which is not to be found entire in that Work: But we need only to read it, and we shall be satisfied that there was never any such, nor ever could be found there. This is the famous Passage, as he cites it: We must remain as Members in our Head, in the Apostolick Throne of the Roman Bishops, from whom we ought to request whatsoever is necessary to be believed and held, having a particular Respect for him, and enquiring of him about all Things, because it belongs to him to reprove, correct, order, dispose things, loose in his stead, who hath founded him, and given him a fulness of Power, him alone ••••d not any other, to whom all the Faithful are obliged by Divine Right to be subject, and whom the Princes of the World should obey. Who of all the Greek or Latin Fathers ever spake thus? Who of them ever flattered the Bishop of Rome at this rate? But how is it possible for it to enter into the Thesaurus of S. Cyril, which is nothing else but a contexture of Texts and Arguments upon the Trinity? What coherence hath our pretended Passage with that Subject? What doth this Phrase mean, That we may remain as Members in our Head, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Apostolick Throne of the Roman Bishops? Did ever any Author speak any thing like it? To whom doth he speak these Words? And of whom are they spoken, That we may remain Members, &c. Are they the Bishops of Aegypt that speak them? Could it find a Place in a Theological Treatise of one Father only?

S. Thomas is the First that cited this Passage; and we know with how much carelesness, and with how little Judgment he quotes the Works of the Fathers. It likewise appears, that he had never seen S. Cyril's Thesaurus, because he quotes the Second Book of that Work, which was never divided into Books. Urban IV. hath alledged it after S. Thomas, but upon the Credit of that Author. In the Council of Florence S. Cyril's Thesaurus is quoted in general, but when it was seasonable to produce this Passage, there is nothing said of it. All this makes it evident, That neither this Passage nor any other like it, cited by the same S. Thomas, in his Catena upon S. Matthew, as being in S. Cyril's Thesaurus, which is not found there no more than the former, are not, nor can be this Father's, nor are taken out of his Thesaurus. I wonder that F. Labbe should so openly profess himself a Defender of these two supposititious Passages.

The Style of S. Cyril's Dialogues is not so rough and scholastick as that of the foregoing Book. There are Seven of them upon the Trinity, and Two upon the Incarnation. He proves in these last, That Jesus Christ is one only Person, made up of the Humane and Divine Nature. At the end of this Volume we find some clear Resolutions upon the Mystery of the Incarnation, where he Answers the Objections which were propounded to him. Photius speaks of this little Book, in the One hundred sixty and ninth Volume of his Biblio∣theca.

To this Treatise may be joyned, a Discourse of the Orthodox Faith to Theodosius; the Treatise addressed to the Empresses, the Sermon which is annexed to it, which are in the Second Part of this Tome: In them he proves, That Jesus Christ is God, and that all the Properties of the Divine Nature may be attributed to him. To prove this he makes use of a great number of Texts of Holy Scripture, and the Testimonies of some Fathers. These Treatises are also in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus.

Paschal Homilies are not peculiar to S. Cyril. It was the Custom of the Bishops of Alex∣andria, whom the Council of Nice had particularly charged with the care of publishing Easter-day; I say, It was the Custom to declare it in Alexandria by a solemn Discourse.

Theophil••s, S. Cyril's Predecessor had made that Usage very famous, and S. Cyril kept it up with a great deal of Splendor, so that so long as he was Bishop, there passed no•• a Year but there was a Sermon••, at the end of which he gave notice of the beginning of Lent, and of Easter-day. Of the Thirty which he made we have Twenty nine. The ordinary subject of these Sermons was the Use and Advantage of Fasting, and the way how Christians ought to ••it themselves for the celebration of Festivals. In them also he sometimes exhorts the Faithful to joyn Alms-giving and Charity, with Fasting. He speaks in some of them of double∣mindedness. In •…•…y of them he treats of the Trinity and Incarnation, against the Arians and ••••torians. He sometimes speaks also against the Jews and Idolaters. These Sermons are flat and tedious; they are nothing else, almost, but a contexture of Texts of Scripture, which he mingles with mystical Explications.

There are also here some other Discourses of this Father, which are for the most part against the ••••ror of Nestorius. The First and Second are entirely upon that Subject. They were preached at Ephesus. The Third is a small Discourse, which he made after the Sermon of Paul, Bishop of Emesa, about the Time that the Oriental and Aegyptian Bishops were recon∣ciled to each other. The Fourth and Fifth are two Sermons, preached at Ephesus against Nestorius. The Sixth is against John Bishop of Antioch. The Seventh is a Discourse, which he delivered also at Ephesus, when he was imprisoned. The Eighth is upon the Transfigu∣ration. The Ninth upon the Lord's Supper: In this he speaks very strongly for the Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, as well as in his Commen∣tary upon S. John's Gospel. The Tenth is a Discourse in praise of the Virgin Mary, preached at Ephesus. The Eleventh upon the Feast of the Purification. The Twelfth upon the Feast of Tabernacles. The Last is upon the Day of Judgment. These Sermons are written in a close Style, and more sententious than the former. They are full of Points, Allusions and Jinglings of Words. There is also a short one upon the Incarnation, which is extant in Latin only.

Almost all his Letters concern the History of the Council of Ephesus, and the Disputes which S. Cyril had with John Bishop of Antioch, and the other Eastern Bishops; for which Reason it is that we intend to speak of them, when we come to treat of the Council of Ephesus. where they are inserted. Nevertheless, there are Five or Six at the end, which relate to other Matters. The First is the Letter of Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople to S. Cyril; wherein he exhorts him to put the Name of S. Chrysostom into the Diptychs, among the Bishops that died in the Communion of the Church, as he had done by the Example of Alexander Bishop of Antioch. S. Cyril returns him answer, That he disap∣proved his Action, being contrary to the Decrees of the Council of Nice, and that John, Bishop of Constantinople, having been degraded in his life-time, by the Judgment of the Church, he could not put him among the Bishops in the Communion of the Church, after his Death: That what he had done had given great Offence in all the Provinces of Aegypt. He takes notice, that they were counted but Six, viz. Aegypt, Augustamnicum, Arcadia, Thebais, Libya and Pentapolis. The Third of the Letters, of which we are speaking, is written to Domnus Bishop of Antioch. Athanasius, Bishop of a City belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch, although far distant from that City, being offended by some of his Clergy, who would expel the Ste∣wards out of his Church, against his Consent, made his Complaint to a Synod held in Constan∣tinople, where S. Cyril was: But since Athanasius was not subject to the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of that Synod, they would not judge of his Cause. But S. Cyril wrote in his behalf to Domnus, relating to him the Trouble which this Bishop unjustly suffered, and desiring him to constitute Judges, who might summon the Stewards accused, and their Accusers, and con∣demn the Guilty. He tells him, That the Metropolitan was mistrusted by the Bishop, and that the City, of which he was Bishop, was far from Antioch. These Circumstances are remarkable, for otherwise the Judgment of it did in the first Place appertain to the Metropo∣litan, or if he were excepted against, to the Patriarch. In this Example we see, 1. The Au∣thority of Patriarchs over their Patriarchate. 2. The Antiquity of making such Persons Judges as were near to the Accused and Accusers. 3. How exactly the Bishops of one Patri∣archate kept themselves within the Bounds of their own Jurisdiction, without meddling in other's. 4. That this Caution did not hinder them from helping Persons afflicted and perse∣cuted, which fled to them, but yet only by Intercessions for them, without attempting any thing contrary to the Laws of the Church.

The next Letter, written to the same Domnus, furnishes us with another Proof of this Episcopal Charity. Another Bishop, belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch, named Petrus, was deprived of the Government of his Church, and likewise plundered of all his Goods. This Bishop, who was very aged, complained heavily of this Condemnation, and maintained that he was unjustly thrust out of all: Domnus writing to S. Cyril and Proclus, gave this Prelate the Name of a Religious and Holy Bishop. S. Cyril takes occasion from hence to write in his Favour, and shew Domnus, That if this Bishop deserved to be deprived of his Church, he also deserved to lose the Name of Bishop. He then admonishes Domnus to pacify the Complaints of this Bishop, and to suffer him to appear before him and his Suffragan-Bishops, to be judged there according to the Custom. He desires him also to give him the Liberty to reject those Bishops, which may be suspected by him; for, saith he, although we do not believe that any

Bishop is an Enemy to his Brethren; nevertheless, to remove all Pretences of Complaint against the Sentence, which shall be given, it is convenient, that those whom he suspects should withdraw themselves. As to the Money that had been taken from him, S. Cyril thinks, it ought to be restored to him, for Two Reasons: 1. Because he ought not to be deprived after such a manner. 2. Because it is an Abuse to demand an Account, as they do, of the Reve∣nues of the Church, of the Bishops: It is sufficient that they cannot dispose either of the precious Vessels or Lands. The management of the Revenues ought wholly to be trusted to them. Lastly, whereas it might be said, That this Bishop had given a Writing, in which he had renounced his Claim to his Church, and so was not to be received again; S. Cyril answers, That he did not give it voluntarily, but it was extorted from him by Force and Threatnings; and since it was so, such Acts of Abjuration ought not to be regarded, nor ought Bishops to be suffered to give them; for if they are worthy of their Ministry, they ought not to renounce it; if they are not worthy, they ought not to be deprived by a Renunciation, but by a Canonical Sentence.

The last Letter contains a Prescription, directed to the Bishops of Libya and Pentapolis, to prevent a Disorder, which the Monks of Thebais complained of. Some Persons, newly mar∣ried, had a desire to be ordained Clerks or Priests, and the Bishops very easily admitted them, without obliging them to renounce their Marriage: Others who had been expelled out of the Monasteries for their Debaucheries, found means also to get themselves ordained, and then got into Monasteries again, where they would celebrate the Holy Sacraments, and perform the Sacred Functions of the Ministry; which occasioned so great Scandal, that those that knew them would neither be present, nor communicate at their Ministration. S. Cyril, to put a Stop to this Scandal, ordered, That every Bishop, before he ordaineth a Clergyman, shall inform himself of his Life, If he be married or not, How long since, and How long he hath departed from his Wife; Whether he hath not been driven out by his Bishop, or expelled some Monastery; And that he shall not ordain him, unless he find his Conversation unblameable; for, saith he, This is the only way of discharging our Duty, and preventing that the Holy and Venerable Mysteries be not profaned by the Impurities of the Ministers. He adds a Rule concerning those, who being separated from the Church, or Catechumens, fall into a mortal Disease; and orders, that according to the Custom they should be allowed the Communion and Baptism. This Tome concludes with a Letter of S. Cyril's to the Bishops of Africa, when he sent them an Authentick Copy of the Canons of the Council of Nice.

The Sixth Tome begins with the Five Books against Nestorius; in which he confutes what Nestorius had written against the Name of the Mother of God, given to the Virgin, and against other such like Expressions. He recites Nestorius's Words, and in answering to them labours to convince him of Error and Imposture. Of Error, because he divides Jesus Christ into Two, and denies the Union of the Two Natures in One Person only: Of Imposture, in attributing to the Orthodox such Opinions as they never thought on, accusing them of Teaching, That the Two Natures in Jesus Christ are mingled and confounded, and that the Divinity is made subject to Humane Infirmities. He maintains, That the two Natures remain in Jesus Christ without Mixture or Confusion, but are united in so strict an Union, that what only agrees to God may be predicated of Man, and what agrees only to Man, of God; altho' the Properties of the Humanity may not be attributed to the Godhead, nor the Attributes of the Godhead to the Manhood.

Next to this Treatise follow the Writings made by S. Cyril for the Defence of his Twelve Anathema's. The First contains an Explication of the Twelve Propositions; in which he rejects the bad Sence that might be put on them. The Second is an Apology for the Anathe∣ma against the Objections of the Oriental Bishops. The Third is an Answer to what Theodoret had written against these Anathema's. Lastly, The Apology of S. Cyril to Theodosius is put here; but we shall speak more largely elswhere of these Treatises.

The Books against the Emperor Julian ought to have gone before these we have spoken of, because 'tis one of S. Cyril's principal Works: It is dedicated to Theodosius the Emperor, and divided into Ten Books.

In the First he proves, by the Testimony of the ancient Historians and most learned Philo∣sophers, That the Jews Religion is much more ancient and rational than the Greeks: That the History of Moses is true, and that the Greeks have taken all their best Expressions out of the Jews Books. In the next Place he undertakes to confute the Books of Julian closely, and answer all his Objections. He recites them at length, and then answers them. It seems he confuted only the First Book, in which that Apostate assaults the Christian Religion in general. He begins with a Comparison of the Jewish and Heathen Religion, and of the Books of Moses and Plato, and extols his Philosophy above the Laws of that Prophet. Next, he opposes the Christian Religion, and propounds some trivial Objections against the History of the Gospel. Lastly, he makes use of the Jewish Religion and Books to overthrow the Chri∣stian Religion. The Objections which he brings are weak and idle, but he makes them look well by the fine and pleasant Management of them. S. Cyril discovers the Weakness of them, and disperses them entirely. He also often opposes the Heathen Religion, and establishes the Christian. This Work is written with a great deal of Elegancy, but it is nothing so finely written as Julian's altho it be very learned and solid.

The Treatise 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, is written against those silly and dull-witted Monks; who ass•…•…, That these Words of Genesis, Let us make man in our image, and in our likeness, ought to be unders•••••••• of Man's Body, because they did not conceive that there was any Spiritual Essence, but imagined that God himself was Corporeal. S. Cyril wrote to Coelosyrius, in the Letter which is set before the Body of this Work, to stop the Course of this impertinent Docri••e, and to ••••••bid the Monks to argue about a Matter so far above the reach of their Understandings. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Monks also, who thought that the Eucharist had no vertue to sanctify, when it w•••• kept from One Day to Another. He condemns also the Monks, who did not follow their Labours, ••pretending that they gave themselves wholly to Prayers, and so used a Pretence of Piety to defend their Sloth and Idleness: He asks them, Whether they are more perfect than the 〈◊〉〈◊〉? and whether they would enjoy a more Happy Condition than they? He tells them, That the Church doth not receive them, who live as they do; that it is good for Solitari•••• to pray continually, but that ought not to hinder their Labours, that they be not chargeable to others. Lastly, He admonishes Coelosy∣rius not to suffer the Meletians to receive the Sacrament among the Orthodox, if they have not abandoned their own Sect, to unite themselves with the Church, and have not given evident Signs of their Conversion.

S. Cyril commands Coelosyrius to publish these Rules in the Monasteries of Mount Calamon, where some Monks were infected with these Errors. At the same time he sent him a Trea∣tise, in which he answers the Objections which these Monks propounded, and solves the Difficulties which they had cunningly framed: Nevertheless he observes, That it is hard to resolve these kinds of abstruse and subtle Questions, and that all that can be done is only to bring such Conjectures as may in some Measure satisfy.

The First is concerning the Breath of Life, which God breathed into Adam, after he had formed him: Is it his Soul, or a Breath different from the Soul? Is it a Part of the Divine Essence, or some created Being? S. Cyril maintains, That 'tis not the Soul of Man, nor any Creature, but it is the Holy Spirit it self which is given Man for his Sanctification. This Opinion is not very probable.

It is demanded in the Second Question, How Man was created in the Image of God? S. Cyril answers, By the Holy Spirit, for by Sin he hath lost that Similitude, and hath reco∣vered it again by Jesus Christ.

The Third is, Whether the Angels were made in the Image of God? S. Cyril af∣firms it.

In the Fourth, It is enquired, Whether there be any difference between the Image and Like∣ness of God, and he saith that there is none.

The Fifth is upon an abstracted Conceit, viz. Whether Man is the Image of God, or the Image of the Image of God the Father, that is to say, of the Word. He answers, That he is the Image of the three Persons of the God-head.

In the Sixth it is demanded, Whether the Souls of the Blessed receive any Perfection? S. Cyril Answers, That it will not have a more perfect Nature, but it will act more perfectly, because it will be delivered from Concupiscence, Ignorance and Vice, and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

The Seventh Question is, Why all Men are subject to Death and Sin, upon the account of Adam's Transgression, and why all those who are purified and sanctified by Jesus Christ, do not communicate the Fruits of their Sanctification to their Posterity? S. Cyril answers, That we are not punished as having sinned with the first Man, but because he being become Mortal by his Sin, hath transferred that Curse to all his Posterity: That Jesus Christ hath redeemed and delivered us all from Death, but that no Man, though he be sanctified, can communicate that Sanctification to his Posterity, because it comes from Jesus Christ, who only sanctifies us. 'Tis by Jesus Christ that every Man receives Remission of his Sins, and 'tis by him that all Men in general are delivered from Death.

In the Eighth Question it is enquired, Whether, when Ezekiel saw the Bones of the dead to be joyned together, and resume the Form of a Man; Whether it was, I say, a real Re∣surrection, or only a Figure of the general Resurrection? S. Cyril is for the latter.

The Ninth is, Whether Jesus Christ added any thing to the Flesh of Man, when he was united to it? S. Cyril answers, That Jesus Christ, by his Incarnation, hath granted several Graces to the Humane Nature; That he hath restored to Man the Image and Likeness of God, which was defaced by Sin; That he hath revived the Divine Characters of Justice and Holiness, and perfected them; That Adam had Ability and Freedom to do good, but he was defective in his Actions and the Effect, whereas those who live in Jesus Christ are Just and Holy in the Effect, and in their Actions.

In the Tenth he teacheth, That by the assistance of God we may repulse and weaken the Motions of Concupiscence, but cannot root them out in this Life.

In the Eleventh he maintains, That the Holy Sacrament must not be celebrated but in the Churches of the Orthodox, and they that do otherwise break the Law.

The Twelfth Question is very Metaphysical; It is demanded, Whether God can make that which hath happened, not to be? Whether he can make a common Harlot to have been always a Virgin? S. Cyril says, That we must not set Bounds to the Power of God, but

neither may we attribute to him a Power of doing things Absurd and Contradictory, and that it is good not to move such sort of Questions: That, in Sum, God cannot make that which hath happened, not to have happened; or a common Prostitute to have always been a Virgin, because he cannot make a Lye the Truth; yet it is not a sign of his Impotency, but an effect of his Perfection.

The Thirteenth is against those who dare affirm, That Jesus Christ, as God, was ignorant of the Day of Judgment. S. Cyril proves, That that cannot be, because under this Title he hath created all things; he is the Counsel and Will of the Father, and knows all his Purposes: From hence he concludes, That when it is said, That he knoweth not the Day of Judgment, it ought to be understood of Jesus Christ, considered as Man, because under that Title he is subject to all the Imperfections of humane Nature, Sin only excepted.

The Fourteenth, How this Sentence ought to be understood; The Word was made Flesh: By the Word Flesh S. Cyril says, the Scripture understands the whole Man; as when it is said in the Prophets, That God pours out his Spirit upon all Flesh; and all Flesh shall see the Salvation of God.

The Fifteenth is against those who assert, That every Man receives his Reward immedi∣ately after his Death, before the Resurrection; and to prove it they make use of the Parable of Lazarus and Dives. S. Cyril maintains, That the Judgment ought not to be passed till after the Resurrection; and that it is absurd to say, That the Good or Sinners have received their Reward already: And that what is said of Lazarus and Dives is a Parable, which signifies only, that Merciless Rich Men shall one Day be grievously punished. This doth not at all agree with the particular Judgment and Blessedness of Souls after Death.

The Sixteenth, How the Angels, if they have no Bodies, can have any Carnal Knowledge of Women, as it is said in Genesis? S. Cyril answers, That they are not Angels, which are spoken of in Genesis, but the Posterity of Enos, who had Commerce with the Daughters of Cain: And for this Reason it is that Four Interpreters, who have translated this Place after the LXX. have rendered it, Sons of the Mighty, or Princes, and not Sons of God; That, in Sum, it is a great Weakness, to think, That the Angels can have Children.

The Seventeenth and Eighteenth are against those who affirm, That the Person of the Son being made Man, and descending to the Earth, was not united to his Father, nor did inhabit in Heaven.

In the Nineteenth S. Cyril explains his Opinion about the Incarnation, and holds, That it may be said, That the Flesh of Jesus Christ did Miracles, because the Word, and Man being united in the same Person, and in the Son only, both the Divine and Humane Operations may be attributed to him.

In the Twentieth it is said, That Jesus Christ is ascended into Heaven, with the Flesh, which was united to him; but for all that, it cannot be said that the Body of Jesus Christ was mingled with the Trinity.

In the Twenty first he treats also of this nice Question, In what Sence the Flesh of Jesus Christ may be said to do Miracles? and explains it by this Example; although it be the Soul that moves the Body in all its Operations, yet we call it the Action of the Body, as well as of the Soul. The same •…•…ay be said of the Miracles which the Word doth by his Humanity.

In the Twenty second he says, That the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ was subject to Sin certainly, because he came to deliver Man from Sin.

The Twenty third Question is this, Why the Word was not made Man at the beginning of the World? Why staid he till these last Times? S. Cyril answers, That he acted the part of a good Physician, who does not undertake the Cure of a Disease in its beginning, but waits till the Disease plainly discovers it self. So did the Word wait till the Sins and Wickedness of Man had fully manifested themselves.

The Twenty fourth imports, That the Head of the Infernal Dragon shall not be entirely broken till after the Resurrection. This puts me in mind of the Title of a very fantastical Book, A Treatise of the broken Head of the Infernal Dragon. I believe the Author had not read this Place of S. Cyril.

The Twenty fifth is a very obscure Comparison, between the Flame that appeared to Moses in the Flaming-Bush, and the Mystery of the Incarnation.

In the Twenty seventh he saith, That Zacharias was slain between the Temple and the Altar, for suffering Mary to enter into that Place, where the Virgins only had a Right to enter.

The last explains, in a few Words, the Causes of the Joy, which the Angels shewed at the Birth of Jesus Christ.

The following Treatise, about the Holy Trinity, is written by an Author more modern than S. Cyril, although it comes very near his Doctrine, and his Method, and Principles, but it is easy to discern that he lived after the Rise of the Heresy of the Monothelites, for he throughly discusses this Question, Whether there are Two Wills and Two Operations in Jesus Christ. He confutes those that hold the contrary, and explains the Sence of the Ancients,

who taught, That there was in Jesus Christ but one incarnate Nature, and one Operation as God-man.

The Collection of Expositions upon the Old Testament is not wholly taken out of the Works of S. Cyril only, but also of S. Maximus, and several other Interpreters: So that it must not be looked upon as S. Cyril's Work.

Balthazar Corderius published 19 Homilies upon Jeremiah, printed at Antwerp (in Greek and Latin) in 1648 [Octavo] which bear the name of S. Cyril * 1.10. As for the Moral Fables put out by the same Author in 1631. under the name of S. Cyril, they belong to a Latin Au∣thor. The 16 Books upon Leviticus, which were heretofore among S. Cyril's Works, are Origen's. It is nothing to the purpose, that some have doubted, whether the Treatise of the Adoration in Spirit be S. Cyril's, since it is his Style, and Photius attributes it to him. Nor is there greater reason to doubt of the Letter to Coelosyrius, nor of the other Works of which we have spoken.

He made Commentaries upon all the Prophets, but they were never yet printed. His Com∣mentary upon S. Matthew, cited several times in the 6th. and 7th. General Councils, and that upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, cited by Theodoret, are lost. If we may believe Cassiodorus, he made Commentaries upon all the Books of Holy Scripture. Gennadius mentions two Treatises of S. Cyril's, which we have not, viz. A Treatise of the Defect of the Synagogue; And a Book of Faith against the Hereticks. The same Author assures us, That he composed divers Treatises upon various Subjects, and a great number of Homilies, which the Grecian Bishops got by Heart to preach to the People. So that tho' the Works of S. Cyril, which we now have, make up at present 7 great Volumes, yet we should have several others, if we had all that he hath written. It is very wonderful, That a Bishop of so great a See as that of Alex∣andria, busied with so many Affairs, and engaged in so great a Contest as that with the East∣ern Bishops was, should have time to compose so many Works. But S. Cyril was wonderfully ready at Composing, and applyed himself to a way of Writing, which it is easie to furnish out, for either he copyed out Texts of Scripture, or made large Discourses, or expounded Allegories. It is easie to make great Works of this Nature in a little time, especially, when we bestow no time to polish our Discourse nor keep it within certain bounds, and we resign up our Hand and Pen entirely to all the Notions that come into our Heads. After this manner did S. Cyril write, and he was so much accustomed to this way of Writing, that he had, as Photius observes, a Style altogether particular, which seemed contrary to others, and in which he extreamly neglected the exactness and cadency of his Expressions. He had a Subtle and Metaphysical Genius, and readily spake the finest Logick. His Wit was very proper for sub∣tle Questions, which he had to do with upon the Mystery of the Incarnation. He held the See of Alexandria 32 years, and died in 444.

There were divers Collections of S. Cyril's Works in Latin, before the Edition in Greek and Latin at Paris, Anno 1638 * 1.11. The First was at Basil in [1546. in 4 Tom. by Georgius Trapezuntius, and again, in] 1566. The Second, at Paris [by Gentian Harvett in 2 Tom.] in 1573. The Third, by Sonnius at Paris in 1605, which is the largest. There are several of his Treatises printed by themselves in Greek and Latin, as the Treatise of the Worship of God in Spirit and Truth, published by Agellius, and printed at Rome in 1588. That of the Or∣thodox Faith in Greek and Latin by Beza in 1570. His Writing against the Anthropomor∣phites, put out by Vulcanius, and printed at Amsterdam in 1605. The Commentaries upon the 12 small Prophets [in Greek and Latin] at Ingolstadt in † 1.12 1607. The Treatise against Nesto∣rius in Greek and Latin by Agellius at Rome * 1.13 in 1607. The Books against Julian in Greek and Latin by Borbonius at Paris, in 1630. Some small Tracts in Greek by Meursius. His Paschal Homilies by Andrew Salmatias at Antwerp, in 1618. The Book of the Trinity in Greek and Latin, by Wegelinus at Ausburg in 1604, and 1608. And several Letters and Treatises among the Councils.

There is a Lexicon, and a Treatise of Animals, which bears the Name of Cyril, but it is certainly some other Cyril, not the Patriarch of Alexandria.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Nephew.] Socraies, l. 7. c. 5. Theodoret. l. 5. c. 35. Isidore of Damiata, l. 1. ep. 310. Alypius, in a Letter which he wrote to him, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 3. Con••. p. 788. say, That Theophilus was his Uncle. Nicephorus thinks it was by his Father's-side, but Facundus, c. 2. l. 4. and Epiphanius scholasticus hist. trip. c. 25. say, That S. Cyril was his consobritus, i. e. the Son of Theophilus's Sister.
• b 1.2

  Ordained in his Place.] After the Death of Theophilus, which happened Octob. 13. 412. There was a great Contest about the Election, some stood for Timotheus the Arch-deacon, others named S. Cyril; this last carried it, although the Captain of the Army in Aegypt was against him.
• * 1.2.1

  Abudatius dux militum Aegypti.
• * 1.3

  S. Cyril of Alexandria
• * 1.4

  Named Pe∣trus.
• † 1.5

  Laon.
• * 1.6

  a Theatm.
• * 1.7

  [One of the Order of the Theatins, a Sect of Priests in great credit in Clem. vi••'s time.]
• * 1.8

  [Printed alone in Lat. at Paris, in 1605. and in Greek and Latin, by A. Schottus, at Antwerp in 1618.]
• * 1.9

  [But he affixed them to S. Cyril, as the Fa∣thers, and not made by himself.]
• * 1.10

  [But are found to be Origen's. Care.]
• * 1.11

  [By the care of Jo∣hannes Au∣bertus, in Tom. 7.]
• † 1.12

  1605. Cav.
• * 1.13

  1608. Cav.