The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and Other Principal Saints. January, February, March

* * * * *

A pastor must first acquire a solid degree of interior virtue, before he can safely undertake to labor in procuring the salvation of others, or employ himself in exterior functions of the ministry. He must have mortified the deeds of the flesh by compunction, and the habitual practice of self-denial; and the fruits of the spirit must daily more and more perfectly subdue his passions. These fruits of the spirit are charity and humility, which stifle all the motions of anger, envy, and pride: holy joy, which banishes carnal sadness, sloth, and all disrelish in spiritual exercises; peace, which crushes the seeds of discord, and the love and relish of heavenly things, which extinguish the love of earthly goods and sensual pleasures. One whose soul is slothful, sensual, and earthly, deserves not to bear the name of a Christian, much less of a minister of the gospel. There never was a saint who did not carry his cross, and walk in the steps of Christ crucified. St. Alexander would have thought a day lost in which he did not add something to the sacrifice of his penance in order to continue and complete it. By this he prepared himself to die a victim of fidelity and charity. This is the continued martyrdom by which every true Christian earnestly labors to render himself every day more and more pleasing to God, making his body a pure holocaust to him by mortification, and his soul, by the fervor of his charity and compunction.

Footnotes: 1. Eus. b. 6, c. 14. S. Hieron. in Catal.

SAINT CYRIL, CONFESSOR,

ARCHBISHOP OF JERUSALEM.

From the church historians, and his works collected by Dom Touttee in his excellent edition of them at Paris, in 1720.

A.D. 386.

CYRIL was born at or near the city of Jerusalem, about the year 315. So perfectly was he versed in the holy scriptures, that many of his discourses,{608} and some of these pronounced extempore, are only passages of the sacred writings connected and interwoven with each other. He had read diligently both the fathers and the pagan philosophers. Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem, ordained him priest about the year 345, and soon after appointed him his preacher to the people, likewise his catechist to instruct and prepare the catechumens for baptism; thus committing to his care the two principal functions of his own pastoral charge. St. Cyril mentions his sermons to the faithful every Sunday.[1] Catechumens ordinarily remained two years in the course of instruction and prayer, and were not admitted to baptism till they had given proof of their morals and conduct, as well as of their constancy in the faith.[2] This office St. Cyril performed for several years; but we have only the course of his catechetical sermons for the year 348, or 347. Perhaps the others were never committed to writing. He succeeded Maximus in the see of Jerusalem about the end of the year 350.

The beginning of his episcopacy was remarkable for a prodigy by which God was pleased to honor the instrument of our redemption. It is related by Socrates,[3] Philostorgius,[4] the chronicle of Alexandria, &c. St. Cyril, an eye-witness, wrote immediately to the emperor Constantius, an exact account of this miraculous phenomenon: and his letter is quoted as a voucher for it by Sozomen,[5] Theophanes,[6] Eutychius,[7] John of Nice,[8] Glycas, and others. Dr. Cave has inserted it at length in his life of St. Cyril.[9] The relation he there gives of the miracle is as follows: "On the nones (or 7th) of May, about the third hour, (or nine in the morning,) a vast luminous body, in the form of a cross, appeared in the heavens, just over the holy Golgotha, reaching as far as the holy mount of Olivet, (that is, almost two English miles in length,) seen not by one or two persons, but clearly and evidently by the whole city. This was not, as may be thought, a momentary transient phenomenon: for it continued several hours together visible to our eyes, and brighter than the sun; the light of which would have eclipsed it, had not this been stronger. The whole city, struck with a reverential fear, tempered with joy, ran immediately to the church, young and old, Christians and heathens, citizens and strangers, all with one voice giving praise to our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, the worker of miracles; finding by experience the truth of the Christian doctrine, to which the heavens bear witness." He concludes his letter with wishes that the emperor may always glorify the holy and consubstantial Trinity.[10] Philostorgius and the Alexandrian chronicle affirm, that this cross of light was encircled with a large rainbow.[11] The Greek church commemorates this miracle on the 7th of May.

{609}

Some time after this memorable event, a difference happened between our saint and Acacius, archbishop of Caesarea, first a warm Semi-Arian, afterwards a thorough Arian. It began on the subject of metropolitical jurisdiction, which Acacius unjustly claimed over the Church of Jerusalem; and what widened the breach between them was their difference of sentiments with regard to the consubstantiality of the Son, which St. Cyril had always most zealously asserted.[12] This was sufficient to render him odious in the eyes of Acacius, who in a council of Arian bishops convened by him, declared St. Cyril deposed for not appearing, after two years' warning, to answer to the crimes alleged against him. One of them was that he had lavished away the goods of the Church, and had applied its sacred ornaments to profane uses. The ground of the accusation was, that, in time of a great famine at Jerusalem, he had sold some of the Church plate, and precious stuffs, to relieve the wants of the poor. St. Cyril, not looking upon the members of the council as qualified judges, appealed to higher powers,[13] but yielding to violence withdrew to Antioch, and thence removed to Tarsus, were he was honorably entertained by the bishop Sylvaims, and had in great respect, notwithstanding the sentence of Acacius and his council against him. Here living in communion with Sylvanus, Eustathius of Sebaste, Basil of Ancyra. and others, who soon after appeared at the head of the Semi-Arian faction, this gave rise to the calumny that St. Cyril himself had espoused it. But nothing could be more falsely alleged against him, he having always maintained the Catholic faith. He had accordingly, in 349, together with his predecessor Maximus, received the decrees of the council of Sardica, and consequently those of Nice. And we have already seen, in his letter to Constantius, that he made an undaunted profession of the Consubstantial Trinity. To which we may add, that in the council of Constantinople, in 381, he joined with the other bishops in condemning the Semi-Arians and Macedonians. And the orthodox bishops assembled in the same city, in 382, writing to pope Damasus and to the western bishops, gave a most ample testimony to his faith, declaring, "That the most reverend and beloved of God, Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, had been canonically elected by the bishops of the province, and had suffered many persecutions-for the faith."[14] Upon the death of Constantius, in 361, Julian the apostate, partly out of aversion to his uncle, and partly in hopes to see the Christian sects and the orthodox more at variance, suffered all the banished bishops to return to their churches. Thus did God make use of the malice of his enemy to restore St. Cyril to his see. He shortly after made him an eye-witness to the miraculous manifestation of his power, by which he covered his blaspheming enemies with confusion. The following most authentic history of that remarkable event is gathered from the original records, and vindicated against the exceptions of certain skeptics by Tillemont,[15] and by our most learned Mr. Warburton, in his Julian. In vain had the most furious tyrants exerted the utmost cruelty, and bent the whole power which the empire of the world put into their hands, to extirpate, if it had been possible, the Christian name. The faith increased under axes, and the blood of martyrs was a fruitful seed, which multiplied {610} the Church over all nations. The experience how weak and ineffectual a means brute force was to this purpose, moved the emperor Julian, the most implacable, the most crafty, and the most dangerous instrument which the devil ever employed in that design, to shift his ground, and change his artillery and manner of assault. He affected a show of great moderation, and in words disclaimed open persecution; but he sought by every foul and indirect means to undermine the faith, and sap the foundations of the Christian religion. For this purpose he had recourse to every base art of falsehood and dissimulation, in which he was the most complete master. He had played off the round of his machines to no purpose, and seemed reduced to his last expedient of the pacific kind, the discrediting the Christian religion by bringing the scandal of imposture upon its divine author. This he attempted to do by a project of rebuilding the Jewish temple—which, if he could have compassed, it would have sufficiently answered his wicked design; Christ and the prophet Daniel having in express terms foretold not only its destruction, which was effected by the Romans under Titus, but its final ruin and desolation.

The Jewish religion was a temporary dispensation, intended by its divine author, God himself, to prefigure one more complete and perfect, and prepare men to embrace it. It not only essentially required bloody sacrifices, but it enjoined a fixed and certain place for them to be performed in; this was the temple at Jerusalem. Hence the final destruction of this temple was he abolition of the sacrifices, which annihilated the whole system of this religious institution. Whence St. Chrysostom[16] shows that the destruction of Jerusalem is to be ascribed, not to the power of the Romans, for God had often delivered it from no less dangers; but to a special providence, which was pleased to put it out of the power of human perversity to delay or respite the extinction of those ceremonial observances. "As a physician," says that father, "by breaking the cup, prevents his patient from indulging his appetite in a noxious draught; so God withheld the Jews from their sacrifices by destroying the whole city itself, and making the place inaccessible to all of them." St. Gregory Nazianzen, Socrates, Theodoret, and other Christian writers, are unanimous in what they say of Julian's motive, ascribing to him the intention already mentioned, of falsifying the scripture prophecies, those of Daniel and Christ, which his actions sufficiently evidence. His historian, indeed, says, that he undertook this work out of a desire of rendering the glory of his reign immortal by so great an achievement:[17] but this was only an after-thought or secondary motive; and Sozomen in particular assures us that not only Julian, but that the idolaters who assisted in it, pushed it forward upon that very motive, and for the sake thereof suspended their aversion to the Jewish nation. Julian himself wrote a letter to the body or community of the Jews, extant among his works,[18] mentioned by Sozomen,[19] and translated by Dr. Cave, in his life of St. Cyril. In it he declares them free from all exactions and taxes, and orders Julus or Illus, (probably Hillel,) their most reverend patriarch, to abolish the apostoli, or gatherers of the said taxes; begs their prayers, (such was his hypocrisy,) and promises, after his Persian expedition, when their temple should be rebuilt, to make Jerusalem his residence, and to offer up his joint prayers together with them.

After this he assembled the chief among the Jews, and asked them why they offered no bloody sacrifices, since they were prescribed by their law. They replied, that they could not offer any but in the temple, which then lay in ruins. Whereupon he commanded them to repair to Jerusalem, rebuild {611} their temple, and re-establish their ancient worship, promising them his concurrence towards carrying on the work. The Jews received the warrant with inexpressible joy, and were so elated with it, that, flocking from all parts to Jerusalem, they began insolently to scorn and triumph over the Christians, threatening to make them feel as fatal effects of their severity, as they themselves had heretofore from the Roman powers.[20] The news was no sooner spread abroad than contributions came in from all hands. The Jewish women stripped themselves of their most costly ornaments to contribute towards the expense of the building. The emperor also, who was no less impatient to see it finished, in order to encourage them in the undertaking, told them he had found in their mysterious sacred books that this was the time in which they were to return to their country, and that their temple and legal observances were to be restored.[21] He gave orders to his treasurers to furnish money and every thing necessary for the building, which would require immense sums: he drew together the most able workmen from all quarters, and appointed for overseers persons of the highest rank, placing at their head his intimate friend Alypius, who had formerly been Pro-prefect of Britain; charging him to make them labor in this great work without ceasing, and to spare no expense. All things were in readiness, workmen were assembled from all quarters; stone, brick, timber, and other materials, in immense quantities, were laid in. The Jews of both sexes and of all degrees bore a share in the labor; the very women helping to dig the ground and carry out the rubbish in their aprons and skirts of their gowns. It is even said that the Jews appointed some pickaxes, spades, and baskets to be made of silver for the honor of the work. But the good bishop St. Cyril, lately returned from exile, beheld all these mighty preparations without any concern, relying on the infallible truth of the scripture prophecies: as, that the desolation of the Jewish temple should last till the end;[22] and that one stone should not be left on another;[23] and being full of the spirit of God, he foretold, with the greatest confidence, that the Jews, so far from being able to rebuild their ruined temple, would be the instruments whereby that prophecy of Christ would be still more fully accomplished than it had been hitherto, and that they would not be able to put one stone upon another,[24] and the event justified the prediction.

Till then the foundations and some ruins of the walls of the temple subsisted, as appears from St. Cyril:[25] and Eusebius says,[26] the inhabitants still carried away the stones for their private buildings. These ruins the Jews first demolished with their own hands, thus concurring to the accomplishment of our Saviour's prediction. Then they began to dig the new foundation, in which work many thousands were employed. But what they had thrown up in the day was, by repeated earthquakes, the night following cast back again into the trench. "And when Alypius the next day earnestly pressed on the work, with the assistance of the governor of the province, there issued," says Ammianus, "such horrible balls of fire out of the earth near the foundations,[27] which rendered the place, from time to time, inaccessible to the scorched and blasted workmen. And the victorious element continuing in this manner obstinately and resolutely bent as it were to drive them to a distance, Alypius thought proper to give over the enterprise."[28] {612} This is also recorded by the Christian authors, who, besides the earthquake and fiery eruption, mention storms, tempests, and whirlwinds, lightning, crosses impressed on the bodies and garments of the assistants, and a flaming cross in the heavens, surrounded with a luminous circle. The order whereof seems to have been as follows. This judgment of the Almighty was ushered in by storms and whirlwinds, by which prodigious heaps of lime and sand and other loose materials were carried away.[29] After these followed lightning, the usual consequence of collision of clouds in tempests. Its effects were, first the destroying the more solid materials, and melting down the iron instruments;[30] and secondly, the impressing shining crosses on the bodies and garments of the assistants without distinction, in which there was something that in art and elegance exceeded all painting or embroidery; which when the infidels perceived, they endeavored, but in vain, to wash them out.[31] In the third place came the earthquake which cast out the stones of the old foundations, and shook the earth into the trench or cavity dug for the new; besides overthrowing the adjoining buildings and porticoes wherein were lodged great numbers of Jews designed for the work, who were all either crushed to death, or at least maimed or wounded. The number of the killed or hurt was increased by the fiery eruption in the fourth place, attended both with storms and tempests above, and with an earthquake below.[32] From this eruption, many fled to a neighboring church for shelter, but could not obtain entrance; whether on account of its being closed by a secret invisible hand, as the fathers state the case, or at least by a special providence, through the entrance into the oratory being choked up by a frighted crowd, all pressing to be foremost. "This, however," says St. Gregory Nazianzen,[33] "is invariably affirmed and believed by all, that as they strove to force their way in by violence, the Fire, which burst from the foundations of the temple, met and stopped them, and one part it burnt and destroyed, and another it desperately maimed, leaving them a living monument of God's commination and wrath against sinners." This eruption was frequently renewed till it overcame the rashness of the most obdurate, to use the words of Socrates; for it continued to be repeated as often as the projectors ventured to renew their attempt, till it had fairly tired them out. Lastly, on the same evening, there appeared over Jerusalem a lucid cross, shining very bright, as large as that in the reign of Constantine, encompassed with a circle of light. "And what could be so proper to close this tremendous scene, or to celebrate this decisive victory, as the Cross triumphant, encircled with the Heroic symbol of conquest?"

This miraculous event, with all its circumstances, is related by the writers of that age; by St. Gregory Nazianzen in the year immediately following it; by St. Chrysostom, in several parts of his works, who says that it happened not twenty years before, appeals to eye-witnesses still living and young, and to the present condition of those foundations, "of which," says he, "we are all witnesses;" by St. Ambrose in his fortieth epistle, written in 388; Rufinus, who had long lived upon the spot; Theodoret, who lived in the neighborhood in Syria; Philostorgius, the Arian; Sozomen, who says many were alive when he wrote who had it from eye-witnesses, and mentions the visible marks still subsisting; Socrates, &c. The testimony of the heathens corroborates this evidence; as that of Ammianus Marcellinus above quoted, a nobleman of the first rank, who then lived in the court of Julian at Antioch and in an office of distinction, and who probably wrote his {613} account from the letter of Alypius to his master at the time when the miracle happened. Libanius, another pagan friend and admirer of Julian, both in the history of his own life, and in his funeral oration on Julian's death, mentions these earthquakes in Palestine, but with a shyness which discovers the disgrace of his hero and superstition. Julian himself speaks of this event in the same covert manner. Socrates testifies, that at the sight of the miracles, the Jews at first cried out that Christ is God; yet returned home as hardened as ever. St. Gregory Nazianzen says, that many Gentiles were converted upon it, and went over to the Church. Theodoret and Sozomen say many were converted; but as to the Jews, they evidently mean a sudden flash of conviction, not a real and lasting conversion. The incredulous blinded themselves by various pretences: but the evidence of the miracle leaves no room for the least cavil or suspicion. The Christian writers of that age are unanimous in relating it with its complicated circumstances yet with a diversity which shows their agreement, though perfect, could not have been concerted. The same is confirmed by the testimony of the most obstinate adversaries. They who, when the temple at Daphne was consumed about the same time, by lightning, pretended that it was set on fire by Christians, were not able to suspect any possibility of contrivance in this case: nor could the event have been natural. Every such suspicion is removed by the conformity of the event with the prophecies: the importance of the occasion, the extreme eagerness of Jews and Gentiles in the enterprise, the attention of the whole empire fixed on it, and the circumstances of the fact. The eruption, contrary to its usual nature, was confined to one small spot; it obstinately broke out by fits, and ceased with the project, and this in such a manner, that Ammianus himself ascribes it to an intelligent cause. The phenomena of the cross in the air, and on the garments, were admirably fitted, as moral emblems, to proclaim the triumph of Christ over Julian, who had taken the cross out of the military ensigns, which Constantine had put there to be a lasting memorial of that cross which he had seen in the air that presaged his victories. The same was again erected in the heavens to confound the vanity of its impotent persecutor. The earthquake was undoubtedly miraculous; and though its effects were mostly such as might naturally follow, they were directed by a special supernatural providence, as the burning of Sodom by fire from heaven. Whence Mr. Warburton concludes his dissertation on this subject with the following corollary. "New light continually springing up from each circumstance as it passes in review, by such time as the whole event is considered, this illustrious miracle comes out in one full blaze of evidence."[34] Even Jewish Rabbins, who do not copy from Christian writers, relate this event in the same manner with the fathers from their own traditions and records.[35] This great event happened in the beginning of the year 363. St. Chrysostom admires the wonderful conduct of divine providence in this prodigy, and observes, that had not the Jews set about to rebuild their temple, they might have pretended they could have done it: therefore did God permit them thrice to attempt it; once under Adrian, when they brought a greater desolation upon themselves; a second time under Constantine the Great, who dispersed them, cut off their ears, and branded their bodies with the marks of rebellion. He then relates this third attempt, "in our own time," as he says, "not above twenty years ago, in which God himself visibly baffled their endeavors, to show that no human power could reverse his decree; and this at a time {614} when our religion was oppressed, lay under the axes, and had not the liberty even to speak; that impudence itself might not have the least shadow of pretence."

St. Cyril adored the divine power in this miracle, of which he had ocular demonstration. Orosius says that Julian had destined him to slaughter after his Persian expedition, but the death of the tyrant prevented his martyrdom. He was again driven from his see by the Arian emperor, Valens, in 367, but recovered it in 378, when Gratian, mounting the throne, commanded the churches to be restored to those who were in communion with pope Damasus. He found his flock miserably divided by heresies and schisms under the late wolves to whom they had fallen a prey; but he continued his labors and tears among them. In 381 he assisted at the general council of Constantinople, in which he condemned the Semi-Arians and Macedonians, whose heresy he had always opposed, though he had sometimes joined their prelates against the Arians before their separation from the church, as we have seen above; and as St. Hilary, St. Meletius, and many others had done. He had governed his church eight years in peace from the death of Valens, when, in 386, he passed to a glorious immortality, in the seventieth year of his age. He is honored by the Greeks and Latins on this day, which was that of his death.

Footnotes: 1. Cat. 5, 10, 14. 2. See Fleury, Moeurs des Chretiens, p. 42. 3. B. 2, c. 28. 4. Ib. 3, c. 26. 5. Ib. 5, c. 5. 6. Ad an. 353. 7. Annal. p. 475. 8. Auetuar. Combefis, t. 2, p. 382. 9. T. 2, p. 344. 10. [Greek: Ten homousion Triada]. This is an argument of his firm adherence to the Nicene faith, and that by the praises which he bestows on an Arlan emperor in this piece, he meant not to flatter him in his heterodox sentiments; they being only compliments of course in an address to an eastern emperor, and his own sovereign. 11. Certain moderns imagine that the luminous crosses which appeared in the air in the reigns of Constantine and Constantius were merely natural solar halos; and that under Julian, which appeared in the night, a lunar halo, or circle of colors, usually red, round those celestial bodies. But in opposition to this hypothesis we must observe that those natural phenomena do not ordinarily appear in the figure of a cross, but of a ring or circle, as both experience and the natural cause show. We ought also to take nonce, that this prodigy appeared thrice in the same century, and always on extraordinary occasions, in which many circumstances rendered a miraculous manifestation of the divine power highly credible. Moreover, how will these secretaries and confidents of the intrigues of nature, as Mr. Warburton styles them, account for the inscription, In this conquer, which was formed in bright letters round the cross, which appeared in the air to Constantlne and his whole army, as that emperor himself affirmed upon oath, and as Eusebius assures us from his testimony, and that of other eye-witnesses. (l. 1, de Vit. Constant., c. 28, olim 22.) Fabricius very absurdly pretends that [Greek: graphen] may here signify an emblem, not an inscription. Mr. Jor tin, after taking much pains on this subject, is obliged to confess (vol. 3, p. 6) that, "After all, it seems more natural to interpret [Greek: graphen legousan] of a writing than of a picture. It is an ugly circumstance," says this author, "and I wish we could fairly get rid of it." Those who can explain the scripture account of the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea by a natural strong wind, and an extraordinary ebbing of the waters, can find no knot too hard for them. To deny a supernatural interposition they can swallow contradictions, and build hypotheses far more wonderful than the greatest miracles. 12. Sozomen indeed says, (b. 4, c. 24,) that Acacius fought for Arianism, Cyril for Semi-Arianism: but this is altogether a mistake. For Acacius himself was at that time a Semi-Arian, and in 341, in the council of Antioch, affirmed Christ to be like, though not equal to his Father. It was only in 358, that he closed in with Eudoxius, and the other rigid Arians. And as to St. Cyril, it is also clear from the facts above mentioned, and from his writings, that he always professed the Catholic faith with regard to the article of the Consubstantiality of the Son of God. This is demonstrated by Dom Toutee, in his life of St. Cyril, and by his colleague Dom Mares, in his dissertation on the Semi-Arians, printed at Paris, in 1721, to vindicate this father against a certain author in the memoirs of Trevoux, an 1721. 13. Sozom. b. 4, c. 24. 14. Apud Theod. Hist. b. 5, c. 9. 15. Tillem. t. 7, p. 409. 16. Hom. 6, adv. Judae, t. 1, p. 646, ed. Ben. 17. Amm. Marcell. l. 3, c. 1. 18. Ep. 25, p. 153. 19. Soz. l. 5, c. 22. 20. It was about this time that the Jews demolished the great church of Alexandria, two more at Damascus, and others elsewhere. 21. Naz. Or. 4, adv. Julian. 22. Dan. ix. 27. 23. Matt. xxiv. 2. 24. Rufin. Hist. l. 10, c. 37. 25. Catech. 15, n. 15. 26. Dem. Evang. l. 8, p. 406. 27. Out of the very foundations themselves, according to St. Chrysostom, Sozomen, and Theodoret. 28. Hocque modo elemento destinatius repellente. Amm. Marcel. l. xxiii. c. 1. A very emphatical expression in the mouth of a pagan. He seems by it to ascribe sense to the element, by which he discovers the finger of God visibly detesting the obstinacy of the undertaking, and a renewal of the eruption so often, till it overcame the rashness of the most obstinate. 29. Theod. Hist. l. 3, c. 20. 30. Soc. lib. 3, c. 20. 31. St. Greg. Naz Or. 4 adv. Julian. Theodoret, indeed, says that these crosses were shaded with s dark color: but this without any real contradiction to St. Gregory's relation of the matter, because, like the phosphorus, they were {} a darkish hue by day, and lucid by night. 32. St. Greg. Naz. Or. 9. 33. Or. 4. adv. Julian. 34. This learned author demonstrates, lib. 2, ch. 4, that the exceptions of Mr. Basnage are founded on glaring mistakes and misrepresentations of his authorities. 35. See Warburton, p. 88.

APPENDIX

ON

THE WRITINGS OF ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

ST. MAXIMUS, bishop of Jerusalem, having appointed St. Cyril both his preacher and his catechist, our saint diligently acquitted himself of both these functions, the most important of the episcopal charge. St. Cyril mentions his sermons which he made to the people every Sunday. (Cat. 5, 10, 14.) One of these is extant in the new edition of his works. It is a moral discourse against sin, as the source of all our miseries, drawn from the gospel upon the sick man healed at the Probatic pond. (John v.) He preached every year a course of catechetical sermons for the instruction of the catechumens, to prepare them for baptism and the holy communion. Only those which he preached in 347, or rather in 348, seem to have been committed to writing. These consist of eighteen to the competentes, or Illuminati, that is, catechumens before baptism; and of five mystagogic catechetical discourses, so called either because they were addressed to the catechumens immediately after they were initiated in the holy mysteries of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist, or because these sacraments are fully explained in them, which were never expounded to those who were not initiated, out of respect, and for fear of giving occasion to their profanation by the blasphemies of infidels. In the first eighteen St. Cyril explains the doctrine of the church concerning the pardon of sin, prayer, and all the articles of the Apostles' Creed. The style is clear, suitable to an exposition of doctrine such as is here given, and the work is one of the most important of Christian antiquity. The Latin translation of Grodecius, canon of Warmia in Poland, printed first in 1563, though often corrected, was very inaccurate; and the Greek editions very incorrect and imperfect, before that given of Thomas Miller at Oxford, in 1703, which is very valuable, though the author in part of his notes, where he endeavors to maintain the principles of the Protestant church, is very inconsistent. Dom Tontee, a Maurist monk, who died in 1718, prepared an excellent and complete edition of the works of St. Cyril; which was published by Dom Maran, in 1720, in one volume in folio. The journalists of Trevoux, in their memoirs for December, in 1721, criticised some of the notes concerning the Semi-Arians, and the temporary neutrality of St. Cyril. Dom Maran answered them by a learned and curious dissertation, Sur le Semi-Ariens, printed by Vincent, in 1722.

Three French Calvinists, Aubertin, Rivet, (Critici Sacri, l. 3, c. 8, 9, 10, and 11,) one the apostate Casimir Oudin, (De Ser. Eccl. t. {}, p. 459,) deny these catecheses, at least the {615} mystagogics, to be the work of St. Cyril. Oudin, to his usual inaccuracy, adds many affected blunders, and shows a dread of his unanswerable authority in favor of many articles which he was unwilling to allow was his chief motive for raising such a contest about the author; though if this was not St. Cyril, these critics must confess, from six hundred passages in the discourses, that they were delivered at Jerusalem, about the middle of the fourth century. Other Protestants, especially the English, are more sincere, and prove them this father's most undoubted work, as Doctor Cave, in St. Cyril's life, Thomas Milles, in his preface and notes to his edition of St. Cyril, Whittaker, Vossius. Bull, &c. They were preached at Jerusalem, seventy years after Manes broached his heresy, whom some then alive had seen, (Cat. 6,) which agrees only to the year 347. They are mentioned by St. Jerom, in the same age, (Catal. c. 112,) quoted by Theodoret, (Dial. Inconfusus, p. 106,) and innumerable other fathers in every age downwards. As for the five mystagogics, they are inseparable from the rest, and as undoubted. The author promises them in his eighteenth, and mentions his first eighteen in the first mystagogic. (n. 9.) They are quoted by Eustrasius, (under Justinian,) by Anastius the Sinaite, Nico the monk, and other ancients produced by Dom Touttee. (Disc. 2, p. cv.)

In his first catechetic instructions, he commands the catechumens not to divulge any part of our mysteries to any infidel, as unworthy, and exhorts them to the dispositions and preparation for holy baptism, viz. to a pure intention, assiduity in prayer, and at church devoutly receiving the exorcisms, fasting, sincere repentance, confessing their sins, whatever they had committed. (Catceh. 1, n. 5.) In the fourth he gives a summary of the Christian faith, and reckons up the canonical books of scripture, in which he omits the Apocalypse, and some of the deutero-canonical books, though he quotes these in other places as God's word. In the following discourses he explains very distinctly and clearly every article of our creed: he teaches Christ's descent into the subterraneous dungeons ([Greek: eis ta katachthonia]) to deliver the ancient just. (Cat. 4, n. 11, p. 57.) The porters of hell stood astonished to behold their conqueror, and fled: the prophets and saints, with Moses, Abraham, David, &c., met him, now redeemed by him. (Cat. 14, n. 19, p. 214.) He extols exceedingly the state of virginity as equal to that of the angels. (Cat. 4, n. 24; Cat. 12, n. 33, 34.) He says it will in the day of judgment, in the list of good works, carry off the first crowns. (Cat. 15, n. 23.) He compares it to gold, and marriage, which is yet good and honorable, to silver; but prescribes times of continency to married persons for prayer. (Cat. 4, n. 26.) He calls Lent the greatest time of fasting and penance, but says, "Thou dost not abstain from wine and flesh as bad in themselves, as the Manichees, for so thou wilt have no reward; but thou retrenchest them, good indeed in themselves, for better spiritual recompenses which are promised." (Cat. 4, n. 27.) He mentions the fasts and watchings of superposition, i.e. of holy week before Easter, as most austere. (Cat. 18.) He expresses on all occasions the tenderest devotion to the holy cross of Christ, and a great confidence in it, with which he endeavors also to inspire others. "Let us not be ashamed of the cross of Christ," says he: "sign it openly on thy forehead, that the devils, seeing the royal standard, may fly far trembling; make this sign when thou eatest or drinkest, sittest, liest, risest, speakest, walkest, in a word, in every action [Greek: en pantipragmati]." (Cat. 4, p. 58.) And again, "when thou art going to dispute against an infidel, make with thy hand the sign of the cross, and thy adversary will be struck dumb; be not ashamed to confess the cross. The angels glory in it, saying, Whom do you seek? Jesus, the crucified, Mat. xxviii. 6. You could have said, O Angel, My Lord: but the cross is his crown." (Cat. 13, n. 22, p. 194.) St. Porphyry of Gaza, instructed by St. Cyril's successor, John, following this rule, by beginning a disputation with a famous Manichean woman, struck her miraculously dumb. St. Cyril, in his thirteenth catechesis, thus addresses his catechumen, (n. 36, p. 200:) "Be careful to form with your finger on your forehead boldly, the sign of the cross for a signet and standard, and that before every thing,—while we eat our bread, or drink our cups, in coming in and going out, before sleep, and in rising, in walking, and in standing still." He testifies, in his tenth catechesis, (n. 19,) that the holy wood of the cross kept at Jerusalem, had, in the few years since its invention by St. Helena, already filled the whole world, being carried everywhere by those who, full of devotion, cut of littie chips, (p. 146.) We learn from Rufin, (Hist. b. 1, c. 10,) that the holy cross was covered by St. Helena with a silver case; and from S. Paulinus, (Ep. 31, n. 6,) that it was kept in an inner treasury in the church, into which the passage lay through a portico or gallery, as appears from the Spiritual Meadow. (C. 105.) A lamp burned before the cross, by the oil whereof St. Sabas and St. Cyriacus wrought many miracles, as we read in their lives. A priest was appointed by the bishop to be the guardian of this sacred treasury, which honor was conferred on St. Porphyry of Gaza, soon after St. Cyril's death; and then the case of the cross was of gold. St. Paulmus rays, it was exposed to the public veneration of the people once a year, at Easter, which some think to have been on Good Friday. St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, (Or. 1,) besides other days, in his time, says it was on Easter Monday. At extraordinary times the bishop gave leave for it to be shown to pilgrims to be venerated, and for them to cut off small chips, by which, miraculously, the cross never diminished, as St. Paulinus wrote seventy {616} years after its invention. The devotion of St. Cyril to the holy cross, was doubtless more inflamed by the sacred place in which he made all his sermons, which was the church built by St. Helena and Constantine, sometimes called of the Holy Cross, which was kept in it; sometimes of the Resurrection, because it contained in it the sepulchre, out of which Christ arose from death. It is curiously described as it stood, before it was destroyed by the Saracens, in 1011, by Dom Touttee, in a particular dissertation in the end of St. Cyril's works, (p. 423.) It was since rebuilt, but not exactly in the same place.

St. Cyril inculcates also an honor due to the relics of saints, which he proves (Cat. 17, n. 30, 31) from the Holy Ghost performing miracles by the handkerchiefs of St. Paul, how much more by the saints' bodies? This he shows (Cat. 18, n. 16, p. 293) by the man raised to life by touching the dead body of Eliseus. (4 Reg. xiii. 21.) He gives the Blessed Virgin the title of Mother of God, [Greek: theotokos]. (Cat. 10, n. 19, p. 146.) He is very clear in explaining the eternity and consubstantiality of God the Son, (Cat. 4, 10, 11, 15,) which would alone justify him from all suspicion of semi-Arianism. He is no less explicit against the Macedonians, on the divinity of the Holy Ghost. On that article: I believe in the Holy Ghost, "Believe of him," says he, "the same as of the Father and of the Son," &c. (Cat. 4, n. 16, pp. 59, 60.) On the article of the holy Catholic Church, he observes that the very name of Catholic distinguishes it from all heresies, which labor in vain to usurp it; this always remains proper to the spouse of Christ, as we see, if a stranger ask in any city, Where is the Catholic Church? (Cat. 18, n. 26.) That it is catholic, or universal, because spread over the whole world, from one end to the other; and because universally and without failing or error, [Greek: katholikos kai anelleipos], it teaches all truths of things visible and invisible, (ib. n. 23, p. 296,) which he proves from Matt. xvi. 18. The gates of hell shall never prevail against it. 1 Tim. iii. 15. It is the pillar and ground of truth. Malach. i. 11. From the rising of the sun to the setting, my name is glorified. He is very earnest in admonishing, that no book is to be received as divine, but by the authority of the Church, and by tradition from the apostles, end the ancient bishops, the rulers of the Church. (Cat. 4, n. 23, 35, 36.) By the same channel of the tradition of tire Church, he teaches the sign of the cross, the honoring of that holy wood of our Saviour's sepulchre, and of saints' relics, exorcisms, and their virtue, insufflations, oil sanctified by exorcisms, (Cat. 20,) holy chrism, (Cat. 21,) blessing the baptismal water, (Cat. 3,) prayers, and sacrifices for the dead, (Cat. 23,) the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, (Cat. 12,) &c. He made these eighteen catecheses to the catechumens during Lent: the five following he spoke to them after they were baptized during Easter week, to instruct them perfectly in the mysteries of the three sacraments they had received together—baptism, confirmation, and the eucharist—which it was thought a profanation to explain fully to any before baptism. Hence these five are called mystagogic catecheses. As to baptism, St. Cyril teaches (Procat. n. 16, p. 12) that it imprints an indelible signet, or spiritual character in the soul, which, he says, (Cat. 1, n. 2) is the mark by which we belong to Christ's flock: he adds, this is conferred by the regeneration, by and in the lotion with water. (Cat. 4 & 12; Cat. 16, n. 24.) He calls the character given by confirmation the signet of the communication of the Holy Ghost, (Cat. 18, n. 33,) and says (Cat. 22, n. 7) it is imprinted on the soul, while the forehead is anointed with chrism, (Cat. 22, n. 7,) and after by baptism. (ib. n. 33,) by which he clearly distinguishes the characters of these two different sacraments, though Mr. Milles (not. in Procat.) has taken great pains to confound them. St. Cyril teaches that baptism perfectly remits all sin; but penance, the remedy for sins after it, does not quite efface them, as wounds that are healed leave still scars. (Cat. 18, n. 20.) He attributes great virtue to the exorcisms for purifying the soul, (Procat. n. 9,) and says, as incantations give a diabolical virtue to defile the soul, so does the invocation of the Holy Ghost give a virtue to the water, and gives it the power to sanctify. (Cat. 3, n. 3.) He says the same of the blessed oil, (Cat. 20, n. 3, p. 3,) and establishes clearly confirmation to be a distinct sacrament from baptism: he calls it the chrism and the mystical ointment, (Cat. 21,) and says it is to arm and fortify us against the enemies of our salvation, (ib. p. 317, n. 4,) and that while the body is anointed with this visible ointment, the soul is sanctified by the holy and life-giving spirit. (ib. n. 3.) In his nineteenth catechesis, the first mystagogic, he explains the force of the baptismal renunciations of the devil and his pomps. In the twentieth, the other ceremonies of baptism, and what they mean; in the twenty-first, the sacrament of confirmation; in the twenty-second, that of the blessed eucharist; in the twenty-third, or last, the liturgy or sacrifice of the mass and communion. As to the blessed eucharist, he says, by it we are made concorporeal and consanguineal with Christ by his body and blood being distributed through our bodies. (Cat. 22, n. 1, 3.) This same strong expression, which wonderfully declares the strict union which is the effect of this sacrament, is used by St. Chrysostom, (Horm. 6, in Hebr. &c.,) St. Isidore of Pelusium, (l. 3, ep. 195,) St. Cyril of Alexandria, (l. 10, in Joan. p. 862, dial. de Trin. p. 407,) &c. Our holy doctor explains to his neophytes the doctrine of transubstantiation in so plain terms, that no one can doubt of its being the faith of the Church in the fourth age. The learned Lutheran Ffaffius, (Dis. de oblatione Euchar. c. 38, p. 327,) owns it cannot be denied that this is Cyril's opinion. Grebe affirms the same, (not. in 1. 5, Irenae. c. 2, p. 339.) {617} This twenty-second catechesis alone puts it out of dispute. "Do not look apor the bread and wine as bare and common elements, for they are the Body and Blood of Christ, as our Lord assures us. Although thy sense suggest this to thee, let faith make thee firm and sure. Judge not of the thing by the taste, but be certain from faith that thou hast been honored with the gift of Christ's Body and Blood. (Cat. 22, n. 6, p. 321.) When he has pronounced and said of the bread: 'This is my body,' who will, after this, dare to doubt? and when he has assured and said, 'This is my blood,' who can ever hesitate, saying it is not his blood? (n. 1, p. 32.) He changed water into wine, which is akin to blood, in Cana; and shall we not think him worthy our belief, when he has changed, [Greek: metaballon], wine into blood? (n. 2,) &c. Wherefore let us receive them with an entire belief as Christ's Body and Blood, for under the figure of bread is given to thee his Body, and under the figure of wine his Blood, that when thou hast received Christ's Body and Blood, thou be made one body and blood with him: for so we carry him about in us, his Body and Blood being distributed through our bodies." (n. 3, p. 320.) We learn the manner of receiving the blessed sacrament from his Catech. 23. "Putting your left hand under your right," says he, "form a throne of your right hand to receive the king; hold it hollow, receiving on it the Body of Christ. Answer, Amen. Carefully sanctify your eyes, by touching them with the holy Body, being very watchful that no part of it fall. Approach to the cup of the Blood, bowed in a posture of adoration and reverence; saying, Amen, take of the Blood of Christ. While yet something of the moisture sticks on your lips, touch them with your hand, and by applying it then to your eyes, forehead, and other senses, sanctify them."

In his twenty-third or last catechesis, he calls the mass an unbloody sacrifice, a victim of propitiation, a supreme worship, &c. (n. 8, p. 327.) He explains the Preface, and the other principal parts of it, especially the Communion, and mentions the priest from the altar crying out to the faithful, before they approached to receive, [Greek: Ta hagia tois hagiois]. He expounds the Lord's Prayer, and mentions the commemorations for the living and the dead. Of the latter he writes thus: (n. 9, p. 328.) "We also pray for the deceased holy fathers, bishops, and all in general who are dead, believing that this will be a great succor to those souls for which prayer is offered, while the holy and most tremendous victim lies present." And, (n. 10, ib.,) "If a king, being offended at certain persons, had banished them, and their friends offer him a rich garland for them, will not he be moved to release their punishment? In like manner, we, offering prayers to God for the dead, though they be sinners, do not make a garland, but we offer Christ sacrificed for our sins, striving to appease and make our merciful God propitious both to them and ourselves." This very passage is quoted out of St. Cyril, in the sixth century, by Eustratius, a priest of Constantinople, author of the life of the patriarch Eutychius, in his book on praying for the dead, or on the state of the dead, published by Leo Allatius, l. De Consensu Eccl. Orient. et Occid. De Purgat., and in Bibl. Patr. t. 27. It is also cited by Nicon the monk, in his Pandect.

St. Cyril's famous letter to Constantius, On the Apparition of the Cross in the Heavens, was written by him soon after he was raised to the episcopal dignity, either in the same year, 350, or in the following.

A sermon, On the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, and the Presentation of Christ in the Temple, bears the name of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in almost all the MSS.; but the custom of carrying blessed candles in procession that day, mentioned in this discourse, was only introduced at Jerusalem at the suggestion of a devout lady named Icelia, about the middle of the fifth century, about sixty years after the death of St. Cyril. Other passages in this discourse seem clearly levelled against the heresy of Nestorius. The style is also more pompous and adorned than that of St. Cyril, nor abounds with parenthesis like his. It is a beautiful, eloquent, and solid piece, and was probably composed by some priest of the church of Jerusalem, whose name was Cyril, about the sixth century, when either Sallust or Elias was patriarch. See Dom. Touttee, and Ceillier, t. 6, p. 544.

ST. EDWARD, KING AND MARTYR.

HE was monarch of all England, and succeeded his father, the glorious king Edgar, in 975, being thirteen years old. He followed in all things the counsels of St. Dunstan; and his ardor in the pursuit of all virtues is not to be expressed. His great love of purity of mind and body, and his fervent devotion, rendered him the miracle of princes, while by his modesty, clemency, prudence, charity, and compassion to the poor, he was the blessing and the delight of his subjects.' His stepmother, Elfrida, had attempted {618} to set him aside, that the crown might fall on her own son, Ethelred, then seven years old. Notwithstanding her treasonable practices, and the frequent proofs of her envy and jealousy, Edward always paid her the most dutiful respect and deference, and treated his brother with the most tender affection. But the fury of her ambition made her insensible to all motives of religion, nature, and gratitude. The young king had reigned three years and a half, when, being one day weary with hunting in a forest near Wareham, in Dorsetshire, he paid a visit to his stepmother at Corfesgeate, now Corfe-castle, in the isle of Purbeck, and desired to see his young brother at the door. The treacherous queen caused a servant to stab him in the belly while he was stooping, out of courtesy, after drinking. The king set spurs to his horse, but fell off dead, on the 18th of March, 979, his bowels being ripped open so as to fall out. His body was plunged deep into a marsh, but discovered by a pillar of light, and honored by many miraculous cures of sick persons. It was taken up and buried in the church of our Lady at Wareham; but found entire in three years after, and translated to the monastery at Shaftesbury. His lungs were kept at the village called Edwardstow, in 1001; but the chiefest part of his remains were deposited at Wareham, as the Saxon Chronicle and Florence of Worcester say: but part was afterwards removed to Shaftesbury, not Glastenbury, as Caxton mistakes. The long thin knife with which he was stabbed, was kept in the church at Faversham, before the suppression of the monasteries, as Hearne mentions. His name is placed in the Roman Martyrology. The impious Elfrida, being awaked by the stings of conscience, and by the voice of miracles, retired from the world, and built the monasteries of Wherwell and Ambresbury, in the first of which she lived and died in the practice of penance. The reign of her son Ethelred was weak and unfortunate, and the source of the greatest miseries to the kingdom, especially from the Danes. See Malmesbury, Brompton, abbot of Jorval, in Yorkshire, and Ranulf Higden, in his Polychronicon, published by Gale. Also an old MS. life of the saint, quoted by Hearne, on Langtoft's Chronicle, t. 2, p. 628, and from the MS. lives of saints, in the hands of Mr. Sheldon, of Weston.

ST. ANSELM, BISHOP OF LUCCA, C.

HE was a native of Mantua, and was educated there in grammer and dialectics. Having entered himself among the clergy, he spent some time in the study of theology and the canon law, and laid that foundation of learning, which, joined with his natural genius and eminent virtue, qualified him to rise to the highest degree of excellence. Anselm Badagius, a Milanese, bishop of Lucca, was chosen pope in 1061, and took the name of Alexander II. He nominated our saint his successor in the see of Lucca; and he took a journey into Germany to the emperor, Henry IV., but out of a scruple refused to receive the investiture of the bishopric from that prince, so that the pope was obliged to keep in his own hands the administration of the see of Lucca. St. Gregory VII., who succeeded Alexander II., in 1073, ordered Anselm to receive the investiture from Henry. This compliance gave our saint such remorse, that he left his see, and took the monastic habit at Cluni. The pope obliged him to return to his bishopric, which he did. His zeal soon raised him enemies: by virtue of a decree of pope Gregory IX. he attempted to reform the canons of his cathedral, and to oblige them to live in community: this they obstinately refused to do, though they were interdicted by the pope, and afterwards excommunicated in a council, in which Peter Igneus, the famous bishop of Albano, presided in the name of {619} his holiness. The holy countess, Maud, undertook to expel the refractory canons, but they raised a sedition, and, being supported by the emperor Henry, drove the bishop out of the city, in 1079. St. Anselm retired to the countess Maud, whose director he was; for he was eminently experienced in the paths of an interior life, and, in the greatest hurry of business, he always reserved several hours in the day, which he consecrated to prayer, and attended only to God and himself. While he studied or conversed with others, his heart was virtually united to God, and every object served as it were naturally to raise his affections afresh to his Creator. Pope Gregory suffered him not to bury himself in his retreat, but, during his exile, appointed him apostolic legate in Lombardy, charging him with the care of several dioceses in those parts, which, through the iniquity of the times, had continued long vacant. St. Anselm wrote an apology for Gregory VII., in which he shows that it belongs not to temporal princes to give pastors to the church of Christ, and to confute the pretensions of the antipope, Guibert.[1] In another work he proves, that temporal princes cannot dispose of the revenues of the church. St. Anselm died at Mantua on the 18th of March, in 1086. His name occurs on this day in the Roman Martyrology, and he is honored at Mantua as patron of that city. Baldus, his penitentiary, has written his life, in which he ascribes to him several miracles. See it in Canisius's Lect. Antiq. t. 3, p. 372.

Footnotes: 1. This work is published by Canisius, Lect. Antiq. t. 3, p. 389, and Bibl. Patr. Lugdun, t. 18, Colon. t. 1{2}.

ST. FRIDIAN, ERIGDIAN, OR FRIGDIAN, C.

BISHOP OF LUCCA.

HE is said to have been son to a king of Ulster in Ireland, at least he is looked upon as of Irish extraction. Travelling into Italy, to improve himself in ecclesiastical learning and virtue, he made such progress that, upon the death of Geminian, bishop of Lucca, he was chosen bishop of that extensive diocese, the eleventh from St. Paulinus, founder of that church, said to have been a disciple of St. Peter. St. Gregory the Great assures us, that he miraculously checked an impetuous flood of the river Auser, now called the Serchio, when it threatened to drown great part of the city. St. Fridian died in 578, and was buried in a place where the church now stands, which bears his name. Pope Alexander II. sent for some regular canons from this church to establish that order in the churches of St. John Lateran, and of the cross of Jerusalem, at Rome, but, in 1507, the congregation of St. Frigdian was united to that of St. John Lateran.[1] See St. Gregory the Great, l. 3, Dial. c. 9, Bede, Notker, Raban, Usuard, and the Roman Martyrology, on the 18th of March. Also Innocent III. c. 34, de Testibus et Attestationibus. In Decreto Gregoriano. Rursus id c. 8, de Testibus cogendis. Ib. iterum, de Verborum Significatione. See also Dempster (of the family of the barons of Muresk, a Scotchman, public professor, first in several towns in Flanders, afterwards at Pisa, and lastly, at Bononia, where he died in 1625) in his Etruria Regalis, t. 2, l. 5, c. 6, p. 299, which work was printed with many cuts, in two volume, folio, at Florence, in 1723, at the expense of Thomas Coke, late earl of Leicester, then on his travels. And principally, see the Ecclesiastical History of Lucca, printed in that city, in 1736, and again in 1741, in 12mo.

Footnotes: 1. See F. Hebb{oi}, t. 2, p. 50.

{620}

MARCH XIX.

ST. JOSEPH.

THE glorious St. Joseph was lineally descended from the greatest kings of the tribe of Juda, and from the most illustrious of the ancient patriarchs; but his true glory consisted in his humility and virtue. The history of his life hath not been written by men; but his principal actions are recorded by the Holy Ghost himself. God intrusted him with the education of his divine Son, manifested in the flesh. In this view he was espoused to the Virgin Mary. It is an evident mistake of some writers, that by a former wife he was the father of St. James the Less, and of the rest who are styled in the gospels the brothers of our Lord; for these were only cousin-germans to Christ, the sons of Mary, sister to the Blessed Virgin, wife of Alphaeus, who was living at the time of our Redeemer's crucifixion. St. Jerom assures us,[1] that St. Joseph always preserved his virgin chastity; and it is of faith that nothing contrary thereto ever took place with regard to his chaste spouse, the blessed Virgin Mary. He was given her by heaven to be the protector of her chastity, to secure her from calumnies in the birth of the Son of God, and to assist her in his education, and in her journeys, fatigues, and persecutions. How great was the purity and sanctity of him who was chosen the guardian of the most spotless Virgin! This holy man seems, for a considerable time, to have been unacquainted that the great mystery of the Incarnation had been wrought in her by the Holy Ghost. Conscious therefore of his own chaste behavior towards her, it could not but raise a great concern in his breast, to find that, notwithstanding the sanctity of her deportment, yet he might be well assured that she was with child. But being a just man, as the scripture calls him, and consequently possessed of all virtues, especially of charity and mildness towards his neighbor, he was determined to leave her privately, without either condemning or accusing her, committing the whole cause to God. These his perfect dispositions were so acceptable to God, the lover of justice, charity, and peace, that before he put his design in execution, he sent an angel from heaven not to reprehend any thing in his holy conduct, but to dissipate all his doubts and fears, by revealing to him this adorable mystery. How happy should we be if we were as tender in all that regards the reputation of our neighbor; as free from entertaining any injurious thought or suspicion, whatever certainty our conjectures or our senses may seem to rely on; and as guarded in our tongue! We commit these faults only because in our hearts we are devoid of that true charity and simplicity, whereof St. Joseph sets us so eminent an example on this occasion.

In the next place we may admire in secret contemplation, with what devotion, respect, and tenderness, he beheld and adored the first of all men, the new-born Saviour of the world, and with what fidelity he acquitted himself of his double charge, the education of Jesus, and the guardianship of his blessed mother. "He was truly the faithful and prudent servant," says St. Bernard,[2] "whom our Lord appointed the master of his household, the comfort and support of his mother, his fosterfather, and most faithful co-operator to the execution of his deepest counsels on earth." "What a happiness," {621} says the same father, "not only to see Jesus Christ, but also to hear him, to carry him in his arms, to lead him from place to place, to embrace and caress him, to feed him, and to be privy to all the great secrets which were concealed from the princes of this world!"

"O astonishing elevation! O unparalleled dignity!" cries out the pious Gerson,[3] in a devout address to St. Joseph, "that the mother of God, queen of heaven, should call you her lord; that God himself, made man, should call you father, and obey your commands. O glorious Triad on earth, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, how dear a family to the glorious Trinity in heaven, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost! Nothing is on earth so great, so good, so excellent." Amidst these his extraordinary graces, what more wonderful than his humility! He conceals his privileges, lives as the most obscure of men, publishes nothing of God's great mysteries, makes no further inquiries into them, leaving it to God to manifest them at his own time, seeks to fulfil the order of providence in his regard, without interfering with any thing but what concerns himself. Though descended from the royal family which had long been in possession of the throne of Judaea, he is content with his condition, that of a mechanic or handicraftsman,[4] and makes it his business, by laboring in it, to maintain himself, his spouse, and the divine Child.

We should be ungrateful to this great saint, if we did not remember that it is to him, as the instrument under God, that we are indebted for the preservation of the infant Jesus from Herod's jealousy and malice, manifested in the slaughter of the Innocents. An angel appearing to him in his sleep, bade him arise, take the child Jesus, and fly with him into Egypt, and remain there till he should again have notice from him to return. This sudden and unexpected flight must have exposed Joseph to many inconveniences and sufferings in so long a journey, with a little babe and a tender virgin, the greater part of the way being through deserts, and among strangers; yet he alleges no excuses, nor inquires at what time they were to return. St. Chrysostom observes that God treats thus all his servants, sending them frequent trials, to clear their hearts from the rust of self-love, but intermixing seasons of consolation.[5] "Joseph," says he, "is anxious on seeing the Virgin with child; an angel removes that fear; he rejoices at the child's birth, but a great fear succeeds; the furious king seeks to destroy the child, and the whole city is in an uproar to take away his life. This is followed by another joy, the adoration of the Magi; a new sorrow then arises; he is ordered to fly into a foreign unknown country, without help or acquaintance." It is the opinion of the fathers, that upon their entering Egypt, at the presence of the child Jesus, all the oracles of that superstitions country were struck dumb, and the statues of their gods trembled, and in many places fell to the ground, according to that of Isaiah xix. And the statues of the Egyptians shall be shaken in his presence.[6] The fathers also attribute to this holy visit the spiritual benediction poured on that country, which made it for many ages most fruitful in saints.[7]

After the death of king Herod, which was notified to St. Joseph by a vision, God ordered him to return with the child and his mother into the land of Israel, which our saint readily obeyed. But when he arrived in Judaea, {622} hearing that Archelaus succeeded Herod in that part of the country, apprehensive he might be infected with his father's vices—cruelty and ambition—he feared on that account to settle there, as he would otherwise probably have done, for the more commodious education of the child. And, therefore, being directed by God in another vision, he retired into the dominions of his brother, Herod Antipas, in Galilee, to his former habitation in Nazareth, where the wonderful occurrences of our Lord's birth were less known. St. Joseph being a strict observer of the Mosaic law, in conformity to its direction, annually repaired to Jerusalem to celebrate the passover. Archelaus being banished by Augustus, and Judaea made a Roman province, he had now nothing more to fear at Jerusalem. Our Saviour being advanced to the twelfth year of his age, accompanied his parents thither; who having performed the usual ceremonies of the feast, were now returning with many of their neighbors and acquaintance towards Galilee, and never doubting but that Jesus had joined himself with some of the company, they travelled on for a whole day's journey without further inquiry after him, before they discovered that he was not with them. But when night came on, and they could hear no tidings of him among their kindred and acquaintance, they, in the deepest affliction, returned with the utmost speed to Jerusalem: where, after an anxious search of three days, they found him in the temple, sitting among the learned doctors of the law, hearing them discourse, and asking them such questions as raised the admiration of all that heard him, and made them astonished at the ripeness of his understanding: nor were his parents less surprised on this occasion. And when his mother told him with what grief and earnestness they had sought him, and to express her sorrow for that, though short, privation of his presence, said to him: "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I sought thee in great affliction of mind;" she received for answer, that being the Messias and Son of God, sent by his Father into the world in order to redeem it, he must be about his Father's business, the same for which he had been sent into the world; and therefore that it was most likely for them to find him in his Father's house: intimating that his appearing in public on this occasion was to advance his Father's honor, and to prepare the princes of the Jews to receive him for their Messias; pointing out to them from the prophets the time of his coming. But though in thus staying in the temple, unknown to his parents, he did something without their leave, in obedience to his heavenly Father, yet in all other things he was obedient to them, returning with them to Nazareth, and there living in all dutiful subjection to them.

Aelred, our countryman, abbot of Rieval, in his sermon on losing the child Jesus in the temple, observes that this his conduct to his parents is a true representation of that which he shows us, while he often withdraws himself for a short time from us to make us seek him the more earnestly. He thus describes the sentiments of his holy parents on this occasion.[8] "Let us consider what was the happiness of that blessed company, in the way to Jerusalem, to whom it was granted to behold his face, to hear his sweet words, to see in him the signs of divine wisdom and virtue; and in their mutual discourse to receive the influence of his saving truths and example. The old and young admire him. I believe boys of his age were struck with astonishment at the gravity of his manners and words. I believe such rays of grace darted from his blessed countenance as drew on him the eyes, ears, and hearts of every one. And what tears do they shed when he is not with them." He goes on considering what must be the grief of his parents when they had lost him; what their sentiments, and how earnest their {623} search: but what their joy when they found him again. "Discover to me," says he, "O my Lady, Mother of my God, what were your sentiments, what your astonishment and your joy when you saw him again, and sitting, not among boys, but amidst the doctors of the law: when you saw every one's eyes fixed on aim, every one's ears listening to him, great and small, learned and unlearned, intent only on his words and motions. You now say: I have found him whom I love. I will hold him, and will no more let him part from me. Hold him, sweet Lady, hold him fast; rush on his neck, dwell on his embraces, and compensate the three days' absence by multiplied delights in your present enjoyment of him. You tell him that you and his father sought him in grief. For what did you grieve? not for fear of hunger or want in him whom you knew to be God: but I believe you grieved to see yourself deprived of the delights of his presence even for a short time; for the Lord Jesus is so sweet to those who taste him, that his shortest absence is a subject of the greatest grief to them." This mystery is an emblem of the devout soul, and Jesus sometimes withdrawing himself, and leaving her to dryness, that she may be more earnest in seeking him. But, above all, how eagerly ought the soul which has lost God by sin, to seek him again, and how bitterly ought she to deplore her extreme misfortune!

As no further mention is made of St. Joseph, he must have died before the marriage of Cana, and the beginning of our divine Saviour's ministry. We cannot doubt but he had the happiness of Jesus and Mary attending at his death, praying by him, assisting and comforting him in his last moments. Whence he is particularly invoked for the great grace of a happy death, and the spiritual presence of Jesus in that tremendous hour. The church reads the history of the patriarch Joseph on his festival, who was styled the saviour of Egypt, which he delivered from perishing by famine; and was appointed the faithful master of the household of Potiphar, and of that of Pharaoh and his kingdom. But our great saint was chosen by God the saviour of the life of him who was the true Saviour of the souls of men, rescuing him from the tyranny of Herod. He is now glorified in heaven, as the guardian and keeper of his Lord on earth. As Pharaoh said to the Egyptians in their distress: "Go to Joseph;" so may we confidently address ourselves to the mediation of him to whom God, made man, was subject and obedient on earth.

The devout Gerson expressed the warmest devotion to St. Joseph, which he endeavored by letters and sermons to promote. He composed an office in his honor, and wrote his life in twelve poems, called Josephina. He enlarged on all the circumstances of his life by pious affection, and meditations. St. Teresa chose him the chief patron of her order. In the sixth chapter of her life she writes thus: "I chose the glorious St. Joseph for my patron, and I commend myself in all things singularly to his intercession. I do not remember ever to have asked of God any thing by him which I did not obtain. I never knew any one, who, by invoking him, did not advance exceedingly in virtue: for he assists in a wonderful manner all who address themselves to him." St. Francis of Sales, throughout his whole nineteenth entertainment, extremely recommends devotion to him, and extols his merits, principally his virginity, humility, constancy, and courage. The Syrians and other eastern churches celebrate his festival on the 20th of July; the western church, on the 19th of March. Pope Gregory XV., in 1621, and Urban VIII., in 1642, commanded it to be kept a holyday of obligation.

The holy family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, presents to us the most perfect model of heavenly conversation on earth. How did those two seraphims, Mary and Joseph, live in their poor cottage! They always enjoyed {624} the presence of Jesus, always burning with the most ardent love for him: inviolably attached to his sacred person, always employed and living only for him. What were their transports in beholding him, their devotion it, listening to him, and their joy in possessing him! heavenly life! anticipation of the heavenly bliss! divine conversation! We may imitate them, and share some degree of this advantage, by conversing often with Jesus, and by the contemplation of his most amiable goodness, kindling the fire of his holy love in our breasts. The effects of this love, if it be sincere, will necessarily appear in our putting on his spirit, and imitating his example and virtues; and in our studying to walk continually in the divine presence, finding God everywhere, and esteeming all the time lost which we do not spend with God, or for his honor.

Footnotes:
1. L. adv. Helvid. c. 9.
2. Hom. 2. super missus est, n. 16, p. 742.
3. Serm. de Nativ.
4. This appears from Mat. xiii. 55. St. Justin, (Dial. n. 89, ed. Ben.
    p. 186,) St. Ambrose, (in Luc. p. 3,) and Theodoret (b. 3, Hist. c.
    18) say he worked in wood, as a carpenter. St. Hilary (in Mat. c.
    14, p. 17) and St. Peter Chrysologus (Serm. 48) say he wrought in
    iron as a smith; probably he wrought both in iron and in wood; which
    opinion St. Justin favors, by saying: "He and Jesus made ploughs and
    yokes for oxen."
5. Hom. 8, in Mat. t. 7, p. 123, ed. Ben.
6. This is affirmed by St. Athanasius, (l. de Incarn.) Eusebius,
    (Demonstrat. Evang. l. 6, c. 20.) St. Cyril (Cat. 10,) St. Ambrose,
    (in Ps. 118, Octon. 5,) St. Jerom, (in Isai. 19,) St. Chrysostom, St.
    Cyril of Alexandria, (in Isai.) Sozomen, (l. 5. c. 20,) &c.
7. See the Lives of the Fathers of the desert.
8. Bibl. Patr. t. 13.

ST. ALCMUND, M.

HE was son of Eldred, and brother of Osred, kings of the Northumbrians. During his temporal prosperity, the greater he was in power, so much the more meek and humble was he in his heart, and so much the more affable to others. He was poor amidst riches, because he knew no greater pleasure than to strip himself for the relief of the distressed. Being driven from his kingdom, together with his father, by rebellious subjects, in league with Danish plunderers, he lived among the Picts above twenty years in banishment; learning more heartily to despise earthly vanities, and making it his whole study to serve the King of kings. His subjects, groaning under the yoke of an insupportable tyranny, took up arms against their oppressors, and induced the royal prince, upon motives of compassion for their distress and a holy zeal for religion, to put themselves at their head. Several battles were prosperousiy fought; but at length the pious prince was murdered by the contrivance of king Eardulf, the usurper, as Matthew of Westminster, Simeon of Durham, and Florence of Worcester, say. Dr. Brown Willis, in his Notitia of parliamentary boroughs, writes, with some ancients, that he was slain by the Danes, about the year 819. His body was interred at Lilleshult, in Shropshire; but afterwards translated to Derby, where he was honored with great devotion as patron of the town, on the 19th of March. An old manuscript sermon preached in his church at Derby, about the year 1140, extant in a manuscript collection of sermons of that age in my hands, folio 138, gives a particular history of this translation of his relies to Derby, where his church became famous for miracles, and for the resort of pilgrims. See on this saint the history of John of Glastonbury, Matthew of Westminster, the manuscript sermon above mentioned, and Henschenius t. 3, Mart. p. 47.

{625}

MARCH XX.

ST. CUTHBERT, CONFESSOR.

BISHOP OF LINDISFARNE.

From his life written by Bede, and from that author's Church-History, b. 4 c. 27 to c. 32. Simeon Dunelm, or rather Turgot, Hist. Dunelm, published by Bedford: the old Latin hymn On St. Cuthbert, MS. in Bibl. Cotton. n. 41, spud Wanley, p. 184, and four Latin prayers, in honor of St. Cuthbert, MS. n. 190 in the library of Durham church. Warmley, Catal. t. 2, p. 297. Harpsiald, saec. 7, c. 34. Hearne on Langtoft, t. 2, p. 687. N.B. The history of Durham, which is here quoted, was compiled by Turgot, prior of Durham, down to the year 1104, and continued to the year 1161 by Simeon.

A.D. 687.

WHEN the Northumbrians, under the pious king Oswald, had, with great fervor, embraced the Christian faith, the holy bishop St. Aidan founded two monasteries, that of Mailros, on the bank of the Tweed, and another in the isle of Lindisfarne, afterwards called Holy Island, four miles distant from Berwick. In both he established the rule of St. Columba; and usually resided himself in the latter. St. Cuthbert[1] was born not very far from Mailros, and in his youth was much edified by the devout deportment of the holy inhabitants of that house, whose fervor in the service of God, and the discharge of the duties of a monastic life, he piously endeavored to imitate on the mountains where he kept his father's sheep. It happened one night, that, while he was watching in prayer, near his flock, according to his custom, he saw the soul of St. Aidan carried up to heaven by angels, at the very instant that holy man departed this life in the isle of Lindisfarne. Serious reflections on the happiness of such a death determined the pious young man to repair, without delay, to Mailros, where he put on the monastic habit, while Eata was abbot, and St. Boisil prior. He studied the holy scriptures under the latter, and in fervor surpassed all his brethren in every monastic exercise. Eata being called to govern the new monastery of Rippon, founded by king Alcfrid, he took with him St. Cuthbert, and committed to him the care of entertaining strangers; which charge is usually the most dangerous in a religious state. Cuthbert washed the feet of others and served them with wonderful humility and meekness, always remembering that Christ himself is served in his members. And he was most careful that the functions of Martha should never impair his spirit of recollection. When St. Wilfred was made abbot of Rippon, St. Cuthbert returned with Eata to Mailros; and St. Boisil dying of the great pestilence, in 664, he was chosen provost or prior in his place.

In this station, not content by word and example to form his monks to perfect piety, be labored assiduously among the people to bring them off from several heathenish customs and superstitious practices which still obtained among them. For this purpose, says our venerable historian, he often went out, sometimes on horseback, but oftener on foot, to preach the way of life to such as were gone astray. Parochial churches being at this time very scarce in the country, it was the custom for the country people to flock about a priest or ecclesiastical person when he came into any village, for the sake of his instructions; hearkening willingly to his words, and more willingly practising the good lessons he taught them. St. Cuthbert {626} excelled all others by a most persuasive and moving eloquence; and such a brightness appeared in his angelical face in delivering the word of God to the people, that none of them durst conceal from him any part of their misbehavior, but all laid their conscience open before him, and endeavored by his injunctions and counsels to expiate the sins they had confessed, by worthy fruits of penance. He chiefly visited those villages and hamlets at a distance, which, being situate among high and craggy mountains, and inhabited by the most rustic, ignorant, and savage people, were the less frequented by other teachers. After St. Cuthbert had lived many years at Mailros, St. Eata, abbot also of Lindisfarne, removed him thither, and appointed him prior of that larger monastery. By the perfect habit of mortification and prayer the saint had attained to so eminent a spirit of contemplation, that he seemed rather an angel than a man. He often spent whole nights in prayer, and sometimes, to resist sleep, worked or walked about the island while he prayed. If he heard others complain that they had been disturbed in their sleep, he used to say, that he should think himself obliged to any one that awaked him out of his sleep, that he might sing the praises of his Creator, and labor for his honor. His very countenance excited those who saw him to a love of virtue. He was so much addicted to compunction, and inflamed with heavenly desires, that he could never say mass without tears. He often moved penitents, who confessed to him their sins, to abundant tears, by the torrents of his own, which he shed for them. His zeal in correcting sinners was always sweetened with tender charity and meekness. The saint had governed the monastery of Lindisfarne, under his abbot, several years, when earnestly aspiring to a closer union with God, he retired, with his abbot's consent, into the little isle of Farne, nine miles from Lindisfarne, there to lead an austere eremitical life. The place was then uninhabited, and afforded him neither water, tree, nor corn. Cuthbert built himself a hut with a wall and trench about it, and, by his prayers, obtained a well of freshwater in his own cell. Having brought with him instruments of husbandry, he sowed first wheat, which failed; then barley, which, though sowed out of season, yielded a plentiful crop. He built a house at the entry of the island from Lindisfarne, to lodge the brethren that came to see him, whom he there met and entertained with heavenly conferences. Afterwards he confined himself within his own wall and trench, and gave spiritual advice only through a window, without ever stirring out of his cell. He could not, however, refuse an interview with the holy abbess and royal virgin Elfleda, whom her father, king Oswi, had dedicated to God from her birth, and who, in 680, succeeded St. Hilda in the government of the abbey of Whitby. This was held in the isle of Cocket, then filled with holy anchorets. This close solitude was to our saint an uninterrupted exercise of divine love, praise, and compunction; in which he enjoyed a paradise of heavenly delights, unknown to the world.