Introduction

Chapter I

Life of S. Cyril

The works of S. Cyril of Jerusalem owe much of their peculiar interest and value to the character of the times in which he wrote. Born a few years before the outbreak of 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 Menaea, 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 vii^th 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 Caesarea 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 Caesarea, 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 Caesarea, 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 Treves 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 Caesarea, 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 Touttee 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 (S: 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. Touttee 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 phaenomenon 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 Touttee 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 Caesarea, 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 Caesarea, 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 Nicaea: “As custom and ancient tradition shew that the Bishop of AElia 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 Caesarea, and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem, presided.” If one Synod only is here meant, it would appear that the Bishop of Caesarea took precedence of the Bishop of Jerusalem, which would be the natural order in a Synod held at Caesarea. 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 Caesarea, 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 Nicaea, 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 Touttee 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 Caesarea, 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 Aetius 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 Nicaea 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 Caesarea. 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 Caesarea, and appointed a certain Philumenus . Whether this assumption of authority was in accordance with the 7th Canon of Nicaea 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 Caesarea 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 Caesarea 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 . Touttee 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.”

Chapter II

Catechetical Instruction

S: 1. Catechesis

The term “Catechesis” in its widest sense includes instruction by word of mouth on any subject sacred or profane , but is especially applied to Christian teaching, whether of an elementary kind appropriate to new converts, or, as in the famous Catechetical School of Alexandria, extending to the higher interpretation of Holy Scripture, and the exposition of Christian philosophy.

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 Didache 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 Didache, is given in “ The oldest Church Manual “ as Document V.

A further development of the Didache, “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 Didache is embodied almost word for word, but with significant omissions, alterations, and additions, which betray a later age. . . . The Didache 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 Didache, 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.

S: 2. Catechist

The duty of catechizing was not limited to a class of persons permanently set apart for that purpose, but all orders of the Clergy were accustomed to take part in the work. Even laymen were encouraged to teach children or new converts the first elements of religion, as we learn from Cyril’s exhortation: “If thou hast a child according to the flesh, admonish him of this now; and if thou hast begotten one through catechizing, put him also on his guard .” That this remark was addressed not to the Catechumens, but to such of the Faithful as happened to be present among his audience, appears from what he says elsewhere, “So thou likewise, though not daring before thy Baptism to wrestle with the adversaries, yet after thou hast received the grace, and art henceforth confident in the armour of righteousness, must then do battle, and preach the Gospel, if thou wilt .”

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 .

S: 3. Catechumens

The term Catechumen denoted a person who was receiving instruction in the Christian religion with a view to being in due time baptized. Such persons were either converts from Paganism and Judaism, or children of Christian parents whose Baptism had been deferred. For though the practice of Infant-Baptism was certainly common in the Early Church , it was not compulsory nor invariable. “In many cases Christian parents may have shared and acted on the opinion expressed by Tertullian in the second century, and by Gregory Nazianzen in the fourth, and thought it well to defer the Baptism of children, cases of grave sickness excepted, till they were able to make answer in their own name to the interrogations of the baptismal rite .”

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. S: 16, he seems to include them among those who are called by the “new name;” but in S: 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.

S: 4. Candidates for Baptism

Bingham, who himself makes four classes or degrees of Catechumens, acknowledges that “the Greek expositors of the ancient Canons,” and other writers, “usually make but two sorts .” These were (1) the imperfect (atelesteroi), called also hearers (akroomenoi , audientes), because in Church they were only allowed to remain till the Holy Scriptures had been read, the Sermon preached, the special prayers of the Catechumens said, and the blessing given to each by the Bishop in the words of the “prayer of the imposition of hands .” After this the Deacon says, “Go out, ye catechumens, in peace.” (2) After the Energumens also have been dismissed, the more perfect (teleioteroi, photizomenoi) remain on their knees in prayer (gonuklinontes, euchomenoi). Then the Deacon is to cry aloud, “Ye that are to be illuminated, pray. Let us the faithful all pray for them. And being sealed to God through His Christ, let them bow down their heads, and receive the blessing from the Bishop.” The “Prayer of the Imposition of hands” is then pronounced over them by the Bishop.

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. S: 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.

S: 5. Photizomenoi

In the first words of his Introductory Lecture Cyril addresses his hearers as hoi photizomenoi, “Ye who are being enlightened,” and from the Titles of the Catechetical Lectures i.-xviii., we see that this name was constantly used to distinguish the candidates preparing for immediate Baptism.

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 .”

Chapter III

Special Preparation for Baptism

S: 1. Penitence

The candidate for Baptism, having been duly admitted and registered, was required not only to be diligent in attending the course of Catechetical instruction , but also to enter at once upon a course of strict devotion and penitential discipline. “Those who are coming to Baptism,” says Tertullian, “must be constantly engaged in prayers, fastings, kneelings, and watchings, together with confession of all past faults .”

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 .

S: 2. Confession

‘Exomologesis. Great stress is laid by Cyril on the necessity not only of sincere inward repentance, but also of open confession. The words exomologeisthai, exomologesis have a twofold meaning and a wide application.

(1.) In the Septuagint they occur very frequently, especially in the Psalms, in the sense of “giving thanks or praise” (Heb. hdvh) , 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 .”

S: 3. Exorcism

One of the earliest ceremonies, after the registration of names, was Exorcism, which seems to have been often repeated during the Candidate’s course of preparation. “Receive with earnestness the exorcisms: whether thou be breathed upon or exorcised, the act is to thee salvation .”

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 formulae, 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 .”

Chapter IV

Ceremonies of Baptism and Chrism

S: 1. Renunciation

We have seen that Cyril’s last Catechetical Lecture was delivered in the early dawn of the Great Sabbath, Easter Eve. The additional instructions then promised concerning the behaviour of the Candidates were given on the same day, probably in the evening, when they were all assembled immediately before the administration of Baptism. The most important parts of the Baptismal ceremony are described by Cyril in the first Mystagogic Lecture, delivered on the Monday of Easter week. Thus in S: 1 he says, Let us now teach you these things exactly, that ye may know the significance of the things done to you on that evening of your Baptism.”

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. S: 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 .”

S: 2. Profession of Faith

After the renunciation of Satan the Candidate immediately turned to the East and said, “And I associate myself (suntassomai ) with Christ.” Cyril does not give the words, but seems to allude to the custom, when he speaks of the Candidates “turning from the West to the East, the place of light .”

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. S: 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. S: 4, belong, as we shall presently see, to a later stage of the ceremony.

S: 3. First Unction

On passing from the outer to the inner chamber of the Baptistery, the Candidate who had made his renunciation and profession barefoot and wearing his tunic (Chiton) only, now put off this inner garment also, as an emblem of putting off the man with his deeds . A further significance is ascribed by Cyril to this unclothing of Candidate, as being an imitation both of Christ, who hung naked on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and the powers, and “of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed.”

“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.

S: 4. Baptism

After this anointing the Candidates were “led by the hand to the sacred pool of Holy Baptism .” This pool (kolumbethra) was supplied with water raised from the reservoirs, of which, as we shall see, the Bordeaux Pilgrim speaks in his description of the Basilica.

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.

S: 5. Trine Immersion

This short confession appears to have been made by way of question and answer thrice repeated. “Thou wast asked, Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty? Thou saidst, I believe, and dippedst thyself, that is, wast buried. Again thou wast asked, Dost thou believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in His Cross? Thou saidst, I believe, and dippedst thyself; therefore thou wast buried with Christ also: for he who is buried with Christ, rises again with Christ. A third time thou wast asked, Dost thou believe also in the Holy Ghost? Thou saidst, I believe, a third time thou dippedst thyself; that the threefold confession might absolve the manifold fault of thy former life .” But Cyril of Alexandria, as quoted by Bingham , “makes these answers not only to be a confession of the three Persons of the Trinity, but a triple confession of Christ; which implies a repetition of the Creed (the shortened form?) three times over.”

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 Didache 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.

S: 6. Chrism

The custom of anointing the baptized with consecrated ointment is regarded by Cyril as a sacramental act representing the anointing of Jesus by the Spirit at His Baptism. “As the Holy Ghost in substance lighted on Him, like resting upon like, so, after you had come up from the pool of the sacred waters, there was given to you an unction the counterpart (to antitupon) of that wherewith He was anointed, and this is the Holy Ghost .” As “He was anointed with a spiritual oil of gladness, that is with the Holy Ghost, called oil of gladness, because He is the author of spiritual gladness, so ye were anointed with ointment, and made partakers and fellows of the Christ .” The ceremony was very ancient: there is probably a reference to it in the words of Theophilus of Antioch (c. a.d. 170): “We are called Christians, because we are anointed with the oil of God.” Tertullian, a little later, after speaking of Baptism, says: “Immediately on coming out of the Laver we are thoroughly anointed with a consecrated unction ;” and again, “After that, the hand is laid upon us in benediction, invoking and inviting the Holy Ghost .” In another passage he mentions also the sign of the Cross: “The flesh is washed, that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed that the soul may be consecrated, the flesh is signed [with the Cross] that the soul also may be guarded; the flesh is overshadowed by imposition of the hand, that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit.”

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.”

Chapter V

Eucharistic Rites. Liturgy

S: 1. First Communion

When the rites of Baptism and Chrism were completed, the new-made Christians, clothed in white robes (Myst. iv. 8), and bearing each a lighted taper in his hand, passed in procession from the Baptistery into the great “Church of the Resurrection.” The time was still night, as we gather from the allusion in Procat., S: 15: “May God at length shew you that night, that darkness which shines like the day, concerning which it is said, darkness shall not be hidden from thee, and the night shall be light as the day.” As the newly-baptized entered the church, they were welcomed in the words of the 32nd Psalm. “Even now,” says Cyril (Procat., S: 15), “let your ears ring, as it were, with that glorious sound, when over your salvation the Angels shall chant, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; when like stars of the Church you shall enter in, bright in the body and radiant in the soul.” During the chanting of the Psalm the neophytes seem to have stood in front of the raised bema’ or sanctuary, as we learn from Cyril’s eloquent contemporary, Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. XL. S: 46: “The station in which presently after Baptism thou wilt stand before the great sanctuary prefigures the glory from yonder heaven; the psalmody, with which thou wilt be welcomed, is a prelude of those heavenly hymns; the lamps, which thou wilt light, are a mystic sign of the procession of lights, with which bright and virgin souls shall go forth to meet the Bridegroom, with the lamps of faith burning brightly.”

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, S: 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., S: 2: Mystag., iv. 88) were worn until the Octave of Easter, Low Sunday, Dominica in Albis (Bingham, XII. c. iv. S: 3).

Chapter VI

S. Cyril’s Writings

S: 1. List of Works

Besides the Catechetical and Mystagogic Lectures translated in this volume, the extant works of S. Cyril include (1) the “Letter to the Emperor Constantius concerning the appearance at Jerusalem of a luminous Cross in the sky:” (2) “The Homily on the Paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda:” and (3) Fragments of Sermons on the Miracle of the water changed into wine, and on John xvi. 28, “I go to My Father.”

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.