The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,with a revised translation, introduction, notes, and indices,
by Edwin Hamilton Gifford, D.D.
Under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Semimary, New York, and Henry Wace, D.D., Principal of King's College, London
Published in 1893 by Philip Schaff, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Preface.The present translation of the Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril of Jerusalem is based on a careful revision of the English translation published in the "Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church," with a most interesting Preface by John Henry Newman, dated from Oxford, The Feast of St. Matthew, 1838.
In his Preface Mr. Newman stated with respect to the translation "that for almost the whole of it the Editors were indebted to Mr. Church, Fellow of Oriel College." Mr. Church was at that time a very young man, having taken his First Class in Michaelmas Term, 1836; and this his first published work gave abundant promise of that peculiar felicity of expression, which made him in maturer life one of the most perfect masters of the English tongue. Having received full liberty to make such use of his translation as I might deem most desirable for the purpose of the present Edition, I have been obliged to exercise my own judgment both in preserving much of Dean Church's work unaltered, and in revising it wherever the meaning of the original appeared to be less perfectly expressed.
|BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet Our List of 2,300 Religious Subjects|
In the notes of the Edition one of my chief objects has been to illustrate S. Cyril's teaching by comparing it with the works of earlier Fathers to whom he may have been indebted, and with the writings of his contemporaries.
In the chapters of the Introduction which touch on S. Cyril's doctrines of Baptism, Chrism, and the Holy Eucharist, I have not attempted either to criticise or to defend his teaching, but simply to give as faithful a representation as I could of his actual meaning. The Eastern Church had long before S. Cyril's day, and still has its own peculiar Sacramental doctrines, which, notwithstanding the efforts of rival theologians, can never be reduced to exact conformity with the tenets of our own or other Western Churches.
The Indices have been revised, and large additions made to the lists of Greek words,
26 May, 1893.
Arianism in a.d. 318, he lived to see its suppression by the Edict of Theodosius, 380, and to take part in its condemnation by the Council of Constantinople in the following year.
The story of Cyril's life is not told in detail by any contemporary author; in his own writings there is little mention of himself; and the Church historians refer only to the events of his manhood and old age. We have thus no direct knowledge of his early years, and can only infer from the later circumstances of his life what may probably have been the nature of his previous training. The names of his parents are quite unknown; but in the Greek Menæa, or monthly catalogues of Saints, and in the Roman Martyrology for the 18th day of March, Cyril is said to have been "born of pious parents, professing the orthodox Faith, and to have been bred up in the same, in the reign of Constantine." This account of his parentage and education derives some probability from the fact that Cyril nowhere speaks as one who had been converted from paganism or from any heretical sect. His language at the close of the viith Lecture seems rather to be inspired by gratitude to his own parents for a Christian education: "The first virtuous observance in a Christian is to honour his parents, to requite their trouble, and to provide with all his power for their comfort: for however much we may repay them, yet we can never be to them what they as parents have been to us. Let them enjoy the comfort we can give, and strengthen us with blessings."
One member only of Cyril's family is mentioned by name, his sister's son Gelasius, who was appointed by Cyril to be Bishop of Cæsarea on the death of Acacius, a.d. 366 circ.
Cyril himself was probably born, or at least brought up, in or near Jerusalem, for it was usual to choose a Bishop from among the Clergy over whom he was to preside, a preference being given to such as were best known to the people generally  .
That Cyril, whether a native of Jerusalem or not, had passed a portion of his childhood there, is rendered probable by his allusions to the condition of the Holy Places before they were cleared and adorned by Constantine and Helena. He seems to speak as an eye-witness of their former state, when he says that a few years before the place of the Nativity at Bethlehem had been wooded  , that the place where Christ was crucified and buried was a garden, of which traces were still remaining  , that the wood of the Cross had been distributed to all nations  , and that before the decoration of the Holy Sepulchre by Constantine, there was a cleft or cave before the door of the Sepulchre, hewn out of the rock itself, but now no longer to be seen, because the outer cave had been cut away for the sake of the recent adornments  .
This work was undertaken by Constantine after the year 326 a.d.  ; and if Cyril spoke from remembrance of what he had himself seen, he could hardly have been less than ten or twelve years old, and so must have been born not later, perhaps a few years earlier, than 315 a.d.
The tradition that Cyril had been a monk and an ascetic was probably founded upon the passages in which he seems to speak as one who had himself belonged to the order of Solitaries, and shared the glory of chastity  . We need not, however, suppose that the "Solitaries" (monazontes)of whom he speaks were either hermits living in remote and desert places, or monks secluded in a monastery: they commonly lived in cities, only in separate houses, and frequented the same Churches with ordinary Christians. To such a life of perpetual chastity, strict asceticism, and works of charity, Cyril may probably, in accordance with the custom of the age, have been devoted from early youth.
A more important question is that which relates to the time and circumstances of his ordination as Deacon, and as Priest, matters closely connected with some of the chief troubles of his later life.
That he was ordained Deacon by Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, who died in 334 or 335, may be safely inferred from the unfriendly notice of S. Jerome, Chron. ann. 349 (350 a.d.): "Cyril having been ordained Priest by Maximus, and after his death permitted by Acacius, Bishop of Cæsarea, and the other Arian Bishops, to be made Bishop on condition of repudiating his ordination by Maximus, served in the Church as a Deacon: and after he had been paid for this impiety by the reward of the Episcopate (Sacerdotii), he by various plots harassed Heraclius, whom Maximus when dying had substituted in his own place, and degraded him from Bishop to Priest."
From this account, incredible as it is in the main, and strongly marked by personal prejudice, we may conclude that Cyril had been ordained Deacon not by Maximus, but by his predecessor Macarius; for otherwise he would have been compelled to renounce his Deacon's Orders, as well as his Priesthood.
Macarius died in or before the year 335; for at the Council of Tyre, assembled in that year to condemn Athanasius, Maximus sat as successor to Macarius in the See of Jerusalem  . This date is confirmed by the fact that after the accession of Maximus, a great assembly of Bishops was held at Jerusalem in the year 335, for the dedication of the Church of the Holy Resurrection  .
It thus appears that Cyril's ordination as Deacon cannot be put later than 334 or the beginning of 335.
Towards the close of the latter year the Bishops who had deposed Athanasius at the Council of Tyre proceeded to Jerusalem "to celebrate the Tricennalia of Constantine's reign by consecrating his grand Church on Mount Calvary  ." On that occasion "Jerusalem became the gathering point for distinguished prelates from every province, and the whole city was thronged by a vast assemblage of the servants of God......In short, the whole of Syria and Mesopotamia, Phoenicia and Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, and Libya, with the dwellers in the Thebaid, all contributed to swell the mighty concourse of God's ministers, followed as they were by vast numbers from every province. They were attended by an imperial escort, and officers of trust had also been sent from the palace itself, with instructions to heighten the splendour of the festival at the Emperor's expense  ." Eusebius proceeds to describe the splendid banquets, the lavish distribution of money and clothes to the naked and destitute, the offerings of imperial magnificence, the "intellectual feast" of the many Bishops' discourses, and last, not least, his own "various public orations pronounced in honour of this solemnity." Among the Clergy taking part in this gorgeous ceremony, the newly ordained Deacon of the Church of Jerusalem would naturally have his place. It was a scene which could not fail to leave a deep impression on his mind, and to influence his attitude towards the contending parties in the great controversy by which the Church was at this time distracted. He knew that Athanasius had just been deposed, he had seen Arius triumphantly restored to communion in that august assembly of Bishops "from every province," with his own Bishop Maximus, and Eusebius of Cæsarea, the Metropolitan, at their head. It is much to the praise of his wisdom and steadfastness that he was not misled by the notable triumph of the Arians to join their faction or adopt their tenets.
In September, 346, Athanasius returning from his second exile at Trèves passed through Jerusalem. The aged Bishop Maximus, who had been induced to acquiesce in the condemnation of Athanasius at Tyre, and in the solemn recognition of Arius at Jerusalem, had afterwards refused to join the Eusebians at Antioch in 341, for the purpose of confirming the sentence passed at Tyre, and now gave a cordial welcome to Athanasius, who thus describes his reception  : "As I passed through Syria, I met with the Bishops of Palestine, who, when they had called a Council at Jerusalem, received me cordially, and themselves also sent me on my way in peace, and addressed the following letter to the Church and the Bishops  ." The letter congratulating the Egyptian Bishops and the Clergy and people of Alexandria on the restoration of their Bishop is signed first by Maximus, who seems to have acted without reference to the Metropolitan Acacius, successor of Eusebius as Bishop of Cæsarea, and a leader of the Arians, a bitter enemy of Athanasius. Though Cyril in his writings never mentions Athanasius or Arius by name, we can hardly doubt that, as Touttée suggests  , he must at this time have had an opportunity of learning the true character of the questions in dispute between the parties of the great heresiarch and his greater adversary.
We have already learned from Jerome that Cyril was admitted to the Priesthood by Maximus. There is no evidence of the exact date of his ordination: but we may safely assume that he was a Priest of some years' standing, when the important duty of preparing the candidates for Baptism was intrusted to him in or about the year 348  . There appears to be no authority for the statement (Dict. Chr. Antiq. "Catechumens," p. 319 a), that the Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem were delivered by him partly as a Deacon, partly as a Presbyter  ."
At the very time of delivering the lectures, Cyril was also in the habit of preaching to the general congregation on the Lord's day  , when the candidates for Baptism were especially required to be present  . In the Church of Jerusalem it was still the custom for sermons to be preached by several Presbyters in succession, the Bishop preaching last. From Cyril's Homily on the Paralytic (§ 20) we learn that he preached immediately before the Bishop, and so must have held a distinguished position among the Priests. This is also implied in the fact, that within three or four years after delivering his Catechetical Lectures to the candidates for Baptism, he was chosen to succeed Maximus in the See of Jerusalem.
The date of his consecration is approximately determined by his own letter to Constantius concerning the appearance of a luminous cross in the sky at Jerusalem. The letter was written on the 7th of May, 351, and is described by Cyril as the first-fruit of his Episcopate. He must therefore have been consecrated in 350, or early in 351.
Socrates and Sozomen agree in the assertion that Acacius, Patrophilus the Arian Bishop of Scythopolis, and their adherents ejected Maximus and put Cyril in his place  . But according to the statement of Jerome already quoted  Maximus, when dying, had not only nominated Heraclius to be his successor, which, with the consent of the Clergy and people was not unusual, but had actually established him as Bishop in his stead (in suum locum substituerat). The two accounts are irreconcileable, and both improbable. Touttée argues not without reason, that the consecration of Heraclius, which Jerome attributes to Maximus, would have been opposed to the right of the people and Clergy to nominate their own Bishop, and to the authority of the Metropolitan and other Bishops of the province, by whom the choice was to be confirmed and the consecration performed, and that it had moreover been expressly forbidden seven years before by the 23rd Canon of the Council of Antioch.
Still more improbable is the charge that Cyril had renounced the priesthood conferred on him by Maximus, and after serving in the Church as a Deacon, had been rewarded by the Episcopate, and then himself degraded Heraclius from Bishop to Priest. As a solution of these difficulties, it is suggested by Reischl  that Cyril had been designated in the lifetime of Maximus as his successor, and after his decease had been duly and canonically consecrated, but had incurred the calumnious charges of the party opposed to Acacius and the Eusebians, because he was supposed to have bound himself to them by accepting consecration at their hands. This view is in some measure confirmed by the fact that "in the great controversy of the day Cyril belonged to the Asiatic party, Jerome to that of Rome. In the Meletian schism also they took opposite sides, Cyril supporting Meletius, Jerome being a warm adherent of Paulinus  ," by whom he had been recently ordained Priest. It is also worthy of notice that Jerome's continuation of the Chronicle of Eusebius was written at Constantinople in 380-381, the very time when the many injurious charges fabricated by Cyril's bitter enemies were most industriously circulated in popular rumour on the eve of a judicial inquiry by the second general Council which met there in 381, under the presidency of Meletius, Cyril, and Gregory of Nazianzum  . Had Jerome written of Cyril a year or two later, he must have known that these calumnies had been emphatically rejected by the Synod of Constantinople (382) consisting of nearly the same Bishops who had been present at the Council of the preceding year. In their Synodical letter  to Pope Damasus they wrote: "And of the Church in Jerusalem, which is the Mother of all the Churches, we notify that the most reverend and godly Cyril is Bishop: who was long ago canonically appointed by the Bishops of the Province, and had many conflicts in various places against the Arians."
The beginning of Cyril's Episcopate was marked by the appearance of a bright Cross in the sky, about nine o'clock in the morning of Whitsunday, the 7th of May, 351 a.d. Brighter than the sun, it hung over the hill of Golgotha, and extended to Mount Olivet, being visible for many hours. The whole population of Jerusalem, citizens and foreigners, Christians and Pagans, young and old, flocked to the Church, singing the praises of Christ, and hailing the phænomenon as a sign from heaven confirming the truth of the Christian religion.
Cyril regarded the occasion as favourable for announcing to the Emperor Constantius the commencement of his Episcopate; and in his extant letter described the sign as a proof of God's favour towards the Empire and its Christian ruler. The piety of his father Constantine had been rewarded by the discovery of the true Cross and the Holy places: and now the greater devotion of the Son had won a more signal manifestation of Divine approval. The letter ends with a prayer that God may grant to the Emperor long to reign as the protector of the Church and of the Empire, "ever glorifying the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, our true God." The word homoousion, it is alleged, had not at this time been accepted by Cyril, and its use has therefore been thought to cast doubt upon the genuineness of this final prayer, which is nevertheless maintained by the Benedictine Editor  . The letter as a whole is certainly genuine, and the phenomenon is too strongly attested by the historians of the period to be called in question. While, therefore, we must reject Cyril's explanation, we have no reason to suspect him of intentional misrepresentation. A parhelion, or other remarkable phenomenon, of which the natural cause was at that time unknown, might well appear "to minds excited by the struggle between the Christian Faith and a fast-declining heathenism to be a miraculous manifestation of the symbol of Redemption, intended to establish the Faith and to confute its gainsayers  ."
The first few years of Cyril's episcopate fell within that so-called "Golden Decade," 346-355, which is otherwise described as "an uneasy interval of suspense rather than of peace  ." Though soon to be engaged in a dispute with Acacius concerning the privileges of their respective Sees, Cyril seems to have been in the interval zealous and successful in promoting the peace and prosperity of his own Diocese.
We learn from a letter of Basil the Great that he had visited Jerusalem about the year 357, when he had been recently baptized, and was preparing to adopt a life of strict asceticism. He speaks of the many saints whom he had there embraced, and of the many who had fallen on their knees before him, and touched his hands as holy  ,--signs, as Touttée suggests, of a flourishing state of religion and piety. Cyril's care for the poor, and his personal poverty, were manifested by an incident, of which the substantial truth is proved by the malicious use to which it was afterwards perverted. "Jerusalem and the neighbouring region being visited with a famine, the poor in great multitudes, being destitute of necessary food, turned their eyes upon Cyril as their Bishop. As he had no money to succour them in their need, he sold the treasures and sacred veils of the Church. It is said, therefore, that some one recognised an offering of his own as worn by an actress on the stage, and made it his business to inquire whence she had it, and found that it had been sold to her by a merchant, and to the merchant by the Bishop  ."
This was one of the charges brought against Cyril in the course of the disputes between himself and Acacius, which had commenced soon after he had been installed in the Bishopric of Jerusalem. As Bishop of Cæsarea, Acacius exercised Metropolitan jurisdiction over the Bishops of Palestine. But Cyril, as presiding over an Apostolic See, "the Mother of all the Churches," claimed exemption from the jurisdiction of Cæsarea, and higher rank than its Bishop. It is not alleged, nor is it in any way probable, that Cyril claimed also the jurisdiction over other Bishops. The rights and privileges of his See had been clearly defined many years before by the 7th Canon of the Council of Nicæa: "As custom and ancient tradition shew that the Bishop of Ælia ought to be honoured, let him have precedence in honour, without prejudice to the proper dignity of the Metropolitical See." Eusebius  , in reference to a Synod concerning the time of Easter, says: "There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine (about 200 a.d.), over whom Theophilus, Bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem, presided." If one Synod only is here meant, it would appear that the Bishop of Cæsarea took precedence of the Bishop of Jerusalem, which would be the natural order in a Synod held at Cæsarea. Bishop Hefele, however, takes a different view  : "According to the Synodicon, two Synods were held in Palestine on the subject of the Easter controversy: the one at Jerusalem presided over by Narcissus, and composed of fourteen Bishops; and the other at Cæsarea, comprising twelve Bishops, and presided over by Theophilus." In confirmation of this view we may observe that when next Eusebius mentions Narcissus and Theophilus, he reverses the previous order, and names the Bishop of Jerusalem first.
However this may have been, Acacius, who as an Arian was likely to have little respect for the Council of Nicæa, seems to have claimed both precedence and jurisdiction over Cyril. From  Socrates we learn that Cyril was frequently summoned to submit to the judgment of Acacius, but for two whole years refused to appear. He was therefore deposed by Acacius and the other Arian Bishops of Palestine on the charge of having sold the property of the Church, as before mentioned. Socrates, who confesses that he does not know for what Cyril was accused, yet suggests that he was afraid to meet the accusations  . But Theodoret, a more impartial witness, says  that Acacius took advantage of some slight occasion (aphormas) and deposed him. Sozomen  also describes the accusation as a pretext (epi prophasei toiade), and the deposition as hastily decreed, to forestall any countercharge of heresy by Cyril (phthanei kathelon). The deposition was quickly followed by Cyril's expulsion from Jerusalem, and a certain Eutychius was appointed to succeed him  . Passing by Antioch, which at this time, 357-358, was left without a Bishop by the recent decease of the aged Arian Leontius Castratus  , Cyril took refuge in Tarsus with its Bishop the "admirable Silvanus," "one of the Semi-Arians," who, as Athanasius testifies, agreed almost entirely with the Nicene doctrine, only taking offence at the expression homoousios, because in their opinion it contained latent Sabellianism  ." Cyril now sent to the Bishops who had deposed him a formal notice that he appealed to a higher Court (meizon epekalesato dikasterion ), and his appeal was approved by the Emperor Constantius  . Acasius, on learning the place of Cyril's retreat, wrote to Silvanus announcing his deposition. But Silvanus out of respect both to Cyril, and to the people, who were delighted with his teaching, still permitted him to exercise his ministry in the Church. Socrates finds fault with Cyril for his appeal: "In this," he says, "he was the first and only one who acted contrary to the custom of the Ecclesiastical Canon, by having recourse to appeals as in a civil court." The reproach implied in this statement is altogether undeserved. The question, as Touttée argues, is not whether others had done the like before or after, but whether Cyril's appeal was in accordance with natural justice, and the custom of the Church. On the latter point he refers to the case of the notorious heretic Photinus, who after being condemned in many Councils appealed to the Emperor, and was allowed to dispute in his presence with Basil the Great as his opponent. Athanasius himself, in circumstances very similar to Cyril's, declined to appear before Eusebius and a Synod of Arian Bishops at Cæsarea, by whom he was condemned a.d. 334, and appealed in person to Constantine, requesting either that a lawful Council of Bishops might be assembled, or that the Emperor would himself receive his defence.  "
In justification of Cyril's appeal it is enough to say that it was impossible for him to submit to the judgment of Acacius and his Arian colleagues. They could not be impartial in a matter where the jurisdiction of Acacius their president, and his unsoundness in the Faith, were as much in question as any of the charges brought against Cyril. He took the only course open to him in requesting the Emperor to remit his case to the higher jurisdiction of a greater Council, and in giving formal notice of this appeal to the Bishops who had expelled him.
While the appeal was pending, Cyril became acquainted with " the learned Bishop, Basil of Ancyra " (Hefele), with Eustathius of Sebaste in Armenia, and George of Laodicea, the chief leaders of the party "usually (since Epiphanius), but with some injustice, designated Semi-Arian  ." One of the charges brought against Cyril in the Council of Constantinople (360, a.d.) was, as we shall see, that he held communion with these Bishops.
Cyril had not long to wait for the hearing of his appeal. In the year 359 the Eastern Bishops met at Seleucia in Isauria, and the Western at Ariminum. Constantius had at first wished to convene a general Council of all the Bishops of the Empire, but this intention he was induced to abandon by representations of the long journeys and expense, and he therefore directed the two Synods then assembled at Ariminum and at Seleucia "the Rugged" to investigate first the disputes concerning the Faith, and then to turn their attention to the complaints of Cyril, and other Bishops against unjust decrees of deposition and banishment  . This order of proceeding was discussed, and after much controversy adopted on the first day of meeting, the 27th of September  . On the second day Acacius and his friends refused to remain unless the Bishops already deposed, or under accusation, were excluded. Theodoret relates that " several friends of peace tried to persuade Cyril of Jerusalem to withdraw, but that, as he would not comply, Acacius left the assembly  ." Three days afterwards, according to Sozomen, a third meeting was held at which the demand of Acacius was complied with; "for the Bishops of the opposite party were determined that he should have no pretext for dissolving the Council, which was evidently his object in order to prevent the impending examination of the heresy of Aëtius and of the accusations which had been brought against him and his partisans  ." A creed put forward by Acacius having been rejected, he refused to attend any further meetings, though repeatedly summoned to be present at an investigation of his own charges against Cyril.
In the end Acacius and many of his friends were deposed or excommunicated. Some of these, however, in defiance of the sentence of the Council, returned to their dioceses, as did also the majority who had deposed them.
It is not expressly stated whether any formal decision on the case of Cyril was adopted by the Council: but as his name does not appear in the lists of those who were deposed or excommunicated, it is certain that he was not condemned. It is most probable that the charges against him were disregarded after his accuser Acacius had refused to appear, and that he returned, like the others, to his diocese. But he was not to be left long in peace. Acacius and some of his party had hastened to Constantinople, where they gained over to their cause the chief men attached to the palace, and through their influence secured the favour of Constantius, and roused his anger against the majority of the Council. But what especially stirred the Emperor's wrath were the charges which Acacius concocted against Cyril: "For," he said that "the holy robe which the Emperor Constantine of blessed memory, in his desire to honour the Church of Jerusalem, had presented to Macarius, the Bishop of that city, to be worn when he administered the rite of Holy Baptism, all fashioned as it was with golden threads, had been sold by Cyril, and bought by one of the dancers at the theatre, who had put it on, and while dancing had fallen, and injured himself, and died. With such an ally as this Cyril," he said, "they undertake to judge and pass sentence upon the rest of the world  ."
Ten deputies who at the close of the Council of Seleucia had been appointed to report its proceedings to the Emperor, "met, on their arrival at the Court, the deputies of the Council of Ariminum, and likewise the partisans of Acacius  . After much controversy and many intrigues, a mutilated and ambiguous Creed adopted at Ariminum in which the homoousios of Nicæa was replaced by "like to the Father that begat Him according to the Scriptures," and the mention of either "essence" (ousia) or "subsistence" (hupostasis) condemned  , was brought forward and approved by the Emperor. "After having, on the last day of the year 359, discussed the matter with the Bishops till far into the night  , he at length extorted their signatures....It is in this connexion that Jerome says: Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus est  ." Early in the following year, 360 a.d., through the influence of Acacius a new Synod was held at Constantinople, in which, among other Semi-Arian Bishops, Cyril also was deposed on the charge of having held communion with Eustathius of Sebaste, Basil of Ancyra, and George of Laodicea. Cyril, as we have seen, had become acquainted with these Bishops during his residence at Tarsus in 358, at which time they were all zealous opponents of Acacius and his party, but differed widely in other respects.
George of Laodicea was a profligate in morals, and an Arian at heart, whose opposition to Acacius and Eudoxius was prompted by self-interest rather than by sincere conviction. He had been deposed from the priesthood by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, both on that ground of false doctrine, and of the open and habitual irregularities of his life. Athanasius styles him "the most wicked of all the Arians," reprobated even by his own party for his grossly dissolute conduct  .
Basil of Ancyra was a man of high moral character, great learning, and powerful intellect, a consistent opponent both of the Sabellianism of Marcellus, and of every form of Arian and Anomoean heresy, a chief among those of whom Athanasius wrote  , "We discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word (homoousios)....Now such is Basil who wrote from Ancyra concerning the Faith" (358 a.d., the same year in which Cyril met him at Tarsus).
Eustathius is described as a man unstable in doctrine, vacillating from party to party, subscribing readily to Creeds of various tendency, yet commanding the respect even of his enemies by a life of extraordinary holiness, in which active benevolence was combined with extreme austerity. "He was a man," says Mr. Gwatkin  , "too active to be ignored, too unstable to be trusted, too famous for ascetic piety to be lightly made an open enemy."
S. Basil the Great, when travelling from place to place, to observe the highest forms of ascetic life, had met with Eustathius at Tarsus, and formed a lasting friendship with a man whom he describes as "exhibiting something above human excellence," and of whom, after the painful dissensions which embittered Basil's later life, that great saint could say, that from childhood to extreme old age he (Eustathius) had watched over himself with the greatest care, the result of his self-discipline being seen in his life and character  .
Of any intimate friendship between Cyril, and these Semi-Arian leaders, we have no evidence in the vague charges of Acacius: their common fault was that they condemned him in the Synod of Seleucia. The true reason of Cyril's deposition, barely concealed by the frivolous charges laid against him, was the hatred of Acacius, incurred by the refusal to acknowledge the Metropolitan jurisdiction of the See of Cæsarea. The deposition was confirmed by Constantius, and followed by a sentence of banishment. The place of Cyril's exile is not mentioned; nor is it known whether he joined in the protest of the other deposed Bishops, described by S. Basil, Epist. 75. His banishment was not of longer continuance than two years. Constantius died on the 3rd of November, 361, and the accession of Julian was soon followed by the recall of all the exiled Bishops, orthodox and heretical, and the restoration of their confiscated estates  . Julian's object, according to Socrates, was " to brand the memory of Constantius by making him appear to have been cruel towards his subjects." An equally amiable motive imputed to him is mentioned by Sozomen: "It is said that he issued this order in their behalf not out of mercy, but that through contention among themselves the Church might be involved in fraternal strife  ." Cyril, returning with the other Bishops, seems to have passed through Antioch on his way home, and to have been well received by the excellent Bishop Meletius.
It happened that the son of a heathen priest attached to the Emperor's Court, having been instructed in his youth by a Deaconess whom he visited with his mother, had secretly become a Christian. On discovering this, his father had cruelly scourged and burnt him with hot spits on his hands, and feet, and back. He contrived to escape, and took refuge with his friend the Deaconess. "`She dressed me in women's garments, and took me in her covered carriage to the divine Meletius. He handed me over to the Bishop of Jerusalem, at that time Cyril, and we started by night for Palestine.' After the death of Julian, this young man led his father also into the way of truth. This act he told me with the rest  ."
The next incident recorded in the life of S. Cyril is his alleged prediction of the failure of Julian's attempt to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem. "The vain and ambitious mind of Julian," says Gibbon, "might aspire to restore the ancient glory of the Temple of Jerusalem. As the Christians were firmly persuaded that a sentence of everlasting destruction had been pronounced against the whole fabric of the Mosaic law, the Imperial sophist would have converted the success of his undertaking into a specious argument against the faith of prophecy and the truth of revelation." Again he writes: "The Christians entertained a natural and pious expectation, that in this memorable contest, the honour of religion would be vindicated by some signal miracle  ." That such an expectation may have been shared by Cyril is not impossible: but there is no satisfactory evidence that he ventured to foretell any miraculous interposition. According to the account of Rufinus  , "lime and cement had been brought, and all was ready for destroying the old foundations and laying new on the next day. But Cyril remained undismayed, and after careful consideration either of what he had read in Daniel's prophecy concerning the `times,' or of our Lord's predictions in the Gospels, persisted that it was impossible that one stone should ever there be laid upon another by the Jews." This account of Cyril's expectation, though probable enough in itself, seems to be little more than a conjecture founded on his statement (Cat. xv. 15), that "Antichrist will come at the time when there shall not be left one stone upon another in the Temple of the Jews." That doom was not completed in Cyril's time, nor did he expect it to be fulfilled until the coming of the Jewish Antichrist, who was to restore the Temple shortly before the end of the world. It was impossible for Cyril to see in Julian such an Antichrist as he has described; and therefore, without any gift or pretence of prophecy, he might very well express a firm conviction that the attempted restoration at that time must fail. Though Gibbon is even more cynical and contemptuous than usual in his examination of the alleged miracles, he does not attempt to deny the main facts of the story  : with their miraculous character we are not here concerned, but only with Cyril's conduct on so remarkable an occasion.
In the same year, a.d. 363, Julian was killed in his Persian campaign on the 26th of June, and was succeeded by Jovian, whose universal tolerance, and personal profession of the Nicene faith, though discredited by the looseness of his morals, gave an interval of comparative rest to the Church. In his reign Athanasius was recalled, and Acacius and his friends subscribed the Nicene Creed, with an explanation of the sense in which they accepted the word homoousion  . As Cyril's name is not mentioned in any of the records of Jovian's short reign of seven months, we may infer that he dwelt in peace at Jerusalem.
Jovian died on the 17th of February, 364, and was succeeded by Valentinian, who in the following March gave over the Eastern provinces of the Empire to his brother Valens. During the first two years of the new reign we hear nothing of Cyril: but at the beginning of the year 366, on the death of his old enemy Acacius, Cyril assumed the right to nominate his successor in the See of Cæsarea, and appointed a certain Philumenus  . Whether this assumption of authority was in accordance with the 7th Canon of Nicæa may be doubted: Cyril's choice of his nephew was, however, in after times abundantly justified by the conduct and character of Gelasius, who is described by Theodoret as a man "distinguished by the purity of his doctrine, and the sanctity of his life," and is quoted by the same historian as "the admirable," and "the blessed Gelasius  ."
Epiphanius relates  that "after these three had been set up, and could do nothing on account of mutual contentions," Euzoius was appointed by the Arians, and held the See until the accession of Theodosius in a.d. 379, when he was deposed, and Gelasius restored. In the meantime Cyril had been a third time deposed and driven from Jerusalem, probably in the year 367. For at that time Valens, who had fallen under the influence of Eudoxius, the Arian Bishop of Constantinople, by whom he was baptized, "wrote to the Governors of the provinces, commanding that all Bishops who had been banished by Constantius, and had again assumed their sacerdotal offices under the Emperor Julian, should be ejected from their Churches  ." Of this third and longest banishment we have no particulars, but we may safely apply to it the words of the Synod at Constantinople, 382, that Cyril " had passed through very many contests with the Arians in various places."
The terrible defeat and miserable death of Valens in the great battle against the Goths at Adrianople (a.d. 378) brought a respite to the defenders of the Nicene doctrine. For Gratian "disapproved of the late persecution that had been carried on for the purpose of checking the diversities in religious Creeds, and recalled all those who had been banished on account of their religion  ." Gratian associated Theodosius with himself in the Empire on the 19th of January, 379; and "at this period," says Sozomen  , "all the Churches of the East, with the exception of that of Jerusalem, were in the hands of the Arians." Cyril, therefore, had been one of the first to return to his own See. During his long absence the Church of Jerusalem had been the prey both of Arianism and of the new heresy of Apollinarius, which had spread among the monks who were settled on Mount Olivet. Egyptian Bishops, banished for their orthodoxy, having taken refuge in Palestine, there found themselves excluded from communion. Jerusalem was given over to heresy and schism, to the violent strife of rival factions, and to extreme licentiousness of morals.
Gregory of Nyssa, who had been commissioned by a Council held at Antioch in 378 to visit the Churches in Arabia and Palestine, "because matters with them were in confusion, and needed an arbiter," gives a mournful account both of the distracted state of the Church, and of the prevailing corruption. "If the Divine grace were more abundant about Jerusalem than elsewhere, sin would not be so much the fashion among those who live there , but as it is, there is no form of uncleanness that is not perpetrated among them; rascality, adultery, theft, idolatry, poisoning, quarrelling, murder, are rife." In a letter  written after his return to Cæsarea in Cappadocia he asks, "What means this opposing array of new Altars? Do we announce another Jesus? Do we produce other Scriptures? Have any of ourselves dared to say "Mother of Man" of the Holy Virgin, the Mother of God?
In the year a.d. 381 Theodosius summoned the Bishops of his division of the Empire to meet in Council at Constantinople, in order to settle the disputes by which the Eastern Church had been so long distracted, and to secure the triumph of the Nicene Faith over the various forms of heresy which had arisen in the half-century which had elapsed since the first General Council. Among the Bishops present were Cyril of Jerusalem, and his nephew Gelasius, who on the death of Valens had regained possession of the See of Cæsarea from the Arian intruder Euzoius. Cyril is described by Sozomen  as one of three recognised leaders of the orthodox party, and, according to Bishop Hefele  , as sharing the presidency with the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. This latter point, however, is not clearly expressed in the statement of Sozomen. Socrates writes that Cyril at this time recognised the doctrine of homoousion, having retracted his former opinion: and Sozomen says that he had at this period renounced the tenets of the Macedonians which he previously held  . Touttée rightly rejects these reproaches as unfounded: they are certainly opposed to all his teaching in the Catechetical Lectures, where the doctrine of Christ's unity of essence with the Father is fully and frequently asserted, though the term homoousios is not used, and the co-equal Deity of the Holy Ghost is everywhere maintained.
We find no further mention of Cyril in the proceedings of the Council itself. As consisting of Eastern Bishops only, its authority was not at first acknowledged, nor its acts approved in the Western Church. The two Synods held later in the same year at Aquileia and at Milan, sent formal protests to Theodosius, and urged him to summon a General Council at Alexandria or at Rome. But instead of complying with this request, the Emperor summoned the Bishops of his Empire to a fresh Synod at Constantinople, and there in the summer of 382 very nearly the same Bishops were assembled who had been present at the Council of the preceding year. Their Synodical letter addressed to the Bishops assembled at Rome is preserved by Theodoret  and in it we read as follows: "Of the Church in Jerusalem, the Mother of all the Churches, we make known that Cyril the most reverend and most beloved of God is Bishop; and that he was canonically ordained long ago by the Bishops of the province, and that he has very often fought a good fight in various places against the Arians." Thus justice was done at last to one whose prudence, moderation, and love of peace, had exposed him in those days of bitter controversy to undeserved suspicion and relentless persecution. His justification by the Council is the last recorded incident in Cyril's life. We are told by Jerome that he held undisturbed possession of his See for eight years under Theodosius. The eighth year of Theodosius was a.d. 386, and in the Roman Martyrology, the 18th of March in that year is marked as "The birthday (`Natalis,' i.e. of his heavenly life) of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, who after suffering many wrongs from the Arians for the sake of the Faith, and having been several times driven from his See, became at length renowned for the glory of sanctity, and rested in peace: an Ecumenical Council in a letter to Damasus gave a noble testimony to his untarnished faith."
The earliest known example of a Catechetical work is the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," which Athanasius names among the "books not included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who are just recently coming to us, and wish to be instructed in the word of godliness (katecheisthai ton tes eusebeias logon)  ." The use of the Didache for the instruction of recent converts from Paganism agrees with its original purpose as stated in the longer title, "Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles for the Gentiles." The first six chapters are evidently adapted for those who need elementary instruction, more particularly for Catechumens of Gentile descent, as distinct from Jewish candidates for Baptism  . The remaining chapters of the Didache relate chiefly to the administration of Baptism, to Prayer, Fasting, and the services of the Lord's Day, and to the celebration of the Agape and Eucharist  . This same division of subjects is observed in the two classes of S. Cyril's Catechetical Lectures: the first class, including the Procatechesis, consists of XIX Lectures addressed to candidates for Baptism, and these are followed by five "Mystagogic" Lectures, so called as being explanations of the Sacramental Mysteries to the newly-baptized.
The Didaché was taken as the basis of other manuals of instruction, as is evident from the fact that the greater part of the first six chapters is imbedded in " The Apostolical Church Order," supposed to date from Egypt in the third century. The Greek text, with an English translation, of the part corresponding with the Didaché, is given in " The oldest Church Manual " as Document V.
A further development of the Didaché, "adapted to the state of the Eastern Church in the first half of the fourth century," is contained in the Seventh Book of the Apostolical Constitutions of Pseudo-Clement of Rome, chs. i.-xxxii. "Here the Didaché is embodied almost word for word, but with significant omissions, alterations, and additions, which betray a later age....The Didaché was thus superseded by a more complete and timely Church Manual, and disappeared." Dr. Schaff has appended this document also to his edition of the Didaché, noting the borrowed passages on the margin, and distinguishing them by spaced type in the Greek text, and by italics in the English translation.
In this work the directions concerning the instruction of Catechumens and their Baptism are addressed to the Catechist and the Minister of Baptism. They contain only a short outline (c. xxxix.) of the subjects in which the Catechumens are to be instructed, most if not all of which are explained at large in Cyril's Lectures: and in the directions concerning Baptism, Chrism, and the Eucharist, the similarity is so close, that in many passages of the Constitutions the author seems to be referring especially to the use of the Church of Jerusalem.
From this close affinity with earlier works we may be assured that in the Catecheses of Cyril we have trustworthy evidence of the great care which the Church had from the beginning bestowed on the instruction and training of converts, before admitting them to the privilege of Baptism; but beyond this, Cyril's own work has a peculiar value as the earliest extant example of a full, systematic, and continuous course of such instruction.
The more systematic instruction of those who had been already admitted to the order of Catechumens was entrusted to persons appointed to this special duty. Thus Origen "was in his eighteenth year when he took charge of the Catechetical School at Alexandria," which "was entrusted to him alone by Demetrius, who presided over the Church  :" and S. Augustine's Treatise, De Catechizandis Rudibus, was addressed to Deogratias, who being a Deacon at Carthage, and highly esteemed for his skill and success as a Catechist, felt so strongly the importance of the work and his own insufficiency, that he wrote to Augustine for advice as to the best method of instructing those who were brought to him to be taught the first elements of the Christian Faith.
The final training of the photizomenoi, or candidates for Baptism, was undertaken in part by the Bishop himself, but chiefly by a Priest specially appointed by him. Of the part taken by the Bishop mention is made by S. Ambrose in a letter to his sister Marcellina (Ep. xx.): "On the following day, which was the Lord's day, after the Lessons and Sermon, the Catechumens had been dismissed, and I was delivering the Creed to some candidates (Competentes) in the Baptistery of the Basilica."
Of this "delivery of the Creed," which was usually done by a Presbyter, we have examples in S. Augustine's Sermons In traditione Symboli, ccxii.-ccxiv., each of which contains a brief recapitulation and explanation of the several articles of belief. In Serm. ccxiv., after a short introduction, we find the following note inserted by the preacher himself. ["After this preface the whole Creed is to be recited, without interposing any discussion. `I believe in God the Father Almighty,' and the rest that follows. Which Creed, thou knowest, is not wont to be written: after it has been said, the following discussion (disputatio) is to be added."]
From the opening words of Sermon ccxiv., and of ccxvi., "ad Competentes," it is evident that these were delivered by S. Augustine as the first-fruits of his ministry very soon after he had been reluctantly ordained Priest (a.d. 391). Two other examples of addresses to Candidates for Baptism are the Catecheses I., II., pros tous mellontas photizesthai, delivered at Antioch by S. Chrysostom while a Presbyter.
Another duty often undertaken by the Bishop was to hear each Candidate separately recite the Creed, and then to expound to them all the Lord's Prayer  .
It is stated by Bingham  , but without any reference to ancient authors, that "the child of believing parents, as they were baptized in infancy, were admitted Catechumens as soon as they were capable of learning." Though the title "Catechumen" was not usually applied to those who had been already baptized, it is probable that such children were admitted to the Lectures addressed to Catechumens both in the earlier and later stage of their preparation: for it seems to be implied in the passage quoted above from Cat. xv. 18, that admission was not limited to the candidates for Baptism.
To believe and to be baptized are the two essential conditions of membership in Christ's Church  : but for the admission of new converts to the class of Catechumens nothing more could be required than evidence of a sincere desire to understand, to believe, and ultimately to be baptized.
We know that unbelievers, Jews, and Heathens were allowed in the Apostolic age to be present at times in the Christian assemblies  ; and in Cyril's days they stood in the lower part of the Church (narthex) to hear the Psalms, Lessons, and Sermon  .
Any persons who by thus hearing the word, or by other means, were brought to believe the truth of Christianity, and to wish for further instruction, were strictly examined as to their character, belief, and sincerity of purpose. The care with which such examinations were conducted is thus described by Origen: "The Christians, however, having previously, so far as possible, tested the souls of those who wish to become their hearers, and having previously admonished them in private, when they seem, before entering the community, to have made sufficient progress in the desire to lead a virtuous life, they then introduce them, having privately formed one class of those who are just beginners, and are being introduced, and have not yet received the mark of complete purification; and another of those who have manifested to the best of their ability the purpose of desiring no other things than are approved by Christians  ." Such as were thus found worthy of admission were brought to the Bishop Presbyter, and received by the sign of the Cross  , with prayer and imposition of hands, to the status of Catechumens.
We have a description by Eusebius  of some of these ceremonies in the case of Constantine: When the Emperor felt his life to be drawing to a close, "he poured forth his supplications and confessions to God, kneeling on the pavement in the Church itself, in which he also now for the first time received the imposition of hands with prayer." Soon after this the Bishops whom he had summoned to Nicomedia to give him Baptism, "performed the sacred ceremonies in the usual manner, and having given him the necessary instructions made him a partaker of the mystic ordinances."
Another ceremony used in the admission of Catechumens, at least in some Churches, mentioned by S. Augustine  : "Sanctification is not of one kind only: for I suppose that Catechumens also are sanctified in a certain way of their own by the sign of Christ's Cross, and the Prayer of the Imposition of Hands; and that which they receive, though it be not the Body of Christ, is yet an holy thing, and more holy than the common food which sustains us, because it is a sacrament." From this passage it has been inferred that consecrated bread (eulogiai, panis benedictus), taken out of the oblations provided for the Eucharist, was given to the Catechumens,--an opinion which seemed to have some support in the comparison between "that which the Catechumens receive," and "the food which sustains us." But Bingham maintains  that S. Augustine here refers only to the symbolical use of salt, of which he says in his Confessions, I. xi., that while yet a boy he "used to be marked with the sign of His Cross, and seasoned with His salt." The meaning of this so-called "Sacrament of the Catechumens" was that by the symbol of salt "they might learn to purge and cleanse their souls from sin."
In the African Church in the time of S. Augustine it was customary to anoint the new convert with exorcised oil at the time of his admission, but in the Eastern Church there seems to have been no such anointing until immediately before Baptism.
Persons who had been thus admitted to the class of Catechumens were usually regarded as Christians, but only in a lower degree, being still clearly distinguished from the Faithful. "Ask a man, Art thou a Christian? If he is a Pagan or a Jew, he answers, I am not. But if he say, I am, you ask him further, Catechumen or Faithful? If he answer, Catechumen, he has been anointed, but not yet baptized  ." Augustine, like Tertullian, complains that among heretics there was no sure distinction between the Catechumen and the Faithful  : and according to the second General Council, Canon 7, converts from certain heresies to the orthodox Faith were to be received only as heathen: "On the first day we make them Christians, on the second Catechumens, on the third we exorcise them by three times breathing on them on the face and on the ears; and so we instruct them (katechoumen), and make them frequent the Church for a long time, and listen to the Holy Scriptures, and then we baptize them."
Whether Cyril calls his hearers Christians before they had been baptized is not very clear: in Cat. x. § 16, he seems to include them among those who are called by the "new name;" but in § 20 of the same Lecture he assumes that there may be present some one who "was before a believer (pistos)," and to him he says "Thou wert called a Christian; be tender of the name," and in Lect. xxi. i, speaking to those who had now been baptized, he says, "Having therefore become partakers of Christ, ye are properly called Christs. Now ye have been made Christs by receiving the antitype of the Holy Ghost," that is, Chrism.
The period of probation and instruction varied at different times and places: according to Canon 42 of the Synod of Elvira, 305, it was to be two years: "He who has a good name, and wishes to become a Christian, must be a Catechumen two years: then he maybe baptized  ." After this probation had been satisfactorily passed, the Catechumens invited to give in their names as Candidates for Baptism. This invitation, described by Cyril as a call to military service (klesis strateias)  , appears to have been often repeated on the approach of Lent. Thus S. Ambrose, in his Commentary on S. Luke, v. 5; We have toiled all night and have taken nothing, complains, "I too, Lord, know that for me it is night, when I have not Thy command. No one yet has given his name: with my voice I have cast the net throughout Epiphany, and as yet I have taken nothing."
This preliminary "call to service" must be distinguished from the actual enlistment in the Christian army at Baptism, in anticipation of which Cyril prays for his hearers that God "may enlist them in His service, and put on them the armour of righteousness  ." The same metaphorical language in reference to the Christian warfare recurs in many passages  .
The next step for those who responded to the call was the registration of names (onomatographia )  . It appears from passages of Dionysius Pseudo-Areopagites, quoted by Bingham  , that the Bishop, after laying his hand on each Catechumen's head, commanded his Presbyters and Deacons to register his name, together with that of his sponsor (anadochos) in the Diptychs of the living. This ceremony took place at Jerusalem at the beginning of Lent, as we learn from Procat. § 1: "Thou hast entered, been approved; thy name inscribed....A long notice is allowed thee; thou hast forty days for repentance." Those who had been admitted as candidates for Baptism were in most Churches still reckoned among the Catechumens, being distinguished as sunaitountes , "competentes." But from Cyril's language in several passages it appears that in the Church of Jerusalem they ceased to be regarded as Catechumens, and were reckoned among the Faithful. "Thou wert called a Catechumen, while the word echoed round thee from without. Think not that thou receivest a small thing: though a miserable man, thou receivest one of God's titles. Hear S. Paul saying, God is faithful. But beware, lest thou have the title of `faithful,' but the will of the faithless  ." "Thou receivest a new name which thou hadst not before. Heretofore thou wast a Catechumen, but now thou wilt be called a Believer (Pistos)  ."
Again, "How great a dignity the Lord bestows on you in transferring you from the order of Catechumens to that of the Faithful, the Apostle Paul shews, when he affirms, God is faithful  ."
Two passages in S. Cyril have been thought to imply that the newly-admitted Candidates for Baptism carried lighted torches in procession, perhaps on the first Sunday after the registration. He speaks of their having received "torches of the bridal procession  ;" and on this expression the Benedictine Editor observes that "Wax tapers" were perhaps given to the Illuminandi to carry, a custom which may also be indicated in the words, "Ye who have lately lighted the torches of faith, guard them carefully in your hands unquenched  ."
Others are of opinion that the custom of carrying torches or tapers was observed only in the procession of the newly-baptized from the Baptistery to the Church  , and that here Cyril means by the "bridal lamps," those motions of the Holy Ghost, and spiritual instructions, which had lighted their way to Christ, and to the entrance to His Kingdom  . This latter interpretation is rather vague and far-fetched, and it is evident that the words, "Ye who have lately lighted the torches of faith," gain much in clearness and force, if suggested by the visible symbolism of a ceremony in which the Illuminandi had just borne their part. The lighted torches would be a significant symbol both of the marriage of the soul with Christ, and of its enlightenment by faith.
The Verb photizo is frequently used by the LXX., both in a physical and in a spiritual sense. In the New Testament it is found but rarely in the physical sense  , being generally applied to the light of spiritual truth, and to Christ as its source  .
In two passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Aorist (photisthentas ) marks "the decisive moment when the light was apprehended in its glory  ," from which the thought easily passes on to the public profession of the truth thus received, that is, to Baptism.
That the word began very early to be used in this new sense, is evident from Justin Martyr's explanation of it in his First Apology, c. 61; where, after speaking of instruction in Christian doctrine, of the profession of faith, and the promise of repentance and holy living, as the necessary preparations for Baptism, he thus proceeds: "And this washing is called Illumination (sotismos), because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understanding.  " The same transition of the meaning from instruction to Baptism is clearly implied by Clement of Alexandria: "Among the barbarian philosophers also to instruct and to enlighten is called to regenerate  ," and again: "For this reason the teaching, which made manifest the hidden things, has been called illumination (photismos)  ."
That this is the sense in which Cyril uses the word is placed beyond doubt by a passage of the Lecture delivered immediately before the administration of Baptism: "that your soul being previously illuminated (prophotizomenes ) by the word of doctrine, ye may in each particular discover the greatness of the gifts bestowed on you by God  ."
We thus see that the Present Participle (photizomenoi) describes a process of gradual illumination during the course of instruction, to be completed in Baptism, a sense which is well expressed in the Latin Gerundive "Illuminandi." And as we have seen that the candidates are addressed as hoi photizomenoi even before the course of instruction has commenced, the quasi-Future sense "follows necessarily from the context  ."
The spiritual "Illumination," of which Baptism was to be the completion and the seal, thus became by a natural development one of the recognised names of Baptism itself. On the contrary, the inverse process assumed by the Benedictine Editor is entirely unnatural. Starting from the later ecclesiastical use of photizo and photismos as connoting Baptism, he supposes that this was the first application of those terms, and that they were transferred to the previous illumination acquired by instruction in Christian truth, only because this was a necessary preparation for Baptism. He therefore maintains that photizomenoi throughout the Catechetical Lectures is another term for baptizomenoi: and as a decisive proof of this he refers to Cat. xvi. 26: mellei de kai epi se ton baptizomenon phthanein he charis, not observing that the grace is to come upon "the person being baptized" at a time still future. This meaning of the passage is made absolutely certain by the words which immediately follow,--"But in what manner I say not, for I will not anticipate the proper season." We may conclude, therefore, that in Cyril's Lectures the term hoi photizomenoi refers to the preparatory course of enlightenment rather than to Baptism. At the same time we must remember that in Cyril's day, and long before, photizo, photismos, and photisma were constantly used to denote Baptism itself, as being the time of special illumination by the grace of the Holy Spirit then given. Thus Clement of Alexandria writes: "In Baptism we are illuminated....This work is variously called grace, and illumination (photisma), and perfection, and washing:...illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly  ." Gregory Nazianzen speaks in the same way: "We call it gift, grace, baptism, chrism, illumination, garment of incorruption, washing of regeneration, seal, all that is precious  ."
On these subjects Cyril's teaching is earnest, wise, and sympathetic: he seeks to lead to repentance by gentle persuasion, and pleads for self-discipline as needful for the good of the soul  . One whole Lecture is devoted to the necessity of thorough repentance for all past sins, and forgiveness of all offences  : another to the sure efficacy of repentance for the remission of sins  .
(1.) In the Septuagint they occur very frequently, especially in the Psalms, in the sense of "giving thanks or praise" (Heb. H+D+W+uH+)  , a meaning which is also found in the New Testament  . Perhaps the earliest instance in an Ecclesiastical writer is in Hermas, Mandat. X. iii. 2: exomologoumenos to theo. I have not found any instance of this meaning in Cyril.
S. Chrysostom, commenting on the words, "I will give thanks unto Thee, O Lord  ," says, "There are two kinds of exomologesis; for it is either a condemnation of our own sins or a giving of thanks to God." The link between these two ideas is seen in Joshua's exhortation to Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and make confession  unto Him. R.V. Margin. Or, give praise.
(2.) In the sense of "confessing" sins, the Verb is not uncommon in the N.T.  , and in the early Fathers  . Tertullian adopts the Greek word, and calls exomologesis "the handmaid of repentance  ," adding that it will extinguish the fire of Gehenna in the heart, being a second remedy for sin, after Baptism.
Again, speaking of the outward act of repentance, he says: "This act, which is more usually expressed and commonly spoken of under a Greek name, is exomologesis, whereby we confess our sins to the Lord, not indeed as if He were ignorant of them, but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is appointed, and of confession repentance is born, and God appeared by repentance. Accordingly exomologesis is a discipline for man's prostration and humiliation, enjoining a demeanour calculated to move mercy. With regard also to the very dress and food, it commands (the penitent) to lie in sackcloth and ashes...to know no food and drink but such as is plain,--to feed prayers on fastings, to groan, to weep and roar (mugire) unto the Lord God; to roll before the feet of the presbyters, and kneel to God's dear ones, to enjoin on all the brethren embassies of intercession on his behalf. All this exomologesis does, that it may enhance repentance  , &c."
In this highly rhetorical description of the ecclesiastical discipline so dear to Tertullian there are many features of extreme severity to which Cyril makes no allusion; yet he frequently and very earnestly insists on the necessity and the efficacy of confession. "The present is the season of confession: confess what thou hast done in word or in deed, by night or by day; confess in an acceptable time, and in the day of salvation receive the heavenly treasure  " "Tell the Physician thine ailment: say thou also, like David, I said, I will confess me my sin unto the Lord ; and the same shall be done in thy case, which he says forthwith, and Thou forgavest the wickedness of my heart  ." " Seest thou the humility of the king? Seest thou his confession?....The deed was quickly done, and straightway the Prophet appeared as accuser, and the offender confessed his fault; and because he candidly confessed, he received a most speedy cure  ."
"Ezekias prevailed to the cancelling of God's decree, and cannot Jesus grant remission of sins? Turn and bewail thyself, shut thy door, and pray to be forgiven, pray that He may remove from thee the burning flames. For confession has power to quench even fire, power to tame even lions  ."
The confession to which Cyril attaches so high a value, whether made in the privacy of solitude, or openly before the Ministers of the Church and the Congregation, is a confession to God, and not to man. "Having therefore, brethren, many examples of those who have sinned and repented and been saved, do ye also heartily make confession unto the Lord  ." Elsewhere he expressly disclaims the necessity of private confession to man: "Not that thou shouldest shew thy conscience to me, for thou art not to be judged of man's judgment; but that thou shew the sincerity of thy faith to God, who trieth the reins and hearts, and knoweth the thoughts of men  ." He also limits the season of confession and repentance to this present life: "Therefore the just shall then offer praise; but they who have died in sins have no further season for confession  ."
The power of casting out devils, promised by our Lord  , and exercised by Apostles  , and by Philip the Deacon and Evangelist  , was long regarded in the early Church as a direct gift still bestowed by the Holy Ghost, apart from any human ordinance. Justin Martyr  , Tertullian  , Origen  , all speak of exorcism as being practised by laymen, even by soldiers, and women, by means of prayer and invocation of the name of Jesus. Accordingly "an Exorcist is not ordained, for it is a gift of the spontaneous benevolence and grace of God through Christ by visitation of the Holy Ghost. For he who has received the gift of healing is declared by revelation from God, the grace which is in him being manifest to all  ." When the extraordinary gift was found to have been withdrawn, exorcists are mentioned among the inferior officers of the Church, after readers and subdeacons  . From an early period certain set formulæ, such as the Divine names, "The God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob," "The God of Israel," "The God who drowned the king of Egypt and the Egyptians in the Red Sea," were frequently invoked against demons and certain wicked persons  .
Accordingly, when an exorcist was ordained the Bishop was directed to give him the book in which the exorcisms were written, with the words, "Receive thou these, and commit them to memory, and have thou power to lay hands upon the Energumens, whether they be baptized or only Catechumens  ." Though this Canon speaks only of exorcising Energumens, or such persons as were supposed to be possessed by evil spirits, we must remember that the power of such spirits was believed to extend to the whole world outside the Christian Church. Thus all converts from Paganism and Judaism, and even the children of Christian parents were exorcised before being baptized. The practice was closely connected with the doctrine of original sin, as we see in many passages of S. Augustine, and is declared by him to be very ancient and universal  . In expounding the Creed to candidates for Baptism, he says: "Therefore, as you have seen this day, and as you know, even little children are breathed on and exorcised, that the hostile power of the devil may be driven out of them, which deceived one man in order that he might get possession of all men  ."
We find accordingly that Cyril enforces the duty of attending the Exorcisms on all the candidates alike, and from his use of the Plural (Exorcisms) we see that the ceremony was often repeated for each person. Thus in the Clementine Homilies Peter is represented as saying, "Whoever of you wish to be baptized, begin from to-morrow to fast, and each day have hands laid upon you  ," the imposition of hands being one of the ceremonies used in exorcism  . From expressions in the Introductory Lecture, "When ye have come in before the hour of the exorcisms  ," and again, "when your exorcism has been done, until the others who are to be exorcised have come  ," it seems that before each Catechizing the candidates were all exorcised, one by one  , and that the earlier, after returning from their own exorcism, had to wait for those who came later. The catechizing was thus frequently delayed till late in the day, and Cyril often complains of the shortness of the time left at his disposal  .
At Antioch, the Catechizing preceded the Exorcism, as we learn from S. Chrysostom: "After you have heard our instruction, they take off your sandals, and unclothe you, and send you on naked and barefoot, with your tunic only, to the utterances of the Exorcists  ." Cyril says nothing of this unclothing, but mentions another ceremony as practised at Jerusalem: "Thy face has been veiled, that thy mind may henceforward be free, lest the eye by roving make the heart rove also. But when thine eyes are veiled, thine ears are not hindered from receiving the means of salvation  ." The veil may also have been a symbol of the slavery and darkness of sin, as S. Augustine regards the removal of the veil on the octave of Easter as symbolising the spiritual liberty of the baptized  . Of this meaning Cyril makes no express mention.
In the Greek Euchologion, as quoted by Kleopas, the act of the Exorcist is thus described: "And the Priest breathes upon his mouth, his forehead, and his breast, saying, Drive forth from him every evil and unclean spirit, hidden and lurking in his heart, the spirit of error, the spirit of wickedness  , &c."
Besides such invocations of the names of God, as we have mentioned above, the Exorcist used set forms of prayer "collected out of the Holy Scriptures." Their effect, as described by Cyril, is to "set the soul, as it were, on fire," and scare the evil spirit away; and his meaning may be illustrated by a passage of Tertullian, who says  : "All the authority and power we have over them is from naming the name of Christ, and recalling to their memory the woes with which God threatens them at the hands of Christ as Judge....So at our touch and breathing, overwhelmed by the thought of those judgment-fires, they leave the bodies they have entered, at our command, unwilling and distressed, and before your very eyes put to an open shame."
The Exorcisms were performed in the Church; where also the Lectures were delivered, Catechumens of the lower order being excluded, "and the doors looking towards the city closed  , while those which looked towards the Holy Sepulchre, from which the ruins of the ancient Temple, Golgotha, and the old city could be seen, were left open  ."
The first act was the renunciation of the Devil and all his works. This, as described by Tertullian, was done first in the Church "under the hand of the Bishop," and again immediately before entering the water  . Cyril speaks of the latter occasion only. "First ye entered into the outer chamber of the Baptistery, and there facing towards the West (as the region of darkness) ye heard the command to stretch forth your hand, and as in the presence of Satan to renounce him  ." For the formula of renunciation in the Apostolical Constitutions, see note 2 on Mystag. i. § 8; it corresponds closely with Cyril's, except that this is addressed to Satan as if personally present: " I renounce thee, Satan  , and all thy works  , and all thy pomp  , and all thy worship  ."
Then, still facing the East, the Candidate was bidden to say, "I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and in one Baptism of repentance  ." We have seen that in Cat. xviii. 22, 32, Cyril intimated to his Candidates that they would be required to profess publicly the Creed which he had delivered to them and which they had repeated after him. This public profession of faith (;;Omologia, "Redditio Symboli") was in some Churches made on Holy Thursday, according to Canon 46 of the Synod of Laodicea: "Those to be baptized must learn the Creed by heart, and recite it to the Bishop or Presbyters on the fifth day of the week." But in the Apostolic Constitutions, c. xli., Candidate is required to recite the whole Creed immediately after the Renunciation: "And after his renunciation let him in his consociation (suntassomenos) say: `And I associate myself to Christ, and believe and am baptized into One Unbegotten Being, the Only True God Almighty, the Father of Christ,....and into the Lord Jesus Christ....and I am baptized into the Holy Ghost,....into the resurrection of the flesh, and into the remission of sins, and into the kingdom of heaven, and into the life of the world to come.' And after this vow he comes in order to the anointing with oil."
Such appears to have been the custom of the Eastern Churches in general and of Jerusalem in Cyril's time, although he mentions only those articles of the Creed which were commonly held to be indispensable to a valid profession of Christian belief.
Dr. Swainson  represents the matter somewhat differently: "When we come to the profession of his own personal faith which was made at Jerusalem by the Candidate for Baptism, we find that this was far briefer not only than the collection of `necessary things' (Cat. iv.), but also than the Creed of the Church of Jerusalem." Then after quoting the short form in Cyril, Myst. i. § 9, "I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and in one Baptism of repentance," Dr. Swainson adds: "The words are clear and definite. In these words each answered the question of which we read elsewhere, `Did he believe in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?' In this his reply the Candidate `confessed' what Cyril called `the saving confession.'"
It is evident that two separate parts of the Baptismal Service are here confused: the question to which Dr. Swainson alludes, and "the saving confession" of which Cyril speaks in Mystag. ii. § 4, belong, as we shall presently see, to a later stage of the ceremony.
"Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs your head to your feet  ." The consecration of the "exorcised oil" is thus described  : "Now this is blessed by the chief-priest for the remission of sins, and the first preparation for Baptism. For he calls thus upon the Unbegotten God, the Father of Christ, the King of all sensible and intelligent natures, that He would sanctify the oil in the name of the Lord Jesus, and impart to it spiritual grace and efficacious strength, the remission of sins, and the first preparation for the confession of Baptism, that so the Candidate for Baptism, when he is anointed may be freed from all ungodliness, and may become worthy of initiation, according to the command of the Only-begotten."
Bingham's observation, that Cyril describes this first unction as used "between the renunciation and the confession  " is not quite accurate: in fact it came between two confessions, the one made, as we have seen, immediately after the renunciation in the outer chamber, the other at the very time of immersion. Chrysostom  clearly distinguishes two Confessions, but places one before Baptism, and the other after: "What can be more beautiful than the words by which we renounce the devil? Or those by which we associate ourselves with Christ? Than that confession which comes before the washing? Or that which comes after the washing?"
This first unction is not mentioned by Tertullian, nor in any genuine work of Justin Martyr, but in the Responsiones ad Orthodoxos, a work which though still early is regarded as certainly spurious, we find the question put, "Why are we first anointed with oil, and then, having performed the before-mentioned symbolic acts in the Laver, are afterwards sealed with the ointment, and do not regard this as done in opposition to what took place in our Lord's case, who was first anointed with ointment and then suffered  ?" And in the answer it is stated that "We are anointed with the simple oil that we may be made Christs (Christoi), but with the ointment in remembrance of our Saviour Christ, who regarded the anointing with ointment as His burial, and called us to the fellowship of His own sufferings and glory, typically in the present life but truly in the life to come."
Cyril attributes to this "exorcised oil" the same power as to Exorcism itself, "not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sin, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one  ."
According to the directions concerning this first unction in the Apostolical Constitutions  , the Bishop was first to anoint the head only, the anointing of the whole body being then completed by the Deacon or Deaconess.
As great multitudes both of men and women were baptized at the special seasons, the Baptisteries were large buildings outside the Church, such as the Baptistery of the Lateran, said to have been originally built by Constantine. The font itself also was large enough for several persons to be baptized at the same time. In some places the men were baptized first, and then the women: in others different parts of the Baptistery were assigned to them, and curtains were hung across the Font itself  .
The consecration of the water is not mentioned in the Didache or Justin Martyr; but Tertullian thus describes its effect: "The waters after invocation of God acquire the sacramental power of sanctification; for immediately the Spirit comes down from heaven upon the waters, and rests upon them, sanctifying them from Himself, and they being thus sanctified imbibe a power of sanctifying  ."
In the prayer of consecration given in the Apostolic Constitutions the Bishop is directed first to offer adoration and thanksgiving to the Father and Son, and then to call upon the Father and say: "Look down from heaven, and sanctify this water, and give it grace and power, that so he that is to be baptized, according to the command of Thy Christ, may be crucified with Him, and may die with Him, and may be buried with Him, and may rise with Him to the adoption which is in Him, that he may be dead to sin, and live to righteousness  ."
Cyril ascribes the like effect to the consecration of the water, as imparting to it a new power of holiness by "the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ, and of the Father  ."
While standing in the water the Candidate made what Cyril calls "the saving confession  ." The whole Creed having been already recited (Redditio Symboli) in the outer chamber immediately after the Renunciation, a short form was now employed containing only the necessary declaration of faith in the Holy Trinity, and in the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins.
In which of these ways the threefold interrogation ("usitata et legitima verba interrogationis") was made at Jerusalem, is not quite certain from Cyril's words: "Each was asked, Dost thou believe in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and ye made that saving confession, and went down thrice into the water  ." The Didaché  enjoins baptism simply into the names of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Justin Martyr  adds a few words only to the names "of God the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit;" and Tertullian  observes that "Wherever there are three, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there is the Church, which is a body of three." The trine immersion had reference not only to the Trinity, but was also a symbol of the three days of our Saviour's burial  . The use of the three Holy Names was made more strictly indispensable as heresies were multiplied: thus the 49th Apostolic Canon, which, Hefele says, "must be reckoned among the most ancient Canons of the Church," orders that "If any Bishop or Presbyter does not baptize, according to the Lord's command, into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but into three Beings without beginning, or into three Sons, or three Comforters, he shall be deprived."
We see here that the power of administering Baptism was not restricted to the Bishop: and Cyril speaks of it as possessed by "Bishops, or Presbyters, or Deacons," assigning as the reason the great increase of believers, "for the grace is everywhere, in villages and in cities, on them of low as on them of high degree, on bondsmen and on freemen  ."
Thus the rule of Ignatius  , that "it is not lawful either to baptize or to hold a love-feast apart from the Bishop (choris tou episkopou)," must be understood to mean "without the authority and permission of the Bishop."
Of certain minor ceremonies connected with Baptism, such as the "Kiss of peace," and the taste of milk and honey administered to the neophyte  , no mention is made by Cyril.
The consecration of the ointment is compared by Cyril to the consecration of the Eucharist; after the invocation of the Holy Ghost it is no longer simple or common ointment, but a gift (Charisma) of Christ, and by the presence of the Holy Ghost is able to impart of His Divine Nature. And this ointment is symbolically applied to thy forehead, and thy other organs of sense  ."
The ears, nostrils, and breast were each to be anointed, and Cyril explains the symbolical meaning in each case by appropriate passages of Scripture  .
The consecration of the chrism could be performed by none but the Bishop, and he alone could anoint the forehead  , Presbyters being allowed to anoint the breast, but only with chrism received from the Bishop  . The several ceremonies are thus explained in the Apostolical Constitutions  : "This baptism is given into the death of Jesus: the water is instead of the burial, and the oil instead of the Holy Ghost; the seal instead of the Cross; the ointment is the confirmation of the Confession  ."
In like manner the chrism is explained again, "The ointment is the seal of the covenants  ," that is, both of God's promises, and of the Baptismal vows.
The members to be anointed were not the same in all Churches, but everywhere the chief ceremony was the anointing of the forehead with the sign of the Cross. This is what Cyril calls "the Royal Sign  ," and "the Royal Seal to be borne upon the forehead of Christ's soldiers  ," and again, "The Seal of the fellowship of the Holy Ghost  ."
These last were probably the very words pronounced by the Bishop in making the sign of the Cross on the forehead, for by Canon 7 of the Second General Council at Antioch (381), converts from heretical sects were to be "sealed or anointed with the holy ointment on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears. And in sealing them we say, `The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.'"
An additional prayer to be said by the Bishop is given in the Apostolical Constitutions  : "O Lord God, the Unbegotten, who hast no Lord, who art Lord of all, who madest the odour of the knowledge of the Gospel to go forth among all nations, grant also now that this ointment may be efficacious upon him that is baptized (baptizomeno), that the sweet odour of thy Christ may remain firm and stable in him, and that having died with Him, he may arise and live with Him."
The whole ceremony was called by the Greeks "Chrism," the "Unction" being regarded by them as the chief part. In the Latin Church the name Confirmation is of later date, and indicates that greater importance was then attached to the "Laying on of Hands" with prayer.
Another ceremony, not alluded to by Cyril, was the saying of the Lord's Prayer by the neophyte, standing up, and facing towards the East  , after which he was also to pray, "O God Almighty, the Father of Thy Christ, Thine Only-begotten Son, give me a body undefiled, a clean heart, a watchful mind, an unerring knowledge, the influence (epiphoitesin) of the Holy Ghost for attainment and full assurance of the truth, through Thy Christ, by whom be glory to Thee in the Holy Ghost for ever. Amen."
From the Syriac "Treatise of Severus, formerly Patriarch of Alexandria (Antioch), concerning the rites of Baptism and of Holy Communion (Synaxis) as received among the Syrian Christians" (Resch, Agrapha, § 12, p. 361); we learn that it was the custom "to lift up the newly-baptized to the altar, and after giving them the mysteries the Bishop (Sacerdos) crowned them with garlands."
The white garments (Procat., § 2: Mystag., iv. 88) were worn until the Octave of Easter, Low Sunday, Dominica in Albis (Bingham, XII. c. iv. § 3).
§ 2. The Liturgy. In Cyril's last Lecture, Mystagogic V., he reminds his hearers of what they had witnessed at their first Communion on Easter-day, and thus gives a most valuable testimony to the prescribed form of administering the Holy Eucharist in the Eastern Church in the middle of the fourth century.
Passing over all the preparatory portion of the Liturgy, he tells us first that the Deacon brings water to the Bishop or Priest (to hierei) and to the Presbyters who stand round the altar, that they may wash their hands in token of the need of purification from sin; a ceremony which evidently had reference to the words of the Psalmist, "I will wash mine hands in innocency; so will I compass Thine altar, O Lord  ." In some Churches, perhaps also at Jerusalem, the words were actually chanted during the ablution  .
"Then the Deacon cries aloud, Receive ye one another: and let us salute (aspazometha ) one another." In the Clementine Liturgy  the "Kiss of Peace" precedes the "Ablution."
Sometimes these two sentences are combined: "Salute ye one another with the holy kiss  ." In the Liturgy of S. James there are two separate rubrics, one immediately after the dismissal of the Catechumens, "Take knowledge one of another," and a second after the Creed, "Let us embrace (agapesomen) one another with a holy kiss."
"After this the Priest (hiereus) cries aloud, Lift up your hearts. Then ye answer, We lift them up unto the Lord  ."
The meaning of this Preface, as explained by Cyril, is an exhortation by the Priest, or Bishop when present, and a promise by the people, to raise all their thoughts to God on high, in preparation for the great Thanksgiving to which they were further invited: "Let us give thanks unto the Lord,"--"It is meet and right  ."
Then follows a very brief summary of the Eucharistic Preface, and after that the Trisagion  , corresponding in part to the long Thanksgiving in the Apostolic Constitutions for all God's mercies in creation, providence, and redemption  .
It is important to observe how S. Cyril in this and the following sections associates the people with the Priest, using throughout the Plural "We." That this is intentional and significant, we may learn from a passage of S. Chrysostom  which is so interesting that we may be allowed to translate it at length: "Sometimes moreover no difference is made between the Priest and those over whom he presides, as for example when we are to partake of the awful mysteries; for we are all alike deemed worthy of the same privileges: not as in the Old Covenant some parts were eaten by the Priest, and others by the governed (ho archomenos), and it was not lawful for the people to share in what the Priest partook of. It is not so now: but one Body is set before all, and one Cup. And in the prayers also one may see the laity contributing much. For the prayers on behalf of the Energumens, and on behalf of those in Penitence are offered in common both by the Priest and by themselves; and all say one prayer, a prayer that is full of compassion. Again, after we have excluded from the sacred precincts those who are unable to partake of the Holy Table, there is another prayer to be made, and we all alike lie prostrate on the floor, and all alike rise up. When again we are to receive and give a kiss of peace, we all alike embrace each other. Again even amid the most tremendous Mysteries the Priest prays over the people, and the people over the Priest: for the formula, "With Thy Spirit," is nothing else than this. The words of the Thanksgiving again are common: for he does not give thanks alone, but also the whole people. For having first got their answer, and they agreeing that `It is meet and right so to do,' he then begins the thanksgiving. And why wonder that the people sometimes speak with the Priest, when even with the very Cherubim and the Powers on high they send up those sacred hymns in common. Now all this I have said in order that each of the common people (ton archomenon) also may be vigilant, that we may learn that we are all one Body, having only as much difference between one and another, as between members and members, and may not cast the whole work upon the Priests, but ourselves also care for the whole Church even as for a common Body."
It is remarkable that in Cyril's account of the Eucharistic rites in this Lecture there is not the slightest reference to the words of Institution, though these hold so prominent a place before the Invocation both in the Clementine Liturgy and in the Liturgy of S. James. But we cannot justly assume, from a mere omission in so brief a summary, that the Commemoration of the Institution had no place in the Liturgy then in use at Jerusalem. It seems more probable that Cyril did not think it necessary, after his repeated references to the Institution in the preceding Lecture, to make further mention of a custom so well known as the recitation of Christ's own words in the course of the Prayer preceding the Invocation. On the previous day he had quoted S. Paul's account of the Institution, with the remark, "Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying that it is not His Blood  ?" The like efficacy he again ascribes to "the Lord's declaration" concerning both the Bread and the Wine, that they are "the Body and Blood of Christ  ."
In the Didaché, which gives the oldest elements of an Eucharistic Service, there is neither the Commemoration nor the Invocation, but only two short and simple forms of Thanksgiving "for the Holy Vine of David," and "for the broken Bread  ."
Justin Martyr seems to imply that the consecration is effected by the Commemoration of Christ's own words in the Institution: "We have been taught," he says, "that the food which is blessed by the prayer of the word which comes from Him (ten di' euches logou tou par autou eucharistetheisan trophen), and by which our blood and flesh are by transmutation nourished, is the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus who was made Flesh." He gives no separate Invocation of the Holy Ghost, but this may have been supplied in the "praise and glory" or in the "prayer and thanksgivings" sent up "to the Father of all through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost  ."
Irenæus is apparently the earliest writer who represents the Invocation of the Holy Ghost as the immediate act of consecration: "We make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks for that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, having completed the oblation, we call forth (ekkaloumen ) the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the Body of Christ, and the cup the Blood of Christ, in order that the partakers of these antitypes may obtain the remission of sins and life eternal  ."
Mr. Hammond writes that, "By the Oriental Churches an Invocation of the Holy Spirit is considered necessary to complete the consecration. In the three Oriental Families of Liturgies such an Invocation is invariably found shortly after the Words of Institution  ."
It is in accordance with this statement that, we find Cyril so frequently declaring that the elements which before the Invocation are simple bread and wine, become after the Invocation the Body and Blood of Christ  . In the first of the passages referred to below he speaks of "the Holy Invocation of the Adorable Trinity," in the others of the Holy Spirit only.
Cyril next describes the Invocation as "completing the Spiritual Sacrifice, the bloodless Service," and then gives a summary of the "Great Intercession" as made "over that Sacrifice of the Propitiation." The Intercession, as represented by Cyril, is not simply a prayer, but an offering of the Sacrifice  , and this is in accordance with the usual language of the Liturgies." We offer to Thee, O Lord, on behalf also of Thy holy places, which Thou hast glorified by the Theophany of Thy Christ, and by the visitation of Thine All-Holy Spirit: especially on behalf of glorious Sion, the Mother of all the Churches, and on behalf of Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church throughout the whole world  ." In the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom, as now commonly used in the Orthodox Eastern Church, we find the fuller phrase, "We offer unto Thee this reasonable Service on behalf of the world, on behalf of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church  ."
In some particulars Cyril's summary agrees most nearly with the Clementine Liturgy, as, for example, in the prayer "for the King and those in authority, and for the whole army, that they may be at peace with us  ." In others he follows the Liturgy of S. James, as in the intercession for "every Christian soul afflicted and distressed, that stands in need of Thy pity and succour  ."
Cyril next describes the commemoration of departed Saints, and "of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us," that is, in the bosom of the Church, and states his belief "that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up while that holy and most awful Sacrifice is presented  ." He refers to objections against this belief, and brings forward in defence of it a reason applicable only to sinners: "When we offer," he says, "our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, we offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves  ." His language on this subject seems in fact to shew an advance in doctrine beyond the earliest Liturgies. In those of S. James and S. Basil we find prayers that the offering may be acceptable as a propitiation "for the rest of the souls that have fallen asleep aforetime," and again, "that we may find mercy and grace with all the Saints who have ever been pleasing in Thy sight from generation to generation, forefathers, fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Teachers, holy men, and every righteous spirit made perfect in the faith of Thy Christ."
There is nothing here, nor in the Clementine Liturgy, nor in that of S. Mark, corresponding to the purpose which Cyril ascribes to the commemoration, "that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition." In the Anaphora of S. Chrysostom contained in the later form of the Liturgy of Constantinople we find, apparently for the first time, this prayer added to the commemoration of all Saints, "at whose supplications look upon us, O God."
There was much controversy on the subject of prayers for the dead in Cyril's time, and the objections which he notices were brought into prominence by Ærius, and rebuked by Epiphanius  .
From the commemoration of the departed Cyril passes at once to the Lord's Prayer  , omitting the Preface which is found in the Liturgies of S. James and S. Mark. In the Clementine Liturgy, contrary to general use, the Lord's Prayer is not said at all. Cyril adds an exposition of each petition, and gives an unusual explanation of epiousios, for which see the footnote: he also explains tou ponerou as referring to "the wicked one," following in this the Embolismus of S. James, "deliver us from the wicked one and from his works."
"After this the Bishop says, Holy things for holy men  ." Chrysostom explains this as being both an invitation to the Faithful in general to communicate, and a warning to the unholy to withdraw. "The Bishop, with loud voice and awe-inspiring cry, raising high his arm like a herald, and standing on high in sight of all, above that awful silence cries aloud, inviting some and repelling others, and doing this not with his hand, but with his tongue more clearly than with the hand.....For when he says, Holy things for the holy, he means this: Whosoever is not holy, let him not draw near  ."
In regard to the doctrinal significance of the formula, Dr. Waterland's remarks should be consulted  .
The response of the people to the "Sancta Sanctis" is given by Cyril  in accordance with the Liturgy of S. James and the Clementine: "One is Holy, One is the Lord, Jesus Christ:" but he does not mention the "Gloria in excelsis" nor the "Hosanna," both of which follow here in the Clementine.
"After this," says Cyril, "ye hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the Communion of the Holy Mysteries, and saying, O taste and see that the Lord is good  . This agrees with the Clementine rubric: "Let the 33rd Psalm be sung while all the rest are partaking." In the Liturgy of S. James, while the Bishop is breaking the Bread and dipping in the Wine, the "Agnus Dei" and several Psalms were sung: but of these there is no mention in the Clementine Liturgy or in Cyril.
On Cyril's directions for receiving the Bread and the Cup with due reverence, see the footnotes on the passages  .
His final injunction to remain for the prayer and thanksgiving is taken from that in the Clementine Liturgy: "Having partaken of the precious Body and the precious Blood of Christ, let us give thanks to Him who hath counted us worthy to partake of His holy Mysteries." The thanksgiving, benediction, concluding prayers, and dismissal, vary much in the different Liturgies.
The former view is stated by the Oxford editor, Milles, in his note on the words: "And in like manner to you also, after you had come up from the pool of the sacred waters, there was given an unction, a figure (antitupon ) of that with which Christ was anointed; and that is the Holy Ghost  ." "It is evident," says Milles, "from his words here, that the Chrism of which Cyril treats in this Lecture is not to be referred to the Unction which is administered by the Romanists in Confirmation. For every one sees that by Unction in this passage a ceremony of Baptism is indicated. The ancients employed two Unctions in Baptism, the first before the immersion in the water, of which he spoke in the preceding Lecture; the second immediately upon ascending from the water, of which he speaks in this Lecture."
This opinion is elaborately discussed by the Benedictine editor, Touttée, Dissertatio iii. c. 7, who argues that the Unction described by Cyril is a Sacrament distinct from Baptism, that it has for its proper grace the gift of the Holy Spirit, and further that this gift is not conferred in Baptism. Of these assertions the first and second appear to represent Cyril's view correctly: the last is an exaggeration and a mistake, the tendency of which is to identify the Chrism of the Eastern Church with that which is used in Confirmation by the Roman Church, and to exalt the rite of Confirmation as a proper Sacrament distinct from Baptism, and even superior to it. A view differing in some respects from both of these has been recently put forward by a learned and devout writer of our own Church, who has fully discussed the teaching of Cyril and other Eastern Fathers, and gives the result of his investigation in the following "Summary  :" "For very many centuries the Christians of the East have never been forced to define to themselves at all clearly the position of a person baptized but unconfirmed. Their mode of administering Confirmation (Chrism?) by the hands of the baptizing Presbyter--though among the Greeks and some others with chrism prepared by the Bishop--relieves them from the necessity which weighs upon us Westerns, of teaching Christian children what their status is between the two rites. Confirmation (Chrism?) is for them, far more than it has been for a long while in the West, a factor in Baptism. Only a more or less conscious desire not to fall behind Western teachers in honouring the perfecting Unction can have led their later authorities to treat that Unction as a sacrament numerically distinct from Baptism. To all the early doctors of the East the two things are one, and Baptism culminates in the Unction. The tendency among Oriental Christians was, not to attribute to Baptism in our modern sense the gift of the Holy Ghost, but rather to consider Baptism by itself as a bare rite, benefiting the body alone, and dependent for its spiritual efficacy upon other actions, after and before. Not that this tendency has its full way. The Greek Fathers may be said certainly on the whole to trace the forgiveness of sins, the preparatory cleansing, to the baptismal Laver; the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the ordinary purposes of Christian living, they trace, like S. Chrysostom, to that act which comes " immediately after Baptism, and before the Mysteries."
When we come to inquire how far these several theories agree with the teaching of Cyril himself, we must in the outset put aside altogether the name Confirmation: for as applied to the Unction used in the Eastern Church it is only confusing and misleading. In the early ages of the Church Confirmation was not known even by name. In the Latin Church "neither Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, nor any of the Latin Fathers, makes mention of Confirmation in this sense. Nor have the Greeks any word to answer to this Latin term  ." So far, therefore, Milles appears to be perfectly right in refusing to connect the Chrism of which Cyril treats with the Unction used in Confirmation by the Roman Church.
We may add that in Cyril's account of Chrism it is wholly unconnected with Confirmation, both in its symbolic reference and in its outward form. Chrism, he says, is the antitype of the Unction of Christ by the Holy Ghost at His Baptism: Confirmation is universally admitted to have been a following of the Apostles in their laying on of hands. But in that Apostolic rite there was no unction, and in Chrism there was no such laying on of hands.
In several passages Cyril clearly distinguishes the outward form of Baptism from the spiritual grace.
"If thy body be here, but not thy mind, it profiteth thee nothing. Even Simon Magus once came to the Laver: he was baptized, but was not enlightened; and though he dipped his body in water, he enlightened not his heart with the Spirit: his body went down and came up, but his soul was not buried with Christ, nor raised with Him  ."
It is impossible here to regard "the Spirit" as referring to the grace of Unction: for (1) Baptism was not accompanied by Unction in the time of the Apostles, and (2) we should thus make a false antithesis between the outward part of the one rite ("he dipped his body in water"), and the inward part of the other. Here, therefore, Cyril attributes enlightenment of the heart by the Spirit to Baptism apart from Unction, and at the same time lays stress upon the difference between the worthy and unworthy recipient of the outward form.
The importance of this difference is further enforced throughout the next two sections, and at the close of § 4 the distinction between the outward sign and inward grace of Baptism, strictly so called, is again asserted, "though the water will receive thee, the Spirit will not accept thee."
"Some might suppose," it is said, "from these words that Cyril thought of water and the Spirit as the sign and the thing signified in Baptism respectively, and a passage in a later Lecture upon the subject of the Sacrament (of Baptism) at first confirms that impression  ."
To suppose that Cyril had any other thought in the former passage, seems to me impossible for any ordinary reader, and the later passage, not only at first, but more fully the longer it is considered, confirms that impression beyond all doubt. The whole quotation, including Cat. iii. §§ 3, 4, is too long to repeat here, but may be read in its proper place. It will be sufficient to give the passages which are of chief importance in the question before us, according to Canon Mason's translation.
Cat. iii. § 3. "Do not attend to the laver as mere water, but to the spiritual grace given along with the water"..."the mere water, receiving the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ, and of the Father, acquires a power of sanctity. For since man is a two-fold being composed of soul and body, the cleansing element also is two-fold, the incorporeal for the incorporeal, the bodily for the body. And the water cleanses the body, but the Spirit seals the soul, in order that having our hearts sprinkled by the Spirit, and our bodies washed with pure water, we may draw nigh to God. When, therefore, you are about to go down into the water do not pay attention to the mere nature of the water, but expect salvation by the operation of the Holy Ghost. For without both it is impossible for thee to be perfected."
No words could state more clearly the distinction between the outward sign and the inward grace of Baptism, and the absolute necessity for both. There is no possible reference to Unction, but "the operation of the Holy Ghost" in cleansing and sealing the soul is unmistakably connected with Baptism as "the grace given with the water" (meta tou hudatos), and below, as "the seal by water" (ten di' hudatos sphragida), the latter phrase shewing that Baptism by water is the signum efficax of the grace in question.
Cyril then quotes our Lord's words, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, and explains them thus: "On the one hand he who is being baptized (baptizomenos) with the water, but has not had the Spirit vouchsafed to him (kataxiotheis), has not the grace in perfection: on the other hand, even if a man be distinguished for virtue in his deeds, but does not receive the seal bestowed by means of water (ten di' hudatos sphragida), he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Canon Mason, whose translation I have followed, finds here a reference both to Baptism and to Unction as "the first baptismal act and the second," and in support of this interpretation gives a second and more emphatic version: "He who is in course of being baptized with the water, but has not yet had the Spirit vouchsafed to him, has not the grace in perfection." This introduction of the word "yet," in order to represent a distinction between two separate acts, is not justified either by the reading of the older editions (oude to hudati baptizomenos me kataxiotheis de tou Pneumatos), nor by that of Codices Monac. Roe, Casaub. adopted by Reischl (oute ho bebaptismenos k.t.l.), nor by the Benedictine text (oute ho baptizomenos k.t.l.). The obvious meaning of the passage, with either reading, is that "the man who in Baptism did not receive the Holy Spirit, has not the grace (of Baptism) complete." The Benedictine Editor in his elaborate argument for regarding Chrism as a distinct sacrament  ", does not even refer to this passage.
A statement which is important in this connexion is found in Mystag. ii. § 6: "Let no one then suppose that Baptism is the grace of remission of sins only, or further of adoption, as the Baptism of John conferred only remission of sins; but as we know full well that it cleanses from sins and procures a gift of the Holy Spirit, so also it is a counterpart (antitupon) of the sufferings of Christ."
Here besides "the remission of sins, which no man receiveth without the Holy Spirit  ," we find "a gift of the Holy Ghost," and the fellowship of Christ's Passion distinctly attributed to Baptism.
If the "adoption" mentioned at the beginning of this passage were identical (as Touttée thinks) with the "gift of the Holy Ghost," it would by no means follow that Cyril here means to include Unction in Baptism. For the grace which beyond all others is exclusively attached to Baptism, and not to Unction, is the new birth, and this is "the new birth into freedom and adoption  ." In fact Cyril's teaching on this point is in strict accordance with that of St. Paul in Gal. iv. 4-6, that we first receive the adoption of sons (huiothesian), and then "because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father." So again in Rom. viii. 15, 16, he says, "Ye received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit Himself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." In both passages St. Paul clearly distinguishes two things, "the adoption" itself, and the witness of it by "the Spirit of adoption." Cf. Bengel on v. 4: "Prius adoptionem, deinde Spiritum adoptionis accepimus;" and on v. 6: "Filiorum statum sequitur inhabitatio Spiritus Sancti, non hanc ille." The adoption itself belongs to Baptism strictly so called, in which we are made children of God and joint heirs with Christ (cf. Cat. iii. 15): the witness of the indwelling Spirit of adoption is the special grace ascribed to Chrism in the Eastern Church, and to Confirmation in the Western. There are many other passages in which Cyril ascribes to Baptism itself, as distinct from Chrism, a gift of the Spirit, such as the following: "But He trieth the soul: He casteth not His pearls before the swine: if thou dissemble, men will baptize thee now, but the Spirit will not baptize thee  ."
"The Lord, preventing us according to His loving-kindness, has granted repentance at Baptism, in order that we may cast off the chief--nay, rather the whole burden of our sins, and having received the seal by the Holy Ghost, may be made heirs of eternal life  ."
Again, after speaking of "the invocation of grace having sealed the soul," he adds: "Having gone down dead in sins, thou comest up quickened in righteousness. For if thou hast been united with the likeness of the Saviour's death, thou shalt also be deemed worthy of His Resurrection  ." The benefits ascribed to Baptism in these several passages without any allusion to Chrism, are brought together with rhetorical effect in the Introductory Lecture, § 16: "Great is the Baptism that lies before you; a ransom to captives, a remission of offences, a death of sin, a new birth of the soul, a garment of light, a holy indissoluble seal, a chariot to heaven, the delight of Paradise, a welcome into the kingdom, the gift of adoption."
From such language it is clear beyond question that in Cyril of Jerusalem, not to speak of other Oriental Fathers, the tendency is not "to consider Baptism by itself as a bare rite, benefiting the body alone, and dependent for its spiritual efficacy upon other actions after and before," but as depending on the power of the Holy Ghost, and the sincerity of repentance and faith in man.
If further proof were needed, a glance at the Index under the word "Baptism" will shew the extraordinary richness, variety, and precision of Cyril's teaching, as to the gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred therein.
§ 2. Chrism. When spiritual blessings so many and so great have been ascribed to Baptism, in what light, it may be asked, does Cyril regard the Unction which follows? Does he treat it as being merely an additional ceremony subordinate to Baptism, or as having for its own proper grace some special gift of the Holy Ghost? We find no answer to this question in the earlier course of Lectures  . But that Chrism was not regarded by Cyril as a mere accessory to Baptism, as Milles thought  , may be safely inferred from the fact that in announcing the subjects of his Mystagogic Lectures, he mentions first Baptism, then "the seal of the fellowship of the Holy Ghost," and then "the Mysteries at the altar of the New Covenant  :" and this inference is fully confirmed by his language elsewhere: "Ye have heard enough of Baptism, and Chrism, and partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ  ." A mere additional ceremony of Baptism could not have been so independently placed between the two sacraments, and, as it were, in the same rank with them.
The importance thus attached to Chrism is further shewn in the fact that Cyril uses the very same language in reference to the consecration of the ointment of Chrism and of the water of Baptism, and of the Eucharistic elements. "The bread and wine of the Eucharist before the Invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity are simple (litos) bread and wine, but after the Invocation the Bread becomes the Body and the Wine the Blood of Christ  ." Regard not the Laver as simple (lito) water, but rather regard the spiritual grace that is given with the water  ." "The simple water having received the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ, and of the Father, acquires a new power of holiness  ."
"But see thou suppose not this to be plain (psilon) ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer simple (litos) bread, but the Body of Christ; so also this holy ointment is no longer plain (psilon) ointment, nor, as one might say, common, after Invocation, but Christ's gift of grace (charisma), and is made effectual to impart the Holy Ghost by the presence of His own Godhead  ."
The spiritual benefits which Cyril ascribes to the Unction are set forth in the same Lecture. "This holy thing is a spiritual safeguard of the body, and salvation of the soul" (§ 7): it sanctifies all the organs of sense: "the body is anointed with the visible ointment, and the soul is sanctified by the Holy and Life-giving Spirit" (§ 3). After being anointed the Christian is now entitled to that name in its fullest sense  ; he is clothed with the whole armour of the Holy Ghost, that he may stand against the power of the adversary: he may say, "I can do all things in Christ who strengtheneth me" (§ 4).
In regard to the supposed identity of Chrism and Confirmation, it is important to notice carefully how Cyril speaks of the laying on of hands in the only passage where he mentions it  .
He first illustrates the freedom of the Spirit, and His independence of human agency, by the gift of prophecy to the seventy elders, including Eldad and Medad: he then refers to the gift of the spirit of wisdom to Joshua by the laying on of Moses' hands  , and adds, "Thou seest everywhere the figure (tupon) in the Old Testament, and in the New the same. In Moses' time the Spirit was given by laying on of hands (cheirothesia ), and Peter gives the Spirit by laying on of hands  : and upon thee also, who art to be baptized, the grace is about to come; but the manner (to pos) I tell thee not, for I do not forestall the time."
From this passage it has been inferred (i) that Cyril alludes to a gift of the Spirit by laying on of hands in immediate connexion with Baptism and Unction  , and (2) that he refers this gift of the Spirit not to Baptism itself, but to the laying on of hands, or to the Unction as a figure that answers to it  .
(1) The first of these inferences is opposed to the fact that Cyril neither mentions the laying on of hands as part of the actual ceremonial in Baptism or Unction, nor as the analogous rite in the old Testament, but on the contrary expressly says  that the symbol (to sumbolon) of this holy Chrism in the Old Testament lies in the consecration of Aaron to be High Priest, when Moses, "after the washing in water anointed him, and he was called `anointed,' evidently from this figurative unction (tou chrismatos delade tou tupikou)."
(2) In support of the second inference the argument offered is as follows: "That the Spirit was to come upon them in the course of their Baptism is here again clearly stated; but that Cyril did not intend them to suppose that Baptism itself would convey the gift is equally clear. Again and again in earlier Lectures, as well as in the words actually before us, Cyril has taught them to expect the gift in Baptism; if therefore the immersion itself were to be the means of receiving it, he has already told them his secret. Yet now he says that he will not tell them `how' they are to receive it. That remains for a future occasion  ." The mistake, as I venture to consider it, lies in the words which I have marked with italics. For of the mysteries which were to be concealed from the unbaptized (amuetoi) the first was the manner of administering Baptism itself, and the second, the unction of Chrism; and in the preceding Lectures Cyril has no more told the secret of the one than of the other. "Baptism, the Eucharist, and the oil of Chrism, were things that the uninitiated (amuetoi) were not allowed to look upon  ."
"We bless," says S. Basil  , "both the water of Baptism and the oil of the Chrism, and moreover the baptized (baptizomenon) himself. From what written commands? Is it not from a secret (siopomenes) and mystical tradition? Again, the very anointing with the oil, what word of Scripture taught that? And the dipping the man thrice, whence came it? And all the other accompaniments of Baptism, the renunciation of Satan and his angels, from what Scripture came they? Come they not from this unpublished and secret teaching, which our fathers guarded in a silence with which no prying curiosity might meddle, having been well taught to preserve the sanctity of the mysteries by silence? For how could it have been right to publish in writing the doctrine of these mysteries, which the unbaptized are not even allowed to look upon?"
As these secret ceremonies of Baptism and Unction are revealed by Cyril only in the Mystagogic Lectures, the supposed reason for saying, that in Cat. xvi. 26, the promised gift of the Spirit refers not to Baptism but only to Unction, at once falls to the ground.
The true state of the case is well expressed by Bingham  , "Though the ancients acquainted the Catechumens with the doctrine of Baptism so far as to make them understand the spiritual nature and design of it, yet they never admitted them to the sight of the actual ceremony, nor so much as to hear any plain discourse about the manner of its administration, till they were fitted and prepared for the actual reception of it,"--or rather, till they actually received it.
There is in fact no reason to exalt the benefits of Unction, or Confirmation, by robbing Baptism of its proper grace. "It was this Unction, as the completion of Baptism, to which they ascribed the power of making every Christian in some sense partaker of a royal priesthood. To it they also ascribed the noble effects of confirming the soul with the strength of all spiritual graces on God's part, as well as the confirmation of the profession and covenant made on man's part  ." We may well be satisfied that the doctrine of the early Church has been so fully retained in essential points in our own Office of Confirmation, recalling as it does by the ratification of the baptismal vows the immediate connexion of the ancient Unction with Baptism, and in its Prayers invoking the same gifts of the Holy Spirit,--"Strengthen them, we beseech Thee, O Lord, with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them Thy manifold gifts of grace; the spirit of wisdom and understanding; the spirit of counsel and ghostly strength; the spirit of knowledge and true godliness, and fill them, O Lord, with the spirit of Thy holy fear, now and for ever. Amen."
Upon these statements an argument against Transubstantiation has been founded by Bishop Cosin  , and adopted both by Dr. Pusey  and Dean Goode  . It being universally admitted that the substance of the water and of the ointment remains unchanged, it is argued from the identity of the language employed in each case that, according to Cyril, no substantial change takes place in the Bread and Wine. Bishop Cosin quotes the following passage, of which the original is given below: "Take heed thou dost not think that this is a mere ointment only. For as the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer ordinary bread, but is the body of Christ; so this holy ointment is no longer a bare common ointment after it is consecrated, but is the gift or grace of Christ, which, by His Divine Nature, and the coming of the Holy Ghost, is made efficacious; so that the body is anointed with the ointment, but the soul is sanctified by the holy and vivifying Spirit  ."
Bishop Cosin proceeds to argue thus: "Can anything more clear be said? Either the ointment is transubstantiated by consecration into the spirit and grace of Christ, or the bread and wine are not transubstantiated by consecration into the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore as the ointment retains still its substance, and yet is not called a mere or common ointment, but the Chrism or grace of Christ: so the bread and wine remaining so, as to their substance, yet are not said to be only bread and wine common and ordinary, but also the Body and Blood of Christ."
Notwithstanding the great authority of Bishop Cosin, and the assent of Theologians of such opposite schools as Dr. Pusey and Dean Goode, it must be admitted that the argument, even as against Transubstantiation, is pressed beyond its just limits. The identity of language extends only to two points, (1) the mode of consecration by Invocation, (2) the effect negatively stated, that the material element in each case is no longer simply a material element. A change, therefore, of some kind has taken place, and we have still to inquire how the change in each case is described by Cyril. "The water acquires a power of sanctity," otherwise described as "the spiritual grace given with the water  ."
"The ointment is Christ's gift of grace (Charisma), and becomes effectual to impart by the presence of the Holy Ghost His Divine Nature  ." "The Bread becomes the Body and the Wine the Blood of Christ  ."
There is here no such identity of language as would justify the assertion that the change described is of the same nature in each case, that because it leaves the substance of the water and the ointment untouched, therefore the substance of the Bread also must, according to Cyril, remain unchanged: this must be proved by other arguments. We must also remember that if this argument based upon the identity of the language used on the two sides of a comparison is trustworthy, there is another passage in Cyril to which it may be applied: "He once, in Cana of Galilee, changed the water into wine akin to blood (oikeion haimati)  , and is it incredible that He changed wine into blood?" The change of the water into wine was a change of substance: are we then prepared to agree with the Roman Church that the change of the bread also is a change of substance? Nay further, would the Roman Church itself accept the principle of the argument? For observe that in fact Bishop Cosin himself, when he comes to deal with this passage, gives up his former argument, and distinctly rejects it. "Protestants," he says, "do freely grant and firmly believe that the wine, in the sense already often mentioned, is changed into the Blood of Christ; but every change is not a transubstantiation; neither doth Cyril say that this change (i.e. of the wine) is like that of the water, for then it would appear to our senses; but that He who changed the water sensibly can also change the wine sacramentally, will not be doubted by any  ." Again, in describing the act of consecration, Cyril says: "We beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him, that He may make the bread the Body of Christ, and the wine the Blood of Christ, for certainly whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is sanctified and changed (hegiastai kai metabebletai )  ." Here again, as in the passage quoted from Myst. iii. § 3, a sacramental change of some sort is asserted, but its specific character is not defined.
There is, however, a passage which throws some light on Cyril's conception of the change in Myst. iv. § 3: "In the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood, that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, His Body and His Blood being distributed to our members (eis ta hemetera anadidomenou mele)." Several good MSS read anadedegmenoi, which would give the meaning, "having received of His Body and of His blood into our members." This does not alter the general sense of the passage; but the reading anadidomenou is supported by another passage, Myst. v. § 15: "Our common bread is not substantial (epiousios): but this Holy Bread is substantial, that is, appointed for the substance of the soul. This Bread goeth not into the belly and is not cast out into the draught, but is distributed (anadidotai) into thy whole system for the benefit of body and soul."
In order to accommodate these passages to the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation the Benedictine Editor here introduces the idea of species, the outward forms or accidents of the bread. "We must not suppose," he says, "that Cyril thought the Body of Christ to be divided and digested (digeri) into our body; but by a customary way of speaking he attributes to the Holy Body what is suitable only to the species which conceal it. And he does not deny that the species pass into the draught, but only that the Body of Christ does so."
But Cyril draws no such distinction between the species and the Body of Christ: to him the Bread and Wine after consecration are the Body and the Blood of Christ. For how could it be said that the species, which in Transubstantiation are the mere outward accidents of bread and wine, are distributed into the whole system for the benefit of body and soul?
In whatever sense the bread and wine become by consecration the Body and Blood of Christ, in that same sense the Body and Blood of Christ are, according to Cyril, distributed to our whole system.
This was no new doctrine: Ignatius, Ephes. xxi., speaks of Christians as "breaking one Bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote that we should not die, but live for ever in Jesus Christ." This is perhaps the earliest expression of the belief that the resurrection of the body is secured by the communion of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. The manner in which this communion is effected is described by Justin Martyr (Apolog. I. § 66) in language which shews clearly what Cyril meant: "We do not receive these things as common bread and common drink: but in the same way as Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by the Word of God, and took both flesh and blood for our salvation, so we have been taught that the food over which thanksgiving has been made by prayer in the word received from Him (ten di' euches logou tou par' autou eucharistetheisan trophen), from which (food) our blood and flesh are by transmutation (kata metabolen) nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of Him the Incarnate Jesus."
Here it is plainly taught that by consecration the Bread and Wine have become the Flesh and Blood of Christ, and that as such they nourish our "blood and flesh" (observe the inverted order) by undergoing a change: in other words, the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ are changed into nourishment of our blood and flesh, by being distributed (as Cyril says) to all our members, that is by being subjected to the natural processes of digestion and assimilation. The unusual order of the words "our blood and flesh" is not accidental, but answers to the process of assimilation, in which the digested food first nourishes the blood and then the blood nourishes the flesh.
The meaning is, as Otto says in his note, "that the divine food passes away into our bodies entire, so that nothing remains:" and Dr. Pusey seems to take the same view, in his note on the words, "from which (food) through transmutation our blood and flesh are nourished: "i.e. the material parts are changed into the substance of the human body  ."
Thus then, according to Cyril, the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ are distributed to all our members; His Flesh and Blood pass by a change into our blood and flesh, and we thereby become "of the same body and the same blood with Him  :" and "this Bread does not pass into the belly, and is not cast out into the draught  ," but wastes away as the body itself wastes  .
However much this view of the Sacramental mystery may differ from later theories, it was certainly held by many of the Greek Fathers. Irenæus, for example, in addition to those already mentioned, thus writes: "When therefore both the mingled cup and the created bread receive the Word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the Body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh increaseth and consisteth, how say they that the flesh is incapable of the gift of God which is eternal life, that flesh which is nourished from the Body and Blood of the Lord, and is already (huparchousa) a member of Him?--even as the blessed Paul saith, that we are members of His Body, of His Flesh, and of His Bones  ."
That this was also the teaching of Cyril's contemporaries is clear from the famous passage of Gregory of Nyssa, in which this doctrine is fully developed. It will be sufficient to quote here the latter part of the passage, in which Gregory is speaking of the Wine. "Since then that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man too may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He transelements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing  ."
In another remarkable passage  Cyril gives a further explanation of the effect of consecration: "In the New Testament there is heavenly Bread and a Cup of salvation, sanctifying soul and body: for as the Bread corresponds to the body, so also the Word (ho logos) is appropriate to the soul." With this language of Cyril we may compare further what is said by Gregory of Nyssa in the context of the passage already quoted: "Just then, as in the case of ourselves, as has been repeatedly said already, if a person sees bread he also in a kind of way looks on a human body, for by being within this it becomes this, so in that other case the Body into which God entered (to theodochon soma), by partaking of the nourishment of bread was in a certain sense the same with it, since that nourishment, as we have said, is changed into the nature of the body: for that which is proper to all men is acknowledged also in the case of That Flesh, namely, that That Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was changed into the dignity of Godhead. Rightly then do we believe that now also the bread which is sanctified by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For even that Body was once virtually (te dunamei) bread, but has been sanctified by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh."
In this passage we have the full explanation of what Irenæus meant when he said that the elements "by receiving the Word of God become the Eucharist," and what Cyril meant by saying that "as the Bread corresponds to the body, so also the Word is appropriate to the soul." Their common doctrine is, that besides the Body and Blood of Christ, that is, His Humanity offered upon the Cross for our redemption, His Divine Nature, the Word is also present, and that it is by receiving the Divine Word that the Bread is made the Body of Christ. "The fathers," says Touttée, "often play upon the ambiguity of the term, saying at one time that the Divine Word, at another that the word and oracles of God nourish our soul. Both are true. For the whole life-giving power of the Eucharist is derived from the Divine Word united with the flesh which He assumed: and the whole benefit (fructus) of Eucharistic eating consists in the union of our soul with the Word, by meditation on His mysteries and words, and conformation thereto  ." O si sic omnia!
In this view the Bread and Wine are signs or figures of the natural Body of Christ crucified, but they are also much more, they are endued by the Divine Word, and through the operation of the Holy Ghost, with the life-giving power of the same Body and Blood of Christ,--a power which being imparted to the faithful recipient makes him to be "of the same body and the same blood with Christ," thereby assuring him of the resurrection of the body to eternal life, and at the same time strengthening and refreshing the soul by its being united through faith with the Word, and being thus made "partaker of the Divine nature."
This is not the language of the Western Church, whether Roman, Lutheran, or Anglican, but it is the language of the earliest Greek Fathers, and of Cyril, as is partly and reluctantly admitted by so cautious a writer as Dr. Waterland. After referring to the passage quoted above from Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 66) he proceeds: "There is another the like obscure hint in Irenæus, which may probably be best interpreted after the same way. He supposes the elements to become Christ's body by receiving the word (Word). He throws two considerations into one, and does not distinguish so accurately as Origen afterwards did between the symbolical food and the true food." The elements, Waterland adds, "are made the representative body of Christ; but they are at the same time, to worthy receivers, made the means of their spiritual union with Christ Himself; which Irenæus points at in what he says of the bread's receiving the Logos, but should rather have said it of the communicants themselves, as receiving the spiritual presence of Christ, in the worthy use of the sacred symbols  ."
Again, in c. vii., he says more explicitly of Irenæus, what is equally true of Cyril; "Least of all does he favour the figurists or memorialists; for his doctrine runs directly counter to them almost in every line: he asserts over and over, that Christ's body and blood are eaten and drunk in the Eucharist, and our bodies thereby fed; and not only so, but insured thereby for a happy resurrection: and the reason he gives is, that our bodies are thereby made or continued members of Christ's body, flesh, and bones."
From this view of Cyril's doctrine concerning the Sacramental elements we can easily understand in what sense he applies the terms " type" and "antitype" to the Eucharistic elements. "The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist having two parts, an outward and an inward, and the outward part having been instituted by our Blessed Lord with a certain relation to the inward, and gifted with a certain significance of it, nothing is more natural than that the titles, type, antitype, symbol, figure, image, should be given to the outward part  ." Add to this that, according to Cyril's doctrine as already explained, the bread after the Invocation, without ceasing to be bread, not only signifies but also is the Body, and we see how natural it was for him to say in one passage that "His Body bore the figure of bread  ," in another that "in the figure of bread the Body is given  ." The Body which "is given" cannot be an absent Body of our Lord, but must be that Sacramental Body, of which Cyril goes on to say in the same sentence that it is "distributed to our members." Thus the Bread broken is a type or figure of Christ's Body as crucified for us; and by virtue of its union with the Divine Word it becomes the life-giving Body, which makes the faithful recipient to be, in Cyril's words, "of the same body and same blood with Christ."
Another term applied by Cyril and other Greek Fathers to the sacramental elements is "antitype."
In Mystag. ii. § 6, where Baptism is called "the counterpart (antitupon) of Christ's sufferings," the meaning is clearly explained by the context: for in § 5 the reality of Christ's sufferings is emphatically and repeatedly contrasted with the figurative representation of the same; and this figurative representation no less emphatically contrasted with the real and actual bestowal of the grace of salvation: en eikoni he mimesis, en aletheia de he soteria,....hina te mimesei ton pathematon autou koinonesantes, aletheia ten soterian kerdesomen.
We have thus a clear distinction of (1) the `res sacramenti,' Christ's Death and Resurrection, (2) the `sacramentum' or `sign,' the outward form of Baptism, and (3) the `virtus sacramenti,' our real participation in the benefits of Christ's Passion, "a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness." Thus, as Cyril adds at the end of the section, Baptism "has the fellowship by representation of Christ's true sufferings," it is the spiritual counterpart in us of that which was actual in Him.
In Mystag. iii. § i, speaking of the Chrism, Cyril says, "Now ye have been made Christs (Chrisoi) by receiving the antitype of the Holy Ghost, and all things have been wrought in you by imitation, because ye are images of Christ:" and again, "there was given to you an Unction, the antitype of that wherewith Christ was anointed, and this is the Holy Ghost."
Here again we have (1) the `res sacramenti,' the anointing of Christ with the Holy Ghost at His Baptism, (2) the sacramental sign or figure, the anointing of the baptized, and (3) the spiritual benefit received in the gift of the Holy Ghost, for, as Cyril adds at the end of § 3, "while Thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy and Life-giving Spirit." In these passages we see a distinction between tupos and antitupos. The former is simply the outward sign or figure; the latter includes with the sign the spiritual counterpart in us of the thing signified, the benefits of Christ's Passion in the one case, the gift of the Holy Ghost in the other.
It only remains to inquire whether there is the same distinction in the meaning of the words as applied to the Holy Eucharist.
In Mystag. v. § 20, Cyril informs us that during the Administration the words, "O taste and see that the Lord is good," were sung: and in reference to that passage he adds, "In tasting we are bidden to taste not bread and wine, but the antitypical Body and Blood of Christ." To taste "the antitypical Body" is therefore to taste "that the Lord is good," whence it clearly follows that "the antitypical Body" is not the mere sign or figure of Christ's own natural Body, but the sacramental and spiritual counterpart of it, by which those who faithfully receive it are so united to Him, that their spirit, and soul, and body, are to be preserved entire without blame at His coming  .
The Mystagogic Lectures were delivered not in the Church, but after the conclusion of the public Service "in the Holy Place of the Resurrection itself  ," that is, in the small Chapel which contained the Holy Sepulchre, and to which the name "Anastasis" more properly belonged. Happily we are not required by the purpose of this work to enter into the disputed questions concerning the Holy Places. Whether the cave re-fashioned and adorned by Constantine was the actual sepulchre in which our Lord's body was laid, and whether the present Churches occupy the same site as the Basilica and Anastasis of Constantine, are matters still under discussion, and awaiting the result of further researches. What more properly concerns us is to collect the chief passages in which Cyril refers to these localities, and to try to give a fair representation of his testimony, comparing it with that of earlier or contemporary writers.
Next to Eusebius, and the Bordeaux Pilgrim who visited Jerusalem in 333, Cyril is the earliest and most important witness as to the site of Constantine's Churches.
In Cat. xiv. § 5, he says, "It was a garden where He was crucified. For though it has now been most highly adorned with royal gifts, yet formerly it was a garden, and the signs and the remnants of this remain." From this it is evident that the traces of a garden close to the Church were still visible both to Cyril and his hearers. Twice again in § 11 he mentions the garden, which he had most probably himself seen in its former state, before the ground was cleared at the time of the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre in 326.
On this point it may be well to quote the words of Mr. Walter Besant, Honorary Secretary of the Palestine Exploration Fund, who, in an article on "The Holy Sepulchre" in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, writes as follows: "While the temple of Venus with its foundations was being cleared away, there might have been, and most probably was present, a Christian lad, native of Jerusalem, eleven years of age, watching the discovery, which did as much as the great luminous cross which appeared in the sky four (? twenty-four) years later to confirm the doubtful and strengthen the faithful, that of the rock containing the sacred tomb. It was Cyril, afterwards Bishop of Jerusalem. One must not forget that he is the third eye-witness who speaks of these things; that though he was a boy at the time of the discovery, he lived in Jerusalem, and must have watched, step by step, the progress of the great Basilica; that he was ordained before the completion and dedication of the buildings, and that many, if not all, of his lectures were delivered in the Church of the Anastasis itself."
That Cyril's testimony concerning the Holy Places was in full accordance with the general belief of his contemporaries is clear from the fact that he so frequently points to the traditional sites as bearing witness to the truth of the Crucifixion and Resurrection. He speaks of Golgotha in eight separate passages, sometimes as near to the Church in which he and his hearers are assembled  , and sometimes as standing up above in their sight  . In one place he asks, "Seest thou this spot of Golgotha?" and the hearers answer with a shout of approval  . In other passages he speaks as if the Church itself was in or rather on Golgotha  , the same Preposition (en) being repeated when he mentions "Him who was crucified thereon."
In explanation of these different modes of speaking, the Benedictine Editor comments thus  : "The Church of the Resurrection was built on part of the hill Golgotha (intra montem G.): but the actual rock on which our Lord was crucified was not within the limits of the Church, yet not far off, namely about "a stone's throw," as the author of the Jerusalem Itinerary says. For the Church had been built on the site of the Sepulchre. Some think that the place of Crucifixion was included in the vast area which was enclosed with colonnades between the Sepulchre and the Basilica,...that Golgotha was midway between the Basilica of the Crucifixion, and the Anastasis or Sepulchre. But the area in question Constantine paved with stones, and it must therefore have been flat, as we learn from Eusebius  ; Golgotha, on the contrary, stood up high  , and moreover shewed a cleft made there at Christ's death  , which would either have been a hindrance to the paving or covered up by it. In addition to this, from the doors of the Basilica there seems to have been a view of the Sacred Tomb  . This would have been obstructed if Golgotha had been between them."
The cleft in the rock of Golgotha is mentioned in a fragment of the defence made before Maximinus in 311 or 312 by Lucian the Martyr of Antioch  : If yet you believe not, I will also offer you the testimony of the very spot on which the thing was done. The place itself in Jerusalem vouches for these facts, and the rock of Golgotha broken asunder under the weight of the Cross: that cave also, which when the gates of hell were burst, gave back the Body in newness of life." On this passage Dr. Routh remarks that Maundrell, Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem, at Easter, 1697, "shews that the rock had been rent not by any instrument, but by the force of an earthquake. Also it is related by Eusebius in his Theophania, a book now recovered, that there was one cave only in this cleft of the rock."
According to Eusebius in the passages of the Life of Constantine already referred to, the Emperor first beautified the monument or sepulchre with rare columns, then paved with finely polished stone a large area open to the sky, and enclosed on three sides with long colonnades, and lastly erected the Church itself "at the side opposite to the cave, which was the Eastern side."
The following is the statement of the Bordeaux Pilgrim: "From thence (the Palace of David) as you go out of the wall of Sion walking towards the gate of Neapolis, on the right side below in the valley are walls where the house or Prætorium of Pontius Pilate was: here our Lord was tried before His Passion. On the left hand is the little hill (monticulus) of Golgotha, where the Lord was crucified. About a stone's throw from thence is a vault (crypta) wherein His body was laid, and rose again on the third day. There by command of the Emperor Constantine has now been built a Basilica, that is to say, a Church of wondrous beauty, having at the side reservoirs (exceptoria) from which water is raised, and a bath behind in which infants are washed (baptized)." Neapolis was the name given by Vespasian to the ancient city of Shechem, now Nâbulus: the "porta Neapolitana" therefore was in the North wall of Sion.
In reference to the passage quoted above, Mr. Aubrey Stewart says: "The narrative is clear and connected, and it is hardly possible, for any one who knows the ground, to read it without feeling that the Pilgrim from Bordeaux actually saw Constantine's buildings standing on the site now occupied by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre  ."
From these earlier testimonies, compared with the several passages already quoted from Cyril, we may safely draw the following inferences, (1) The Anastasis properly so called, or Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in which the five Mystagogic Lectures were delivered, was built by Constantine over the cave which, according to the evidence then existing, was fully believed to be the Burial-place of our Lord. (2) The Great Basilica, called also the Church of the Holy Cross, in which the Catechetical Lectures were delivered, was erected on the East of the Anastasis, and separated from it by a large open area. (3) The hill of Golgotha (on which at a later period there was built a third Church, called the Church of Golgotha, of Holy Calvary, or of Cranium) stood about a stone's throw on the North side of Constantine's two Churches, and about equidistant from them.
In Cat. xiv. 14, Cyril speaks in the Plural of the Emperors then reigning (hoi nun basileis) as having completed the building (exeirgasanto) and embellishment of the great Church of the Resurrection. This can only apply to the sons of Constantine, Constans and Constantius, and as Constans died early in 350, the Lectures must have been delivered before that year.
In Cat. xv. § 6, Cyril asks, "Is there at this time war between Persians and Romans, or no?" The time thus indicated was apparently that of the campaign which ended in the disastrous defeat of Constantius at Singara, 348, the battle being soon followed by a suspension of hostilities  .
The Benedictine Editor tries to find another proof of the date of the Lectures in Cyril's description of the state of the Church in Cat. xv. §7: "If thou hear that Bishops advance against Bishops, and clergy against clergy, and laity against laity, even unto blood, be not troubled." Touttée refers this account to the fierce dissensions which followed the Synod of Sardica, where Athanasius and Marcellus were declared innocent and received into communion, while the Encyclical of the dissentient Bishops, who had withdrawn to Philippopolis, condemned them both. But it is now ascertained that the Synod of Sardica was held not in 347, as Touttée supposed, but in 344  : and Cyril's description may unhappily be applied to the state of the Church at almost any time from the Council of Tyre, by which Athanasius had been deposed in 335, until long after any date which can possibly be assigned to Cyril's Lectures.
There is a much more definite note of time in Cat. vi. § 20, where speaking of Manes Cyril says: "The delusion began full seventy years ago." If we may assume that the outbreak of this heresy is to be dated from the famous disputation between Archelaus and Manes in 277  , it follows that Cyril must have made this statement in 347 or 348. And further, if Dr. Routh  is correct in fixing the date of the Disputation between July and December 277, the Lent in which the Lectures were delivered must have been, as Touttée decides, that of 348, not of 347, as Tillemont had supposed.
§ 2. The days. It is expressly stated by Sozomen  that "the interval called Quadragesima" was made to consist of six weeks in Palestine, "whereas it comprised seven weeks in Constantinople and the neighbouring provinces."
It is certain the Catechetical Lectures i.-xviii. were all delivered in these six weeks, being preceded by the Procatechesis, which was addressed to the candidates before the whole congregation at the public Service on Sunday (§ 4). In the same context Cyril says, "Thou hast forty days for repentance," and again in Cat i. § 5, "Hast thou not forty days to be free for thine own soul's sake?" It thus appears probable that the first of the eighteen (Catechetical Lectures was delivered on the Monday of the first week of the Fast, the forty days being completed on the night preceding the Great Sabbath, that is to say, the night of Good Friday, when the fast was brought to an end at a late hour.
With regard to the date of Cat. iv., which contains a brief preliminary statement of all the articles of the Creed, we may obtain some evidence from an incident recorded in a letter of Jerome  to Pammachius. John, who had then succeeded Cyril as Bishop of Jerusalem, had on a certain occasion discoursed on the Creed and all the doctrines of the Church in the presence of Epiphanius and the whole congregation. Jerome, being ignorant of the peculiar custom of the Church of Jerusalem, rebukes the supposed presumption of the Bishop, "that a man deficient in eloquence should in one discourse in Church discuss all the doctrines concerning the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the descent into hell, the nature of angels, the state of departed souls, the Resurrection of Christ, and of ourselves, and other subjects." The rebuke calls out a statement from John: "The custom among us is that for forty days we publicly deliver the doctrine of the Holy and Adorable Trinity to those who are to be baptized." This being the custom at Jerusalem in Cyril's time, we may conjecture that Cat. iv., which corresponds closely to the description of John's discourse, was delivered, like that, on a Sunday before the whole congregation: and this is in fact suggested by Cyril's own words in § 3: "Let those here present, whose habit of mind is mature, and who have their senses already exercised to discern good and evil, endure patiently to listen to things fitted rather for children." That this could not have been later than the Sunday following that on which the Procatechesis was delivered, is shewn by the mention in the same section of "the long interval of the days of all this holy Quadragesima," an expression which could not well have been used later than the second Sunday in Lent.
In Cat. iv. § 32, Cyril speaks of having discoursed on Baptism "the day before yesterday," that is, on the Friday.
In Cat. v. we have first a discourse on the nature of faith, and then towards the end, between § 12 and § 13, the actual words of the Creed are for the first time recited by Cyril to the candidates alone. In the next four Lectures there are no marks of time, except that vi., vii., viii., were delivered on successive days, as is proved by the word "yesterday"(te chthes hemera) in vii. § 1, and viii. § 1. It thus appears probable that the five Lectures, v.-ix., belong to the five days, Monday to Friday inclusive, of the second or third week.
In Cat. x. § 14 Cyril reminds his hearers that he had preached on the words after the order of Melchizedek at the public Service on the Lord's day. As he does not here employ his usual phrase "yesterday," we may infer that Cat. x. was delivered not earlier than the Tuesday following the 4th Sunday in Lent, the Epistle for that Sunday in the Eastern Church being Heb. vi. 13-20, which ends with the words on which Cyril had preached. The next two Lectures followed Cat. x. immediately on successive days, Wednesday and Thursday, the word "yesterday" recurring in xi. § 1, and xii. § 4.
Cat. xiii., which is occupied with the Crucifixion and Burial, seems to have followed them immediately on the Friday: it certainly came a few days only before Cat. xiv. § 1. For speaking there of the preceding Lecture, Cyril says, "I know the sorrow of Christ's friends in these past days; because, as our discourse stopped short at the Death and the Burial, and did not tell the good tidings of the Resurrection, your mind was in suspense to hear what you were longing for." Now we know that Cat. xiv. was delivered on the Monday after Passion Sunday: for the Epistle for that 5th Sunday in Lent was Heb. vi. 11-14, referring to the Ascension  : and in § 24 Cyril says, "The grace of God so ordered it, that thou heardest most fully concerning it, so far as our weakness allowed, yesterday on the Lord's day, since by the providence of divine grace the course of the Readings (anagnosmaton) in Church included the account of our Saviour's going up into the heavens."
In Cat. xv. there is no note of time to determine on what day it was spoken; but in § 33 Cyril speaks as if his course of teaching was to be interrupted for a little while: "If the grace of God should permit us, the remaining Articles also of the Faith shall be in good time (kata kairon) declared to you." We may therefore assign Cat. xv. to the early part of Passion week, and the three remaining Catechetical Lectures to the week before Easter. This arrangement seems to be confirmed by Cat. xvii. 34, where Cyril speaks of the two Lectures on the Holy Spirit, xvi. and xvii., as "these present Lectures," distinguishing them from "our previous discourses." In the same section he refers to "the fewness of the days," and in § 20 speaks of "the holy festival of the Passover" as being close at hand. We may therefore probably assign xvi. and xvii. to two consecutive days in the earlier part of the week before Easter.
Cat. xviii. contains many indications from which we may conclude with certainty that it was delivered either on the night of Good Friday, or in the early hours of the morning of the "Great Sabbath." Thus in § 17 he speaks of "the weariness caused by the prolongation (hupertheseos) of the fast of the Preparation (Friday), and the watching." In § 21 he calls upon the Candidates to recite the Creed, which he had dictated to them, and which they would be required to repeat more publicly immediately before their Baptism, as we learn from § 32: "Concerning the holy Apostolic Faith which has been delivered to you to profess (eis epangelian), we have spoken through the grace of the Lord as many Lectures as was possible in these past days of Lent....But now the holy day of the Passover is at hand, and ye, beloved in Christ, are to be enlightened by the washing of regeneration. Ye shall therefore again be taught what is requisite if God so will; with how great devotion and order you must enter in when summoned, for what purpose each of the holy mysteries of Baptism is performed, and with what reverence and order you must go from Baptism to the holy altar of God, and enjoy its spiritual and heavenly mysteries." The additional instructions here promised were to be given on the same day as the last Lecture, Cat. xviii, that is on Easter Eve immediately before Baptism. For it was forbidden to reveal the mysteries of Baptism, Chrism, and the Holy Eucharist to the uninitiated, and yet it was necessary that the Candidates should not come wholly unprepared to perform what would be required of them. The full explanation of the various ceremonies and of the doctrines implied in them was reserved for the Mystagogic Lectures, which were to be delivered on Easter Monday and the four following days, after the public Service, not in the great Basilica, but in the Holy Sepulchre itself.
§ 3. Arrangement. The Lectures of S. Cyril have a peculiar value as being the first and only complete example of the course of instruction given in the early centuries to Candidates seeking admission to the full privileges of the Christian Church. "The Great Catechetical Oration" of Gregory of Nyssa is addressed not to the learner but to the teacher, in accordance with the opening statement of the Prologue, that "The presiding ministers of the mystery of godliness have need of a system in their instructions, in order that the Church may be replenished by the accession of such as should be saved, through the teaching of the word of Faith being brought home to the hearing of unbelievers." As an instruction to the Catechist how he should refute the opponents of Christianity, it is an apologetic work rather than a Catechism. S. Augustine's treatise De catechizandis rudibus is also addressed to the teacher, being an answer to Deogratias, a Deacon of Carthage, who on being appointed Catechist had written to Augustine for advice as to the best method of discharging the office. S. Augustine's Sermons De traditione Symboli, and De redditione Symboli, are not a connected series, but single addresses to Catechumens consisting of brief comments on a few chief articles of the Creed. Cyril's Lectures thus remain unique in character.
After the Procatechesis, which is simply an introductory exhortation to the newly admitted Candidates, he devotes three Lectures to the need of a sincere purpose of mind, the efficacy of repentance, and the general nature and importance of Baptism. The fourth Lecture gives "a short summary of necessary doctrines," stating with admirable clearness and brevity ten chief points of the Faith, and the arguments on each point, which are to be developed in the remaining Catechetical Lectures v.-xviii. He thus traverses the whole ground of Theology as expressed in the Creed of Jerusalem, of which the exact language is given in the titles of the successive Lectures. These instructions to the `Illuminandi' (photizomenon) were followed on Easter-day by the administration of Baptism, Chrism, and Holy Communion: and on the following days of Easter-week the ceremonies and doctrines proper to each of these Sacraments were explained in the five Lectures on the Mysteries (Mustagogiai) to the newly-baptized (pros tous Neophotistous). These Mystagogic Lectures thus form a most important record of the Sacramental Rites and Doctrines of the Eastern Church in the fourth Century, the most critical period of Ecclesiastical History.
The Creed which Cyril really taught and expounded may be gathered from various passages in the Lectures themselves, and especially from the Titles prefixed to them.
With the Creed of Jerusalem thus ascertained, it will be instructive to compare the Nicene formula, and for this purpose we print them in parallel columns.
|Creed of S. Cyril of Jerusalem.||Creed of Nicæa.|
|From S. Athanasius,||De Decretis Fidei Nicænæ.|
|Pisteuomen eis hena Theon  ,|
Patera  Pantokratora  ,
Poieten ouranou kai ges
Oraton te panton kai aoraton  .
Kai eis hena Kurion 'Iesoun Christon  ,
ton Pshion tou Theou
ton sarkothenta kai enanthropesanta  ,
hou tes basileias ouk estai telos  .
Pisteuomen eis hena Theon,|
panton horaton te
kai aoraton poieten,
kai eis hena Kurion 'Iesoun Christon,
ton Pshion tou Theou,
gennethenta ek tou Patros monogene,
ta te en to ourano kai ta epi tes ges,
kai eis to hagion Pneuma.
In regard to the doctrine of the Trinity in general the two great heresies which distracted the Church in S. Cyril's day were Sabellianism and Arianism, the one "confounding the Persons," the other "dividing the substance" of the indivisible Unity of the Godhead. Both these opposite errors Cyril condemns with equal energy: "Do thou neither separate the Son from the Father, nor by making a confusion believe in a Son-Fatherhood  ." Again he says: "Our hope is in Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost. We preach not three Gods: let the Marcionites be silenced; but with the Holy Ghost through One Son we preach One God. The Faith is indivisible; the worship inseparable. We neither separate the Holy Trinity, like some (that is the Arians); nor do we, as Sabellius, work confusion  ." "He says not, I am the Father, but the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father. And again He said not, I and the Father am one, but, I and the Father are One, that we should neither separate them, nor make a confusion of Son-Father  ."
In the sequel of this last passage Cyril proceeds to argue that this unity of the Father and the Son lies in their Nature, "since God begat God," in their Kingdom  , in their Will  , and in their joint Creation  , thus at each step rejecting some prominent heretical tenet.
The question, however, of Cyril's orthodoxy depends especially upon his supposed opposition to the Creed of Nicæa, of which no evidence is alleged except his attendance at the Council of Seleucia, and the absence from his Lectures of the word homoousion.
The purpose of Cyril's attendance at Seleucia was to appeal against his deposition by Acacius, and there is apparently no evidence of his having taken part in the doctrinal discussions, or signed the Creed of Antioch  . What is certain is that Cyril's bitterest enemies who refused to sit with him in the Council were Acacius and his Arian allies, who expressly rejected both homoousios and homoiousios and "altogether denied the Nicene formula and censured the Council, while the others, who were the majority, accepted the whole proceedings of the Council, except that they complained of the word `Co-essential,' as obscure, and so open to suspicion  ." It thus appears that Cyril's friends at Seleucia were partly those who approved the word " Co-essential," and partly those of whom Athanasius speaks as "brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word  ." It needed in fact the profound insight of an Athanasius to foresee that in the end that word must triumph over all opposition, and be accepted by the Universal Church as the one true safeguard of the Christian Faith. Meanwhile it was the standard round which debate, and strife, and hatred, and persecution, were to rage for fifty years with unexampled fury.
Was Cyril to be blamed, ought he not rather to be commended, for not introducing such a war-cry into the exposition of an ancient Creed, in which it had no place, the Creed of his own Church, the Mother of all the Churches, whose Faith he as a youthful Presbyter was commissioned to teach to the young Candidates for Baptism?
But if we compare his doctrine with that of the Nicene formula, we shall find that, as Dr. Newman says, "His own writings are most exactly orthodox, though he does not in the Catechetical Lectures use the word homoousion  ."
The first point to be noticed in the comparison is the use of the title "Son of God." For this Eusebius in his Creed had substituted "Word of God." Athanasius explains the significance of the change: "Uniting the two titles, Scripture speaks of `Son' in order to herald the natural and true offspring of His essence (ousias); and on the other hand that none may think of the offspring as human, in again indicating His essence it calls Him Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance, for from this we infer that the generation was impassible (apathes), and eternal, and becoming to God  ."
Cyril is here in full accord with Athanasius: in his Creed he found "Son of God," and in his exposition he states that the Father is "by nature and in truth Father of One only, the Only-begotten Son  :" "One they are because of the dignity pertaining to the Godhead, since God begat God  :" "The Son then is Very God, having the Father in Himself, not changed into the Father  ." When he says that the Son is in all things like (homoios en pasin) to Him who begat Him; begotten Life of Life, and Light of Light, Power of Power, God of God, and the characteristics of the Godhead are unchangeable (aparallaktoi ) in the Son  ," he is using in all good faith the very words of the orthodox Bishops at Nicæa, "homoion te kai aparallakton auton kata panta to Patri  ."
The further significance which Athanasius ascribes to the title "Logos," is also expressed fully and repeatedly by Cyril: "Whenever thou hearest of God begetting, sink not down in thought to bodily things, nor think of a corruptible generation, lest thou be guilty of impiety  ."
The "passionless generation," to which so much importance was attached at Nicæa and by Athanasius, is also asserted by Cyril when he says that God "became a Father not by passion (ou pathei Pater genomenos)  ." The eternal generation is most emphatically declared again and again: the Son, he says, "began not His existence in time, but was before all ages eternally and incomprehensibly begotten of the Father; the Wisdom, and the Power of God, and His Righteousness personally subsisting  :" "Throughout His being (ex houper en), a being by eternal generation, He holds His royal dignity, and shares His Father's seat  ." Believe that of One God there is One Only-begotten Son, who is before all ages God the Word; not the uttered word diffused into the air, nor to be likened to impersonal words; but the Word, the Son, Maker of all who partake of reason, the Word who heareth the father, and Himself speaketh  ."
The importance of such language is better understood when we remember that Marcellus, "another head of the dragon lately sprung up in Galatia  ," entirely rejected the word "Begotten," as implying a beginning, and "contradicting the eternity of the Logos, so distinctly proclaimed by S. John." An eternal generation, as stated by Athanasius and others, was to him unimaginable. The Logos in His pre-existence was unbegotten, and could not be called Son, but only the Logos invested with human nature was Son of God and begotten  ." These heretical opinions of Marcellus had been condemned in several Councils within a few years preceding Cyril's Lectures.
The next supposed proof of Cyril's opposition to the Nicene doctrine is that he has not adopted in his Lectures the phrases "of the essence (ousias) of the Father," and "of one essence (homoousion) with the Father." This omission is the chief ground of the reproaches cast upon the memory of Cyril by the writers of Ecclesiastical History; for this he was described by Jerome as an Arian, and by Rufinus as a waverer, while his formal acceptance of the terms used at Nicæa is called by Socrates and Sozomen an act of repentance. By others he was denounced as 'Areianophron because he had addressed his letter to Constantius as "the most religious king," and never used the word homoousion in his Lectures.
We shall be better able to estimate the justice of these reproaches, if we consider first the history of these words ousia and homoousios, and the reasons which Cyril may have had for not employing them in the instruction of youthful Candidates for Baptism.
It is strange to find that seven hundred years before the great controversy at Nicæa on the introduction of the word Ousia into the Creed, it had been the war-cry of almost as fierce a conflict between rival schools of philosophy.
"There appears," says Plato in the person of the Eleatic stranger, "to be a sort of war of the giants going on between them because of the dispute concerning ousia. Some of them are dragging all things down from heaven and from the invisible to earth, grasping rocks and oaks in their hands; for of all such things they lay hold, in obstinately maintaining that what can be touched and handled alone has being (einai), because they define `being' and `body' as one; and if any one else says that what is not a body has being, they altogether despise him, and will hear of nothing but body....Therefore their opponents cautiously defend themselves from above out of some invisible world, mightily contending that certain intelligible and incorporeal ideas are the true essence (ousian)  ."
It is apparently to this passage of Plato that Aristotle refers in describing the ambiguity of the word ousia  : "Now Ousia seems to belong most manifestly to bodies: wherefore animals and plants and their parts we say are ousiai, also natural bodies as fire and water and earth and all such things, and all either parts of these, or products either of parts or the whole, as the heaven and its parts, stars, moon, and sun. But whether these are the only ousiai or there are others also, or none of these but others of a different kind, is a matter for inquiry. Some think that the boundaries of bodies, as a surface, and a line and a point and a unit (monas), are ousiai, even more so than body and solid. Further, one class of persons thinks that besides things sensible there is no ousia, and another that there are many things, and these more enduring (aidia), as Plato thinks that the ideas (eide) and the mathematical elements are two kinds of ousia, and that the ousia of sensible bodies is a third."
In proceeding to define the term, Aristotle says that ousia is used in four senses if not more: the essential nature (to ti en einai), the universal (to katholon) the genus, and a fourth the subject (to hupokeimenon). Under, this fourth sense he proceeds to discuss the application of the term ousia to the matter, the form, and the resulting whole. Without going further we may see that the use of the word in philosophy was full of difficulty and ambiguity.
The ambiguity is thus expressed by Mr. Robertson  : "We may look at a concrete term as denoting either this or that individual simply (tode ti), or as expressing its nature, and so as common to more individuals than one. Now properly (protos) ousia is only appropriate to the former purpose. But it may be employed in a secondary sense to designate the latter, in this sense species and genera are deuterai ousiai, the wider class being less truly ousiai than the former." Perhaps the earliest use of ousia in Christian writings is in Justin M.  , where he describes the Logos as "having been begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission (apotomen), as if the ousia of the Father were divided, as all other things when divided and cut are no longer the same as before." His example was fire, from which other fires are kindled, while it remains undiminished and unchanged. According to Dr. Newman  , ousia here means "substance, or being."
In Clement of Alexandria  , ousia means a "nature" common to many, for he speaks of the Gnostic Demiurge as creating an irrational soul homoousion with the soul of the beasts;" and again as implanting in man "something co-essential (homoousion) with himself, inasmuch as he is invisible and incorporeal; his essence (ousian) he called "the breath of life," but the thing formed (morphothen) became "a living soul," which in the prophetic Scriptures he confesses himself to be. Again in §42 of the same Fragment, according to the Valentinians, "the body of Jesus is co-essential (homoousion) with the Church."
So Hippolytus  speaks of the Son Incarnate as being "at one and the same time Infinite God and finite Man, having the nature (ousian) of each in perfection:" and again, "There has been effected a certain inexpressible and irrefragable union of the two (the Godhead and the Manhood) into one subsistence (hupostasin)."
In Origen we find the two words ousia (essence, or substance) and hupostasis (individual subsistence) accurately distinguished. Quoting the description of Wisdom, as being the breath (atmis) of the power of God, and pure effluence (aporroia) from the glory of the Almighty, and radiance (apaugasma) of the Eternal Light  ," he says that "Wisdom proceeding from Him is generated of the very substance of God," and adds that "these comparisons most manifestly shew that there is community of substance between Father and Son. For an effluence appears to be homoousios, that is, of one substance with that body from which it is an effluence or vapour."
On the other hand he writes, "We worship the Father of the Truth, and the Son who is the Truth, being in subsistence (te hupostasei) two  ." On this passage Bishop Bull remarks: "The words hupostasis and ousia in ancient times were variously used, at least by the Christians. That is to say, sometimes hupostasis was taken by them for what we call ousia, and vice versa, ousia for what we call hupostasis: sometimes the ancients even before the Council of Nicæa used hupostasis for what we now call `person' or `subsistence  '." This Bishop Bull presently explains again as "an individual thing subsisting by itself, which in rational beings is the same as person."
For examples of these interchanges of meaning, we may notice that the Synod of Antioch (a.d. 269), in the Epistle addressed to Paul of Samosata before his deposition, speaking of the unity of Christ's Person, says that "He is one and the same in His ousia  ." On this passage Routh remarks that "The words ousia and phusis are sometimes employed by the ancients for a personal subsistence (persona subsistente), as is plainly testified by Photius."
In the earlier part  of the same Epistle the Son is described as "being before all ages, not in foreknowledge, but in essence and subsistence (en ousia kai hupostasei)."
The confusion arising from the uncertainty in the use of these two words is well illustrated in the account which Athanasius  himself gives of this same Synod of Antioch: "They who deposed the Samosatene, took Co-essential (homoousios) in a bodily sense, because Paul had attempted sophistry and said, `Unless Christ has of man become God, it follows that He is Co-essential with the Father; and if so, of necessity there are three essences (ousiai), one the previous essence, and the other two from it;' and therefore guarding against this they said with good reason, that Christ was not Co-essential (homoousion)." Athanasius then explains on what grounds the Bishops at Nicæa "reasonably asserted on their part, that the Son was Co-essential." Athanasius himself states that, in giving this explanation of the rejection of ousion by the Bishops who condemned the Samosatene, he had not their Epistle before him  ; and his statement, that Paul used the term not to express his own view, but to refute that of the Bishops, is thought to be opposed to what Hilary says  , "Male homoousion Samosatenus confessus est: sed numquid melius Ariani negaverunt?"
That the statement of Athanasius himself is not free from difficulty is clear from the way in which so great a Theologian as Bishop Hefele endeavours to explain it: "Athanasius says that Paul argued in this way: If Christ is ;;Omoousios with the Father, then three subsistences (ousiai) must be admitted--one first substance (the Father), and two more recent (the Son and the Spirit); that is to say, that the Divine Substance is separated into three parts  ." The logical subtlety of Paul was better understood by Basil the Great  : "For in truth they who met together about Paul of Samosata found fault with the phrase, as not being distinct; for they said that the word homoousios gave the idea of an ousia and of those derived from it, so that the title homoousion assigned the ousia separately to the subjects to which it was distributed: and this notion has some reason in the case of copper and the coins made from it; but in the case of God the Father, and God the Son, there is no substance conceived to be antecedent and superior to both: for to say and to think this surpasses all bounds of impiety."
The confusion arising from the uncertainty in the use of these words had been the cause of strife throughout the Christian Church for more than twenty years before the date of Cyril's Lectures; and though it was declared at the Council of Alexandria (362) to be but a controversy about words  , it had long been and long afterwards continued to be a fruitful cause of dissension between men who, when forced to explain their meaning, were found to be in substantial agreement. That Cyril abstained from introducing into his elementary teaching terms so provocative of dangerous controversy, is a reason for commendation, not for censure. But if it is alleged that he denied or doubted or failed to assert the essential Godhead of the Son, the suspicion is unfounded and easily refuted. To the many passages already quoted concerning the eternal generation of the Son, it will be enough to add one single sentence which ought to dispel all doubt of his orthodoxy. "The Only-begotten Son, together with the Holy Ghost, is partaker of the Godhead of the Father (tes theotetos tes Patrikes koinonos)." The word chosen by Cyril to express the Divine Essence (theotes) common to the three Persons of the Godhead is at least as appropriate as ousia.
If we now look at the particular errors mentioned in the Anathema of the Nicene Council, we shall find that every one of them is earnestly condemned by Cyril.
"Once He was not (?,En pote hote ouk en). This famous Arian formula is expressly rejected in Cat. xi. § 17: "Neither let us say, There was a time when the Son was not." The eternity of the Son is asserted again and again, in reference, for instance, to His generation  , His Priesthood  , and His throne  .
"Before His generation He was not" (prin gennethenai ouk en). Compare with this Cyril's repeated assertions that "the Son is eternally begotten, by an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation  ," "the Son of God before all ages, without beginning  ," that "time intervenes not in the generation of the Son from the Father  ."
"He came to be from nothing" (ex ouk onton egeneto). Cyril's language is emphatic: "As I have often said, He did not bring forth the Son from non-existence (ek tou me ontos) into being, nor take the non-existent into Sonship  ."
"That He is of other subsistence or essence" (ex heteras hupostaseos e ousias). It is certain that Cyril has given no countenance to the error or errors condemned in this clause, but is in entire agreement with the Council.
On the question whether upostasis and ousia have in this passage the same or different meanings, see Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. II. 9, 11, p. 314 (Oxf. Ed.). Athanasius expressly states that they are perfectly equivalent: "Subsistence (hupostasis) is essence (ousia), and means nothing else but very being, which Jeremiah calls existence (huparxis)." Basil distinguishes them, and is followed by Bishop Bull, whose opinion is controverted by Mr. Robertson in an Excursus on the meaning of the phrase, on p. 77 of his edition of Athanasius in this Series. The student who desires to pursue the subject may consult in addition to the works just named, and the authorities therein mentioned, Dr. Newman's Arians of the Fourth Century, especially chap. v. sect. i. 3, and Appendix, note iv., on "the terms ousia and hupostasis as used in the early Church;" Mr. Robertson's Prolegomena, ch. ii. § 3 (2) (b); and the Rev. H. A. Wilson's Prolegomena to Gregory of Nyssa, ch. iv., in this Series.
Another work attributed by some authorities to Cyril of Jerusalem and by others to Cyril of Alexandria is a Homily De Occursu Domini, that is, On the Presentation of Christ in the Temple, and the meeting with Symeon, called in the Greek Church he ;;Upapante.
The other Fragments and Letters mentioned in the Benedictine Edition have no claim to be considered genuine.
§ 2. Authenticity of the Lectures. The internal evidence of the time and place at which the Lectures were delivered has been already discussed in chapters viii. and ix., and proves beyond doubt that they must have been composed at Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth century. At that date Cyril was the only person living in Jerusalem who is mentioned by the Ecclesiastical Historians as an author of Catechetical Lectures: and S. Jerome, a younger contemporary of Cyril, expressly mentions the Lectures which Cyril had written in his youth. In fact their authenticity seems never to have been doubted before the seventeenth century, when it was attacked with more zeal than success by two French Protestant Theologians of strongly Calvinistic opinions, Andrew Rivet (Critic. Sacr. Lib. iii. cap. 8, Genev. 1640), and Edmund Aubertin (De Sacramento Eucharistiæ, Lib. ii. p. 422, Ed. Davent., 1654). Their objections, which were reprinted at full length by Milles at the end of his Edition, were directed chiefly against the Mystagogic Lectures, and rested on dogmatic rather than on critical grounds. The argument most worthy of notice was that in a MS. of the Library of Augsburg the Mystagogic Lectures were attributed to John, Bishop of Jerusalem. This is admitted by Milles, who gives the title thus: Mustagogikai katecheseis pente 'Ioannou 'Episkopou ;;Ierosolumon, peri baptismatos, chrismatos, somatos, kai haimatos Christou.
I do not find this Codex Augustinus mentioned elsewhere by any of the Editors under that name: but the Augsburg MSS. were removed to Munich in 1806, and in the older Munich MS. (Cod. Monac. i), the title of the first Mystagogic Lecture is Mustagogia prote 'Ioannou episkopou ;;Ierosolumon. Also in Codd. Monac. 2, Ottobon. there is added at the end of the Title, tou autou Kurillou kai 'Ioannou episkopou. That John, Cyril's successor, did deliver Catechetical Lectures, we know from his own correspondence with Jerome: and this very circumstance may account for his name having been associated with, or substituted for that of Cyril.
To Rivet's objection Milles makes answer that if the mistakes of a transcriber or the stumbling of an ignorant Librarian (imperiti Librarii cæspitationes) have in one or two MSS. ascribed the Lectures to John or any one else, this cannot be set against the testimony of those who lived nearest to the time when the Lectures were composed, as Jerome and Theodoret. Also the internal evidence proves that the Lectures could not have been delivered later than the middle of the fourth century, whereas John succeeded Cyril about 386.
Moreover it is quite impossible to assign the two sets of Lectures to different authors. In Cat. xviii. § 33 the author promises, as we have seen, that he will fully explain the Sacramental Mysteries in other Lectures to be given in Easter week, in the Holy Sepulchre itself, and describes the subject of each Lecture; to which description the Mystagogic Lectures correspond in all particulars. Other promises of future explanations are given in Cat. xiii. § 19, and xvi. § 26, and fulfilled in Myst. iv. § 3, and ii. § 6, and iii. § i. On the other hand the author of Myst. i. § 9, after quoting the words, "I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and in one Baptism of repentance," adds, "Of which things I spoke to thee at length in the former Lectures."
By these and many other arguments drawn from internal evidence Touttée has shewn convincingly that all the Lectures must have had the same author, and that he could be no other than Cyril.
§ 3. Early Testimony. Under the title "Veterum Testimonia de S. Cyrillo Hierosolymitano ejusque Scriptis," Milles collected a large number of passages bearing on the life and writings of S. Cyril, of which it will be sufficient to quote a few which refer expressly to his Lectures.
S. Jerome, in his Book of Illustrious Men, or Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, composed at Bethlehem about six years after Cyril's death, writes in Chapter 112: "Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, having been often driven out from the Church, afterwards in the reign of Theodosius held his Bishopric undisturbed for eight years: by whom there are Catechetical Lectures, which he composed in his youth."
Theodoret, born six or seven years after the death of Cyril, in his Dialogues (p. 211 in this Series) gives the "Testimony of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, from his fourth Catechetical Oration concerning the ten dogmas. Of the birth from a virgin, "Believe thou this, &c."
Theophanes (575 circ.) Chronographia, p. 34, Ed. Paris, 1655, defends the orthodoxy of Cyril, as follows: "It was right to avoid the word homoousios, which at that time offended most persons, and through the objections of the adversaries deterred those who were to be baptized, and to explain clearly the co-essential doctrine by words of equivalent meaning: which also the blessed Cyril has done, by expounding the Creed of Nicæa word for word, and proclaiming Him Very God of Very God."
Gelasius, Pope 492, De duabus in Christo naturis, quotes as from Gregory Nazianzen the words of Cyril, Cat. iv. § 9: Diplous en ho Christos, k.t.l.
Leontius Byzantinus (610 circ.) Contra Nestor. et Eutychem, Lib. 1. quotes the same passage expressly as taken "From the 4th Catechetical Oration of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem."
Many other references to the Catecheses as the work of Cyril are given by Touttée, pp. 306-315.
§ 4. Editions. 1. Our earliest information concerning the Greek text and translations of S. Cyril's Lectures is derived from John Grodecq, Dean of Glogau in Bohemia.
From his statement it appears that Jacob Uchanski, Archbishop of Gnessen and Primate of Poland, had obtained from Macedonia a version of the Catecheses in the Slavonic dialect, and had translated it into the Polish language some years before 1560.
2. In that year Grodecq himself published at Vienna an edition of the Mystagogic Lectures, thus described in the catalogue of the Imperial Library:--
"S. Cyril's Mystagogic Lectures to the newly baptized, which now for the first time are edited in Greek and Latin together, that he who doubts the Latin may have recourse to the Greek, and he who does not understand Greek well may read the Latin, translated by John Grodecq."
Nothing more is known of this edition: Fabricius, Milles, Touttée, and Reischl, all say that they have been unable to find any trace of it. Uchanski about this time sent to Grodecq his Slavonic and Polish versions, in order that they might be compared with the Greek original. The result according to Grodecq was that the fidelity of both versions was clearly shewn, and "there could not possibly remain any doubt that these Lectures of Cyril are perfectly genuine."
Whether Uchanski's book was written or printed is unknown, as no trace of it has hitherto been found.
3. S. Cyrilli Hier. Catecheses ad Illuminandos et Mystagogicæ. Interpretatus est Joannes Grodecius. Romæ 1564. 8°.
Grodecq had come to Rome in the suite of Stanislaus Hosius, Cardinal Legate at the Council of Trent, who in the year 1562 had published in the Confession of Petricow the 4th and part of the 3rd Mystagogic Lectures from a Greek MS. belonging to Cardinal Sirlet. From this MS. Grodecq made his Latin translation, using also the work of Uchanski before mentioned. The preface is dated from Trent, on the 9th of July, 1563. The translation was published in the following year at Rome, Cologne, Antwerp, and Paris, and often elsewhere until superseded by the new Latin Version of Touttée in the Benedictine Edition.
4. In the same year, 1564, the Mystagogic Lectures and Catecheses iv., vi., viii.-x., xv., xviii. were published at Paris by William Morel, the King's Printer, under the following title:--
"S. Cyrilli Hier. Catecheses, id est institutiones ad res sacras, Græce editæ, ex bibliotheca Henrici Memmii, cum versione Latina. Cura Guil. Morellii. Paris. G. Morel., 1564. 4° min."
The Greek text depending on de Mesme's one MS., and that mutilated and faulty, is said by Touttée to have many faults and omissions, but to have been nevertheless very useful to him in correcting the text. The MS. itself had entirely disappeared. The Latin version, appended to the copy in the Royal (National) Library at Paris, but not always attached to the Greek, is said by Touttée to be a careful and elegant version, independent of Grodecq's.
A copy of Morel's Edition which formerly belonged to Du Fresne, containing various readings in the margin from two other MSS., was lent to Touttée from the Library of S. Geneviève (Genovef.).
Reischl describes the MS. as "Cod. Mesmianus (Montf. I. 185). Sec. xi."
5. "S. Cyrilli H. Catecheses Græce et Latine ex interpretatione Joan. Grodecii nunc primum editæ, ex variis bibliothecis, præcipue Vaticana, studio et opera Joan. Prevotii. Paris. (Claude Morellus), 1608." This was the first complete edition of the Greek text. Prevot, a native of Bordeaux, states in the Dedication to Pope Paul V., that by the help of MSS. "melioris notæ" found in the Vatican, he had both corrected the text of the Lectures previously published by Morel, and carefully transcribed the rest. He made, according to Touttée, many useful emendations, but did not mention the number, age, nor various readings of the MSS. employed.
6. "S. Cyrilli Hier. Arch. opera quæ supersunt omnia; quorum quædam nunc primum ex Codd. MSS. edidit, reliqua cum Codd. MSS. contulit, plurimis in locis emendavit, Notisque illustravit Tho. Milles S.T.B. ex Æde Christi Oxoniæ, e Theatro Sheldoniano, Impensis Richardi Sare Bibliopol. Lond. MDCCIII."
The author of this fine Edition gives us in his Preface the following description of his work:--
"In the first place I wished to amend more thoroughly the text of J. Prevot, which, as I said, he himself largely corrected and supplied from MSS. in the Vatican, and which I have printed in this Edition: I have therefore compared it with all the other Editions that I could collect, and in this manner have easily removed many errors both of the printers and of Prevot himself. Afterwards I carefully compared all the Catecheses and the Epistle to Constantinus with two MSS. and some with three, namely iv., vi., viii.-x., xv., xvi., xviii. The first Codex, written on parchment apparently six hundred years ago, I found among those MSS. which Sir Tho. Roe, our first Ambassador from King James I. to the Great Mogul, brought from the East, and presented to the Bodleian Library. The second we owe to the diligence of Isaac Casaubon, who collated the Catecheses and Epistle to Constantius with a MS. which he chanced to find, I think, in some Library in France, and carefully noted all the various readings in the margin. This copy of Casaubon's the Right Reverend Father in Christ, John Bishop of Norwich, very kindly lent to me out of his well-furnished Library, and of his great love for learning did not disdain to shew the highest favour to my slight endeavours."
Touttée thinks that the MS. from which Casaubon drew his various readings was C. Roe itself, or that one of the two MSS. had been copied from the other, or both from the same.
7. "S. Cyrilli Arch. Hier, opera quæ exstant omnia et ejus nomine circumferuntur, ad MSS. codices necnon ad superiores Editiones castigata, Dissertationibus et Notis illustrata, cum nova interpretatione et copiosis indicibus. Cura et studio Domni Antonii-Augustini Touttéi, Presbyteri et Monachi Benedictini e Congregatione S. Mauri. Paris. Typis Jac. Vincent. 1720, fol. (Recusa Venet. 1763)."
Of the Greek text the Editor says, "I have collated it as carefully as I could with Grodecq's translation, Morel's and Prevot's Editions, and with MSS. to be found in this City. The various readings of the Roman MSS. I have obtained by the help of friends: those which Milles had collected from the English Codices I have adopted for my own use."
8. "S. Cyrilli Hier. Arch. opp. quæ supersunt omnia ad libros MSS. et impressos recensuit Notis criticis commentariis indicibusque locupletissimis illustravit Gulielm. Car. Reischl S. Th. D. et Reg. Lycei Ambergensis Professor. Vol. I Monac. M DCCC XLVIII."
The Editor says in his Preface that he has altered the Benedictine text only when the evidence was very weighty, and has then given all the various readings in the critical notes. The exegetical commentary was to be reserved for the 2nd Volume, but this Dr. Reischl did not live to complete.
The Prolegomena contain (1) Touttée's inordinately long "Life of Cyril," (2) a Dissertation on the general character and authenticity of the Catecheses, and (3) an "Apparatus Litterarius," to which I have been indebted.
Vol. ii., containing Catecheses xii.-xviii., Myst. i.-v., and the other works, genuine and spurious, attributed to Cyril, was published by J. Rupp at Munich, 1860.
The MSS. used in revising the text of this, the best critical edition, will be noticed below.
9. An Edition of the Catecheses only was published at Jerusalem in 1867, having been commenced in 1849 at the request of the Archbishop, Cyril II., by Dionysius Kleopas, Principal of the Theological School of Jerusalem, and, after his death in 1861, continued by his successor Photius Alexandrides, "Archdeacon of the Apostolic and Patriarchal See of Jerusalem, and Principal of the Theological School."
The Editor gives in the Preface an interesting account of the life of Kleopas, and of the work which he left unfinished.
§ 5. Manuscripts. From the preceding account of the various Editions of S. Cyril we may obtain the following list of authorities which have been hitherto used in revising the Text.
1. Codex Sirletianus, known only by Grodecq's Latin version, Rome, 1564. Cf. § 1. 3.
2. C. Mesmianus, known only in Morel's edition, Paris, 1564. Cf. § i. 4.
3. Vatican MSS. used by Prevot. 1608, but not identified. Cf. § i. 5.
4. C. Roe, Bibl. Bodleian. Oxon. "Codex membranaceus in folio, ff. 223, sec. xi" binis columnis bene exaratus;" [ol. 271].
5. C. Casaubon. On this and the preceding MS. see Milles as quoted above, § i. 6.
6. C. Ottobonianus (1) ol. Rom. iv. membran. sec. xi. "Continet Catecheses omnes et Epist. ad Constantium. Multas habet insignes ab editis varietates."
C. Ottob. (2), "Chartaceus et recens est, nihil fere ab editis discrepans."
These are the Roman MSS. mentioned by Touttée: see above, § i. 7.
7. C. Coislin. 227 (ol. 101). Membran. Sæc. xi. circ. "From this came many important emendations" (Touttée, Notitia Codicum MSS.).
In the descriptions of the following MSS. of the National Library at Paris there is so much discrepancy between Touttée and Reischl, that it is better to quote both.
8. "Catecheses xii., xiii., xiv., xv., comparavi cum Codice Reg. bibliothecæ num. 2503. Scriptus est in bombycina charta an. 1231, quam anni notam apposuit calligraphus" (Touttée, Not. Codd. MSS.).
Reischl has no notice of a MS. at all answering to this description.
9. Cod. Reg. alter, "ol. 1260, nunc 1824, qui S. Basilii opera complectitur, sub ejus nomine Procatechesin continet " (Touttée, Not. Codd. MSS.): aliter, "Cod. Reg. ol. 260, nunc 1284, pag. 254, qui duodecimi circiter est sæculi, in quo habetur Procatechesis hæc sub nomine S. Basilii" (Id. Monit. in Procatechesin).
"Cod. Reg. 467 (apud Touttéum, 1824) Fonteblandensis, chartac. fol. sec. x. Continet sub S. Basilii nomine Orationem de Baptismo, quæ est S. Cyrilli Hier. Procatechesis. C. Reg. Touttéi" (Reischl).
10. "Cod. Reg. 969 (ol. Mazarin.) Epistolarum S. Basilii. 4°. Sec. xiv. Exhibet sub n. 7 Basilii homiliam quo (sic) ostenditur Deum esse incomprehensibilem, quæ non S. Basilii, sed Cyrilli est Procatechesis" (Reischl).
This description agrees in substance with Touttée's.
11. C. Colbert. "Catecheses iv., vi., viii., ix., x., xv., xviii., contuli cum cod. Colbert. Biblioth. chartaceo et recenti 4863 notato...In omnibus pene cum Morelliana editione consentit" (Touttée, Notitia Codd. MSS.).
Reischl makes no mention of this MS.
12. C. Colbert. alter. "membran. sign. 1717, Sec. xiii. diversas Patrum homilias continet, et Cat. xiii. exhibet sub nomine Cyrillianæ in Crucem et Porasceven homiliæ" (Touttée, Notitia).
This is described by Reischl as "Cod. Reg. 771 (ol. 1717) Colbertinus. Membran. fol. seculi xiii.-xiv."
The following MSS. have been used in Editions later than the Benedictine.
13. "C. Monacensis I. 394 membran. fol., titulis et initialibus miniatis, f. 261 nitidissime uncialibus minutis circiter seculo decimo in Oriente scriptus."
This was regarded both by Reischl and by Rupp as the most important authority for the text: it is much older than Codd. Roe, Casaub., and seems to be related to Codd. Ottobon. Coislin.
C. Mon. 2 of the 16th Century is of little value.
14. "C. Vindobonensis, 55, membran. fol antiquissimus, sed incerto sæculo."
A full account is given by Rupp in the Preface to Vol. ii. It was collated by Joseph Müller, 1848, and contains all Cyril's Lectures, except the Procatechesis.
15. Codex A, found by Kleopas in the Library of the Archbishop of Cyprus, and used as the basis of his text, sometimes stands alone in preserving the true reading.
§ 6. Versions. Besides the Latin Translations published with the Greek text, as mentioned above, Reischl mentions the first three of the following:--
(a) Les catéchèses de Sainct Cyrille. Traduit par Louis Ganey. Paris, 1564.
(b) Cyrill's Schriften übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen versehen von J. Mich. Feder.
(c) Cyrilli Hier. Catecheses in Armen. Linguam versæ. Viennæ 1832.
(d) The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, Translated, with Notes and Indices (Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church.) Parker, Oxford, 1838. See Preface.
(e) S. Cyril on the Mysteries. (The five Mystagogic Lectures.) H. de Romestin. Parker, Oxford, 1887.
(f) On Faith and the Creed. C. A. Heurtley, D.D., Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Parker, 3rd Ed., 1889. Contains, with other Treatises, the Fourth Catechetical Lecture of S. Cyril.
In the present volume the translation given in the Oxford "Library of Fathers" has been carefully revised throughout. Where it has been found necessary to depart from the Benedictine text, the Editor has consulted the readings and critical notes of Milles, Reischl, and Rupp, and the Jerusalem edition of Kleopas and Anaxandrides.
A few additions have been made to the index of Subjects: the Indices of Greek Words and of Scripture Texts have been much enlarged, and carefully revised. For any errors which may have escaped observation the indulgence of the critical reader will not, it is hoped, be asked in vain.
E. H. G
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at: BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html