Mystagogical Lecture III
THIRD LECTURE ON THE MYSTERIES
The Holy Chrism "But you have an anointing from God and you know all things, etc . ... that we may have confidence and may not shrink ashamed from him at his coming."l
(1) "Baptized into Christ" and "clothed with Christ,"2 you have been shaped to the likeness of the Son of God.3 For God, in "predestining us to be adopted as his 80ns,"4 has "conformed us to the body of the glory"5 of Christ. As "partakers6 of Christ," therefore, you are rightly called "Christs," i.e.,
"anointed ones": it was of you that God said: "Touch not my Christs."7 Now, you became Christs by receiving the antitype8 of the Holy Spirit; everything has been wrought in you
1 1 John 2.20-28.
2 Gal. 3.27.
3 Cf. Rom. 8.29.
4 Cf. Eph. 1.5.
5 Phil. 3.21.
6 Heb. 3.14; or "partners" or "fellows."
7 Ps. 104.15, Sept.
8 Counterpart, sign, sacramental element; cf. below, 3.1; 2.6; 4.3 ("type"); 5.20. The idea of Greek type and antitype is that of the die or "engraved stamp for coining, striking medal, embossing paper, etc." (Concise Oxford Dictionary, s.v. die). Thus in theology the antitype is the earthly copy of the heavenly reality and model (Heb. 9.24) or, as in I Peter 3.21 (saving Baptism as the anti type of the Deluge) and in Myst., the sacrament which, without being identical with the heavenly realities or the saving events, mediates their benefits. Thus in 2.6 Baptism confers the benefits of Christ's Passion and perhaps a mystical identification with it, yet "you did not really die"; it was the salvation that was "in truth" (2.5; cf. 2.7 end). Similarly here the antitype is contrasted with the Spirit "ousiodes," and "all is done imagewise." On the other hand, compared with the Old Testament figures (types, 3.6), the sacrament is the fulfillment and reality.
MYSTAGOGICAL LECTURE III
"likewise" because you are likenesses of Christ.9
He bathed in the river Jordan and, after imparting the fragrance of His Godhead to the waters, came up from them.
Him the Holy Spirit visited in essential presence, like resting10 upon like.H Similarly for you, after you had ascended from the sacred streams, there was an anointing with chrism, the anti type of that with which Christ was anointed,12 that is, of the Holy Spirit. Concerning this Spirit the blessed Isaia, in the prophetical book which bears his name, said, speaking in the person of the Lord: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he hath anointed me. He hath sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor."13
(2) For Christ was not anointed by men with material oil or balsam; His Father, appointing Him Savior of the whole world, anointed Him with the Holy Spirit as Peter says: "Jesus
Gifford's gloss, "figure," therefore is too weak; but Touttee goes too far in saying that the anti type may be simply identical with its heavenly original. Even in the Eucharist (Myst. 5.20) "the anti type of the Body" seems not simply to identify the heavenly Body of Christ and its sacramental sign; the Presence is sacramental. For Irenaeus's usage, see Adv. haer. 4.17.5, 4.18.1·5, and fragment 13.
9 The chapter glides elusively from Baptism to Chrism. As partakers of Christ, they are "christs," but, since "Christ" is "anointed," they became christs not at Baptism but at Chrism. Yet in the pre·baptismal anointing (2.3) they became "partakers of Christ and His richness" and at Baptism (2.4, 5) they imitated and partook of His death, burial and resurrection. The author has, indeed, one more card to play; he can say (3.1, 2, 4) that, while at Baptism they imitated
Christ's baptism, it is only in Chrismation that they received the "counterpart" ("antitype") of the Holy Spirit's subsequent descent upon Him. But since the descent of the Spirit manifested Christ's
Messianic Sonship, and the candidates had already in Baptism (2.6) received adoptive sonship, it is a weak card; it involves separating adoption from the Spirit. So already in 3.1 the author begins to emphasize the verbal connection between christ-ening and chrism
(anointing). Compare 3.5.
"Likewise"; i.e., "iconically," i.e., as "images" of Christ, following in the footsteps of the leader and trail-blazer (arch egos, 3.7); the master theme of Myst. 2 and 3.
10 Epanapauomenou, found not at John 1.33, but at Luke 10.6 and Num_ 11.25, 26.
11 Cf. Sir. 13.16.
12 Cf. Clem. Alex, Paed. 1.6.25.
13 Isa. 6U.
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit."14
The prophet David also made proclamation: "Thy throne, o God, is forever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness. Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."15
As Christ was really crucified and buried and rose again, and you at Baptism are privileged to be crucified, buried, and raised along with Him in a likeness, so also with the chrism.
Christ was anointed with a mystical oil of gladness; that is, with the Holy Spirit, called "oil of gladness" because He is the cause of spiritual gladness; so you, being anointed with ointment, have become partakers and fellows of Christ.
(3) Beware of supposing that this ointment is mere ointment. Just as after the invocation of the Holy Spirit the eucharistic bread is no longer ordinary bread, but the Body of Christ, so this holy oil, in conjunction with the invocation,16 is no longer simple or common oil, but becomes the gracious gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit, producing the advent
[presence?] of His deity.17 With this ointment your forehead 14 Cf. Acts 10.38.
15 Ps. 44 (45).7,8: the anointing of the Messianic King; d. 3.5 below.
16 The "with" (not "after") perhaps implies that the "invocation"
(epiklesis) is the accompanying prayer (the "form") and that the chrism does not owe its supernatural efficacity to a previous consecration by the Bishop. But one cannot be sure; see ApTrad 21.6-10, 19;
22.1-4. Note the analogy (not necessarily exact) drawn here (3.3) between the chrism and the Eucharistic elements.
17 See Myst. 2, n. 16. The text, translation and meaning of this very important sentence have been hotly debated. I read parousias, "of His advent/presence," following Piedagnel's text and the practically unanimous MS tradition. But this gives a rather difficult text (a plethora of genitives), so much so that the best earlier editors and interpreters
(Milles, Touttee, Reischl-Rupp, F. L. Cross, supported by Dean Church, E. H. Gifford, Pusey, and Piedagnel in his translation) emended to parousiiii (dative), "by His advent producing His deity."
But the MS text (genitive) gives the better sense; while a sacrament cannot produce a divine person or his deity, it can bring his advent/ presence. The MS text could also be translated: "gift of Christ, working the advent of the Holy Ghost (of His deity)," and the rhythm favours this. My criterion was the reader's convenience; my translation gives a better indication of the various possible meanings of the sentence.
MYSTAGOGICAL LECTURE III
and sense organs are sacramentally anointed, in such wise that while your body is anointed with the visible oil, your soul is sanctified by the holy, quickening Spirit.1s
(4, You are anointed first upon the forehead19 to rid you of the shame which the first human transgressor bore about with him everywhere; so you may "reflect as in a glass the (See further the interesting but unreliable reading of MS Monac. 394.)
Gifford, reading parousiiii, translates: "and imparts (Christ's) divine nature by the advent of the Holy Ghost." This interpretation has something to be said for it. It explains "of His deity," since Christ has two natures. It is, moreover, supported by the Prayer for the consecration of the Chrism in ApCo 7.44: "Grant that this ointment may be made effectual to the baptized one, that the sweet savour of Christ (cf. Myst. 3.4) may remain in him and that, having died in Him, he may rise again and live with Him." Cf. also Myst. 3.2, end.
It fits also the quite strong doctrine of Baptism in Myst. 2. Thus here (Gifford): "Chrism confirms the work of Baptism"-while indicating, we may add, the Eastern doctrine of post-baptismal progressive
"divinization."
This may well have been the original import of the passage. But in the Myst. we are dealing with stratified literature of a date, presumably, when the enhanced prestige of the Holy Ghost, whose deity and consubstantiality were being emphasized, combined with the (late?) idea that it is chris-mation which christens, threw the earlier doctrine of initiation into confusion or seemed to put it in question.
We may, therefore, have here a C doctrine superimposed on earlier formulas. Certainly Gifford's interpretation hardly does full justice to the context, in which the "parousia" of the Holy Ghost-Hof His
Deity" (an interpolation? the superimposed interpretation, exalting this Coming over "the gift of the Holy Ghost = Adoption" in 2.6not a theologically possible distinction; see Appended note A)-is itself the main thing.
On this interpretation the intention of Myst. 3, esp. 3.3, is to exalt Chrism over Baptism. This is to attempt the impossible, even within the context of the Myst., in view of all that is ascribed to Baptism in Myst. 2 and 3.5 and the denial (3.1) that in Chrism the Spirit visits the baptized ousiades. (Nor can the Chrism, as Gifford suggests, impart Christ's divine nature, since this was given in Adoption.) If this sentence, therefore, is to be harmonized with the rest of the Myst., the gift of 3.3, however lofty, is but accessory and confirmatory of Baptism. The question also arises whether the graces listed in 3.4-7 are additional minor graces or whether they define the great grace mentioned in the problematic sentence. The immediate sequel of this sentence suggests the latter.
18 Cf. Tert., Bapt. 6.
19 With the sign of the Cross (the Western episcopal "consignatio"?), cf. Ps.-Dionysius, Hier. eccl. 2.2.7. In Didasc. Ap. and (women only)
ApCo 3.15 the bishop anoints the head or forehead only, showing
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
splendor of the Lord."20 Then upon the ears, to receive ears quick to hear the divine mysteries, the ears of which Isaia said: "The Lord gave me also an ear to hear,"21 and the Lord
Jesus in the Gospels: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."22 Then upon the nostrils, that, scenting the divine oil, you may say: "We are the incense offered by Christ to God, in the case of those who are on the way to salvation."23 Then on the breast, that "putting on the breastplate of justice you may be able to withstand the wiles of the Devil."24 For as Christ after His Baptism and the visitation of the Holy Spirit went forth and overthrew the adversary, so must you after holy Baptism and the mystical Chrism, clad in the armor of the Holy Spirit, stand firm against the forces of the Enemy and overthrow them, saying: "I can do all things in the Christ who strengthens me."25
(5) Once privileged to receive the holy Chrism, you are called Christians and have a name that bespeaks your new birth.26 Before admission to Baptism and the grace of the Holy Spirit you were not strictly entitled to this name but were like people on the way towards being Christians.
(6) You must know that this Chrism is prefigured in the Old Testament. When Moses, conferring on his brother the divine appointment, was ordering him high priest, he anointed him after he had bathed in water, and thenceforward he was its special importance. In Myst. it reverses the sign of Cain (Gen.
4.15).
20 2 Cor. 3.18.
21 Cf. Isa. 50.4.
22 Matt. 11.15.
23 2 Cor. 2.15.
24 Eph. 6.14,11.
25 Phil. 4.13 in the version of, among others, Origen. The Chrism theory may have corne to Antioch from Alexandria. Both Clement and Origen were strong on Chrism, and d. the "Ointment" addition in Coptic Did. 10.8.
26 Did this verbal correspondence cause Chrismation to be originally chosen as the medium of the conveyance of the Spirit or only later suggest the connection of the Spirit with Chrismation and so confuse theology? In the next sentence "and" is missing in 'Y'
MYSTAGOGICAL LECTURE III
called "christ"27 ["anointed"], clearly after the figurative28 Chrism. Again, the high priest, when installing Solomon as king, anointed him after he had bathed in Gihon.29 But what was done to them in figure was done to you, not in figure but in truth, because your salvation began from Him who was anointed by the Holy Spirit in truth. Christ is the beginning of your salvation, since He is truly the "first handful" of dough and you "the whole lump":3o and if the first handful be holy, plainly its holiness will permeate the lump.
(7)' Keep this Chrism unsullied; for it shall teach you all things if it abide in you, as you heard the blessed John declaring just now as he expatiated upon the Chrism.31 For this holy thing is both a heavenly protection of the body and salvation for the soul. It was of this anointing that in ancient times the blessed Isaia prophesied saying: "And the Lord shall make unto all people in this mountain" (elsewhere also he calls the Church a mountain, as when he says: "And in the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest")32
" ... and they shall drink wine, they shall drink gladness, they shall anoint themselves with ointment."33 To alert you to the mystical meaning of "ointment" here, he says: "All this deliver to the nations: for the counsel of the Lord is upon all the nations."34
Anointed, then, with this holy oil, keep it in you unsullied, without blame, making progress through good works and becoming well-pleasing to "the trail-blazer of our salvation,"85
Christ Jesus, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.36
27 Lev. 8.5, 12; cf. 4.5.
28 Ck.: "typical."
29 1 (3) Kings 1.38, 39.
30 Cf. Rom. 11.16.
31 In the text lesson, 1 John 2.27.
32 Isa. 2.2. Such interrupted quotations occur in the Lenten Lectures.
33 Isa. 5.6, Sept.
34 Isa. 25.7, Sept.
35 Reb. 2.10; 2 Cor. 5.9.
36 Myst. 3 mentions neither Pentecost nor imposition of hands; Cat.
16.26 (end) suggests that the chrismation of the (fore)head (consignation) was equivalently a laying on of the hand.
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
TWO APPENDED NOTES ON BAPTISM AND
CHRISM (CONFIRMATION) AT JERUSALEM
Appended Note A Myst. 3.3: When is the Holy Spirit Given?
With Myst. 3.3 compare Tert., Rapt. 7-8: "(After the Bath) we are anointed thoroughly with a blessed unction according to the ancient rule ... The unction runs bodily over us, but profits spiritually.
Next the hand is laid upon us, through the blessing calling upon and inviting the Holy Spirit." B. Neunheuser remarks (Baptism and Confirmation 89) that if TertuIlian really means what he says (d. ch. 6), that the Holy Spirit is not given in Baptism, he stands in opposition to the universal early tradition.
St. Cyprian says several times that it is by the post-baptismal laying on of hands that the Holy Ghost is given. Besides Ep. 73 (72).6 and 21, we read (Ep. 74[73].7) : "A person is not born through the laying on of hands, when he receives the Holy Spirit, but in Baptism, that, born, he may then receive the Holy Spirit. Compare the case of the first man, Adam; God first formed him, and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen. 2.7). For before the spirit can be received there must be something there to receive it." There could hardly be a stronger statement of the C theory (see above, p. 160), for Cyprian here implies that the New Creation produced by Baptism is not quickened-has no supernatural lifeuntil a further sacrament follows. (Certainly it is the Spirit who quickens, but He does so in Baptism.) Yet in Ep. 73 (72).12 Cyprian can say that Baptism confers the remission of sins, that remission of sins entails sanctification, and "if he was sanctified, he was made the temple of God"-without receiving the Holy Spirit? The context excludes the possibility that Cyprian was using the word "Baptism" in the broad sense. When Cyprian reserves the gift of the Spirit to imposition of hands, one often feels that he is accepting, for argument's sake, premisses which are not quite his own (and perhaps not Stephen'S either).
Ca. 252 Cornelius of Rome (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.43.14) complained that the anti-Pope Fabian had not received the Spirit because, after a clinical Baptism, he had not bothered to receive the ordinary additional ceremonies, especially the sealing by the bishop.
Apparently against this position Cyprian (Ep. 69[75].13-14) asserts that clinical Baptism bestows the Holy Spirit in the same fullness that ordinary Baptism does. And his whole position, asserting against St. Stephen of Rome the invalidity of heretical schismatic Baptism,
MYSTAGOGICAL LECTURE III
is based on his emphasis upon the intimate assoCIatIOn of the Holy Spirit with Baptism as at least its agent. M. J. Rouet de
Journel, Enchiridion patristicum (20th ed. Freiburg im B. etc. 1958) 795 (under the thesis "Confirmatio est verum sacramentum"), is,
I think, right in his judgment that Cyprian held that Confirmation is a sacrament (a vague word in Cyprian) but did not hold that it is necessary to salvation. This is still the Roman position (Canon 787). The explanation of Cyprian's contradictions is probably that, though misled in such passages as Ep. 74 (73).7
(above) by the phrase "the gift of the Spirit," which sounds like a greater grace than any of the Spirit's gifts or graces, yet in his deepest thinking he knew that the grace of Baptism was greater than that of Confirmation. So in Ep. 74 (73).5, arguing against Pope
Stephen, who refused to rebaptize those who came to the Church after receiving heretical Baptism but only imposed hands to bestow the Spirit, he writes (again, incidentally, implying that Baptism makes one a temple of God) : "It a man born (Le., baptized) outside the Church can become God's temple, why cannot further the Holy
Spirit be poured out upon the temple? For when sanctified ... and spiritually recreated a new man, a person is fitted for the reception of the Spirit ... If a person baptized among heretics can put on Christ, much more can he receive the Spirit whom Christ sent. Otherwise he who is sent will be greater than he who sends ...
As if it were possible either for Christ to be put on without the Spirit or for the Spirit to be separated from Christ." That is, the position attacked implies an Ebionite Christology.
The De rebaptismate (A.D. ca. 256) defended the validity of schismatic Baptism "by a very peculiar and unfortunate distinction between Baptism of water and Baptism of the Spirit to be conferred by the bishop's imposition of hands" (Quasten, Patrology II 368).
Let us now return to Myst. 3.3, careful to distinguish the questions what is the right answer to this problem and what is the teaching of the Mystagogiae The author of the Mystagogiae is forced by his chosen typology here unduly to exalt Chrism against Baptism (see Myst. 2 n. 10). Where he ought (I think) to say that Christ's washing in Jordan corresponds to the sacrament of Baptism, that the descent of the Spirit corresponds to the grace of Baptism (forgiveness of sins and Sonship) and that the Voice and the Dove are but the visibilization of this grace, he has chosen to regard the washing in Jordan and the descent of the Spirit as two successive historical events on the same plane. If they are to be correlated with Baptism and Chrism/Confirmation, the only solution seems to be to say that Baptism gives forgiveness of sins, while
Chrism gives the Spirit, or (like the De rebaptismate) to correlate the two events with Baptism of water and Baptism of the Spirit (and reinterpret John 3.5 accordingly). Myst. 3 avoids such a drastic
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
solution. Still it must say that at Chrism the Holy Spirit descends; He "is given." But we saw (Myst. 2 n. 16) that at 2.6 Baptism bestowed "the gift of the Spirit (=Adoption)." Still perhaps "upon this gift (of Adoption) by the Spirit now comes the gift of the Spirit in Chrismation"? In a sense. But, first, this distinction is bogus. Whenever the Holy Spirit gives any grace, He does so by descending, by coming; He can do no other. Second, the Spirit is never, strictly, "given" to us; we do not possess Him, but He us; and He possesses us through the grace of Adoption. Third, we need to correct our semantic or lexical values: "the gift of the Spirit" in the New Testament is not, commonly, a stronger phrase than such descriptions of the benefits of Baptism as regeneration, adoption of sons, new creation, etc. On the contrary, the "giving of the Spirit" often denotes such inessential graces as charismata, speaking with tongues, working miracles, etc.; see Acts passim. This seems to be the regular usage of Cyril's Lenten Lectures. The Mystagogical Lectures seem to agree. Not only do the Mystagogiae
(2.6) ascribe to Baptism the supreme gifts of regeneration, the putting on of Christ and Adoption, but in 3.1 they three times sharply distinguish the grace of Chrism from the Spirit's descent ousi6des upon Christ, twice by saying that the candidates received only the anti type of the Holy Ghost, and further by the phrase "in likeness" (eikonikOs).
Similarly there is a sense in which Chrism does give "the fullness" of the Spirit; probably Myst. 3.3 has in mind the permanent "indwelling" of the Spirit in us (d. "resting" in 3.1). Naturally (Basil,
Hom. in Ps. 44. PG 29.405A), since Chrism follows Baptism, it must mark some advance upon it. But this is compatible with giving the essential and supreme gift in Baptism. Chrism completes, confirms and tops off what has been done, like a dash of an additive in the fuel tank. To improve Cyprian'S regrettable analogy with Adam: you must have a car, and a tank with fuel in it before there is any point in introducing the additive; or we may say that Confirmation gives a (permanent) "overdrive."
But the Chrism of Myst. gives rather more than this. Apart from (or included in) the important grace (Myst. 3.3) which we have tried to assess, it is almost certainly in Chrism (4.7; d. 2 Cor. 1.22?) that the Seal is given (contrast Cat. 3.4), though the word used in 4.7 is elaion. The "Seal," however, is a variable quantity. It may mean the great eschatological seal, or a writer may mean that the document (covenant) is not valid until the seal has been affixed, or this may be thought of as a desirable but not essential formality, or the Seal may be thought of merely as the securing of the sanctified soul against unlawful entry by the powers of evil.
Again, the Chrism sanctifies the senses (3.4), makes us incontestably Christians, enables us to do battle with the Enemy (3.5), and confers (3.6) "lay ordination," participation in Christ's royal
MYSTAGOGICAL LECTURE III
priesthood, so important in Eastern Christendom (N. Zernov, Eastern Christendom [New York 1961] 250).
Appended Nate B The Doctrine of Baptism in the Lenten Lectures On the whole, the Lectures on the Mysteries teach the B theory
(see above, p. 160). For, while they correlate Chrism certainly with the descent of the Spirit, almost certainly with the Seal, and probably with the indwelling of the Spirit, yet they do not seem to regard any of these as privileged categories and therefore they do not seem to exalt Chrism over against Baptism. The Seal is mentioned casually only in Myst. 4.7. To Baptism they ascribe forgiveness of sins, the putting on of Christ, regeneration (3.5), participation in Christ's Passion, and "the gift of the Spirit" in the sense of adoptive sonship (2.6).
The opening lectures in the Lenten series teach a very decided B theory, but there are a few passages in the later lectures which perhaps require a (drastic?) modification of the impression left by the early lectures. In the opening lectures it is clear that practically everything is mediated by "the water," and if St. Cyril ever here has any other ceremony in mind, he clearly regards it as supplementary and secondary. But while the two series are thus not very far apart in doctrine, they differ markedly in their biblical exegesis and typology or, as we perhaps may here more appropriately call it, christ·iconology.
For the most part the Lenten Lectures know no distinction between the Spirit as gift and His sanctifying, transforming and recreating activity. When in some later passages such a distinction is implied, the gift of the Spirit (objective, defining genitive) seems to be a weaker phrase than the gift (=grace) of the Spirit.
In Procat. 2A and 4E the Spirit acts through the water.
(For the use of the letters A, B, C, D, E, see above, p. 149.) "The reception ot the Holy Ghost" in Cat. 3.2B is clearly the same thing as acceptance by the Holy Ghost in Procat. 4E and the "reception of the grace" in Cat. 3.7E. The "grace" or "gift" (usually charis, less often charisma; in Cat. 1.4E dorea) is the commonest and apparently all-inclusive term (especially) in these opening lectures. It is normally thought of as the gift or grace of the Spirit as agent but with no hint of a contrast with the Spirit Himself as gift. And it is clear that this gift is mediated by water. Sometimes this is said explicitly or unmistakably implied (e.g., Procat. 2A,
15C; Cat. 3.3D, 4C), and it is consistently implied by the very frequent references to "the water" or "the laver." Note especially
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
3.3-5, with the praise of water in 3.5; also the passages about Simon Magus's baptism. invalid from the first through lack of proper intention (Procat. 2A. 4E; d. Cat. 3.7D; 17.35-36; in 17.35 the Spirit seals the soul even. apparently. when a deacon baptizes).
Again, water is mentioned in the more or less immediate vicinity of all the great gifts of Baptism: adoption, new birth, new life, union with Christ, the Seal etc.
In the Lenten: Lectures (contrast Myst. 4.7). the Seal is certainly given through the water. Cat. 1.2C. 3D; and 3.3B are most naturally read in this sense, and it is actually said twice in 3.4. once equivalently: "As the water purifies the body, so the Spirit seals the soul," where the two actions are clearly parallel and the dualism is that of inner and outer, of sacramental sign and spiritual grace; once explicitly: "the seal (conveyed) by water." Cat. 5.6D, though not strictly explicit, is equally clear. The Lenten Lectures (4.17A) connect the Seal with the credal profession and so with the baptismal contract or covenant.
Another, equally important and significant, difference from the Mystagogical Lectures is the fact that, while the Mystagogical
Lectures (3.1CD, d. 4E) regard the descent of the Spirit upon Our Lord by the Jordan as an event different from and subsequent to His baptism, and as typifying a different sacrament
(Chrism), in the parallel passages in the Lenten Lectures the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus while John is baptizing Him.
For in Cat. 17.9A the Greek has two present participles: "This Holy Ghost came down while the Lord was being baptized, that the dignity of Him who was being baptized might not pass unnoticed"; and the context shows that "baptism" is waterbaptism. So also probably 3.14C: "that John, who was baptizing
Him (ho baptizon) might see (the Spirit in the form of a dove)."
(Incidentally, such passages as 3.6A, 7A, 11 A, 14; 17.9A. establishing a close connection between John's Baptism and Christian
Baptism, show that St. Cyril regarded the physical rite in the two baptisms as the same, and therefore prove that "Baptism" in the Lenten Lectures regularly means water-baptism.) Thus. whereas in the Mystagogiae (3.4DE) Jesus, and Christians after Him, give battle to Satan. not immediately after Baptism. but only after the descent of the Spirit regarded as a second event
(=Chrism), in the Lenten Lectures (3.11-13, d. Procat. 10, 16BE) Jesus overcomes the Dragon and binds "the Strong One" in the water and preaches immediately afterwards. while the candidates likewise receive their armour from the pre-baptismal teaching and from Baptism, after which they fight and preach (Procat. 10;
Cat. 1.4; 3.13-14).
Another striking difference between the typology of the Mystagogical and the Lenten Lectures is that, while the Mystagogiae are as enigmatically silent about Pentecost as they are about
MYSTAGOGICAL LECTURE III
John the Baptist and John 3.3-5, in the Lenten Lectures Pentecost is the fulfillment and realization of the promise implicit in John's baptism and is the Baptism of the Apostles. See Cat.
3.9 (d. 3.15D) and the fine account (17.13-15, 19) where the Pentecostal baptismal flames which enveloped the Apostles are interpreted as "spiritual" (noetou) water and are compared with the waters which encompassed and whelmed the candidates when they "submerged" in the font. The fire/water burns away sin and "further" (eti) burnishes the soul and imparts to it charis (grace, beauty).
A comparable difference between the two series concerns the Aaronic priesthood. In Myst. 3.6 Aaron and Solomon together are the prefiguring type of the royal priesthood which is bestowed on the candidates by the chrismation. Both Aaron and Solomon are said to have first bathed and then been anointed respectively priest and king. In the Lenten Lectures, by contrast, Solomon appears only as an example of a penitent (2.13), and "Aaron was first washed, then became high priest" (3.5E)-no anointing. Moreover in the Lenten Lectures Aaron is a type of Christ's high priesthood in which the ordinary faithful do not partake. For in 3.5E the High Priest "prays for the rest" (d. Our Lord's intercessory priesthood in Hebrews). So in 10.11, the Lord "is called Christ (anointed), because He is a Priest ... For Christ is a High Priest like Aaron"
(d. Eus., Rist. eccl. 1.3). If there is any reference to the New Covenant in 10.11, 14 and 11.1, it is apparently the ordained ministers of the Church who partake, imperfectly, of Christ's priesthood after ordination by anointing. Apart from 18.33, the Lenten
Lectures apparently know nothing of a "priesthood of all believers" bestowed by Chrismation; believers are Christians not Christs. Perhaps Cat. 10.16 changes this picture. There all believers have the "new name"; i.e., they are called "Christians" after "Christ" meaning priest king. As, however, it is not inferred that Christians share in the priestly rulership of their Lord, this may be a transitional passage. In Procat. 6 the divine name bestowed in Baptism is
"faithful" (Pistos).
Finally, John 3.3-5 and Acts 2.38 are always interpreted in the Lenten Lectures in the B sense. And normally the Lenten Lectures associate together as inseparable all the great graces of Baptism and connect them with the water. For example, in Cat 1.1-2 the cleansing by water seems inseparable from the new birth, adoption, the mystical Seal, the opening of the gates of Paradise and the singing of the bridal song. Similarly in 3.1-3 the washing clean from sin in the laver seems inseparable from "the reception of the Holy Ghost," introduction into the bridal chamber of the King and the bestowal of the Seal.
Now, however, we must consider briefly a few passages of a very different tenor towards the end of the Lenten Lectures. According
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
to Cat. 14.25E (after mention of Elia and Eliseus), Christ bestowed the Spirit upon His disciples (the Apostles?) in such fullness as to enable them "by the laying on of their hands to impart the fellowship of It to believers." In 17.25 we are told of the visit of Peter and John to Samaria and how they imparted the fellowship of the Holy Ghost "with prayer and the imposition of hands" to Philip's new converts (d. Acts S.14-17). Nothing, however, is made of the fact that Philip was a mere deacon, nor is Baptism explicitly mentioned.
But the crucial passage is Cat. 16.26E, for in the above passages the candidates are not brought into the picture. After a discussion of the Seventy Elders (with Eldad and Medad) (Num. 11.24-30), a reference to Deut. 34.9 and the statement that Num. 11.29 was
"fulfilled" at Pentecost, we read:
Thou seest the same figure everywhere in the Old and New Testaments. In the time of Moses the Spirit was given by the laying on of hands (cheirothesia), and by the laying on of hands
Peter also gives the Spirit [Acts S.17]. Upon thee also, the baptizand, soon shall the grace come. But just how, I am not telling you now, for I won't anticipate "the proper season."
It looks as if the baptizand will receive the Spirit by some form of imposition of hands (chrismation? consignation?). Cheirothesia in ApCo 2.32.3 is consignation; in 3.16.3 it confers the royal priesthood as in Myst. 3.6; in 7.44.3 it distinguishes Christian from Jewish baptism; but see also Serapion, Euchologion 15, title.
Do these texts transform the whole picture sketched above? They would if that picture had relied on silence instead of on positive texts. Is interpolation at 16.26E a possibility? It has apparently occurred in the "consubstantial" insertion in some manuscripts at 16.24C. And note the repetition (16.26C, 27A) of "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Cat. 16.27 could follow naturally on 16.25. Again, 16.1112 strongly suggests that the Holy Ghost is given through water, and 16.12C seems to mean that the candidates are prepared by their Lenten repentance for the Holy Spirit whom they will receive in the water.
But probably the Lenten Lectures are "stratified"; i.e., they contain some additions by Cyril, or possibly by another hand. Another example may be the hieratikos ("like priests") in lS.33C; IS.33 looks rather like a later doublet of lS.32, the latter representing a period when there was no Easter Week catechizing.