Behold Him, therefore, as a man, enduring with us the things that belong to man's estate, and fulfilling all righteousness, for the plan of salvation's sake. And this thou learnest from what the Evangelist says: "And it came to pass that when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized, and prayed." Was He too then in need of holy baptism? But what benefit could accrue to Him from it? The Only-begotten Word of God is Holy of the Holy: so the Seraphim name Him in their praises: so every where the law names Him: and the company of the holy prophets accords with the writings of Moses. What is it that we gain by holy baptism? Plainly the remission of our sins. But in Jesus there was nought of this; "for He did no sin: neither was guile found "in His mouth," as the Scripture saith. "He was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sins, and made higher than the heavens," according to the words of the divine Paul.
But yes! perchance some one will say, who has been ill instructed in the faith, 'Was it then God the Word that was baptized? Was He in need of being made partaker of the Holy Ghost? Not at all. Therefore it is that we affirm, that the man who was of the seed of David, and united unto Him by conjunction , was baptized and received the Spirit.' The |45 Indivisible therefore is divided by you into two sous: and because He was baptized when, thirty years old, He was made holy, as you say, by being baptized. Was He therefore not holy until He arrived at His thirtieth year? Who will assent to you, when thus you corrupt the right and blameless faith? For "there is one Lord Jesus Christ," as it is written. But this we affirm: that He was not separate from Him, and by Himself when baptized and made partaker of the Holy Ghost: for we know, both that He is God, and without stain, and Holy of the Holy: for we confess that "of His fulness have all we received." For the Holy Spirit indeed proceedeth from God the Father, but belongeth also to the Son. It is even often called the Spirit of Christ, though proceeding from God the Father. And to this Paul will testify, saying, at one time, "They that are in the flesh cannot please God: but ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any one have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." And again, "But because ye are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Father, our Father." The Holy Spirit therefore proceedeth indeed as I said from God the Father, but His Only-begotten Word, as being both by nature and verily Son, and resplendent with the Father's dignities, ministereth It to the creation, and bestoweth It on those that are worthy. Yea verily He said, "All things that the Father hath are mine."
But let us retort upon those who pervert the right belief this question; 'How can He Who received the Spirit, if He be, according to your phrase, a man, and the Son separately and by Himself, baptize with the Holy Ghost, and Himself give the Holy Spirit to them who are baptized?' For to be able to impart the Spirit to men suiteth not any one whatsoever of things created, but, together with God's other attributes, is the distinct property of Almighty God alone. But He Who gave It was man: for the wise John said, "After me cometh a Man, Who was before me . . . He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." As therefore it is unbefitting God the Word, |46 regarded as God the Word, to draw near unto holy baptism, and be made partaker of the Spirit, so in like manner it is altogether incredible, or rather impossible to believe that the ability to baptize men with the Holy Ghost, is the act of a mere man with nothing in Him superior to ourselves.
How then will the mystery be true? In that for our aid He assumed a kind of adaptation . The divine Word became man, even "He Who was in the form of God the Father, and thought it not robbery to be equal unto God," as most wise Paul says, "but took the form of a slave, being made in the likeness of men, and humbling Himself to poverty." Enquire therefore Who He was that was first in the likeness of God the Father, and could be regarded as on an equality with Him, but took the form of a slave, and became then a man, and besides this made Himself poor. Was it He of the seed of David, as they argue, Whom they specially regard separately and by Himself as the other Son, distinct from the Word of God the Father? If so, let them shew that He ever was on an equality with the Father. Let them shew how He assumed the form of a slave. Or what shall we say was that form of a slave? And how did He empty Himself? For what is poorer than human nature? He therefore Who is the exact image of God the Father, the likeness, and visible expression of His person, Who shines resplendent in equality unto Him, Who by right of nature is free, and the yoke of Whoso kingdom is put upon all creation,----He it is Who took the form of a slave, that is, became a man, and made Himself poor by consenting to endure these human things, sin only excepted.
But how then, they object, was He baptized, and received also the Spirit? To which we reply, that He had no need of holy baptism, being wholly pure and spotless, and holy of the holy. Nor had He need of the Holy Ghost: for the Spirit That proceedeth from God the Father is of Him, and equal to Him in substance. We must now therefore at length hear what is the explanation of the economy. God in his love to man provided for us a way of salvation and of life. For believing in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and making this confession before many witnesses, we wash away all the filth |47 of sin, and are enriched by the communication of the Holy Spirit, and made partakers of the divine nature, and gain the grace of adoption. It was necessary therefore that the Word of the Father, when He humbled Himself unto emptiness, and deigned to assume our likeness, should become for our sakes the pattern and way of every good work. For it follows, that He Who in every thing is first, must in this also set the example. In order therefore that we may learn both the power itself of holy baptism, and how much we gain by approaching so great a grace, He commences the work Himself; and, having been baptized, prays that you, my beloved, may learn that never-ceasing prayer is a thing most fitting for those who have once been counted worthy of holy baptism.
And the Evangelist says that the heavens were opened, as having long been closed. For Christ said, "Forthwith shall ye see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." For both the flock above and that below being now made one, and one chief Shepherd appointed for all, the heavens were opened, and man upon earth brought near to the holy angels. And the Spirit also again came down as at a second commencement of our race: and upon Christ first, Who received it not so much for His own sake as for ours: for by Him and in Him are we enriched with all things. Most suitably therefore to the economy of grace does He endure with us the things of man's estate: for where otherwise shall we see Him emptied, Whose in His divine nature is the fulness? How became He poor as we are, if He were not conformed to our poverty? How did He empty Himself, if He refused to endure the measure of human littleness?
Having taken therefore Christ as our pattern, let us draw near to the grace of holy baptism, that so we may gain boldness to pray constantly, and lift up holy hands to God the Father, that He may open the heavens also unto us, and send down upon us too the Holy Ghost, to receive us as sons. For He spake unto Christ at the time of holy baptism, as though having by Him and in Him accepted man upon earth to the sonship, "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased." For He Who is the Son by nature and in truth, and the Only-begotten, when He became like unto us, is specially |48 declared to be the Son of God, not as receiving this for Himself:----for He was and is, as I said, very Son:----but that He might ratify the glory unto us. For He has been made our firstfruits, and firstborn, and second Adam: for which reason it is said, that "in Him all things have become new:" for having put off the oldness that was in Adam, we have gained the newness that is in Christ: by Whom and with Whom, to God the Father, be glory and dominion with the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever, Amen.
[Selected footnotes moved to the end and renumbered. Almost all marginalia, any purely textual footnotes, most Greek or Syriac material has been omitted without notice]
1. There can be little doubt that this passage does not belong to the Commentary, but as I have hitherto been unable to find it in S. Cyril's Collected Works, I have thought it best to retain it. Mai's next extract on v. 32. is from the tenth Book against Julian, Op. VI. 331.; the following on v. 37. is the thirteenth, chapter against the Anthropomorphites, VI. 380.; and the third extract on v. 42. is the Commentary upon Issachar's name, signifying "a reward," in the Glaphyra, I. 227. (Ed. Aub.) All these I have omitted. The remaining extracts, forming a continuous Commentary upon the hymns of the blessed Virgin and Zacharias, I have retained, since it is scarcely probable that S. Cyril entirely passed them over; and, though the homilies, as proved by the Syriac, commenced with the first verse of chap, ii., yet possibly he may have prefaced them by an Exposition of these hymns. Cramer's Catena, nevertheless, contains portions of several of these extracts anonymously. The proof from the Syriac that the homilies began with the second chapter is decisive. Of the nine MSS. in which more or less of this Commentary is preserved, eight constantly mention the number of the homily, which they quote either in part or entire: in one of these, N°. 12, 154., a MS. probably of the eighth century, a series of extracts occurs occupying forty pages, beginning with the first and ending with the hundred and eighteenth homily; and the numbering of this Codex is identical with that of the rest, wherever two or more of them contain the same passage. The Syriac numbering apparently is also identical with that of the Greek. For in my earliest authority, Cod. 12,158, transcribed, as the Copyist states, in the year of our Lord 588., the numbering of the quotations from S.Cyril is still identical with that of the other Codices. This MS. contains a translation of two treatises of Severus of Antioch against Julian, and is probably at least a century anterior to the Syriac version of S. Cyril ; so that its agreement with it, both in this and more material points, is of considerable importance. Evidently S. Cyril's Commentary upon the beginning of the Gospel was much more brief than it became subsequently: for whereas the twenty-first homily carries us down to the end of the fifth chapter, those that follow average ten homilies each. In like manner the concluding chapters of St. Luke were passed over by him very rapidly. Finally, as the Syriac, from time to time, does not recognise some of the passages collected by Mai from the Catenae, it is worth notice, that of his four first extracts, not less than three have been discovered in the published works of S.Cyril, incomplete as Aubert's edition is.
2. Referred by Corderius to Victor.
3. "He means the Arians, who said the Son was indeed God, but nevertheless inferior to the Father: as Eusebius, who was an Arian writer, especially in his interpretation of the 78th Psalm." Mai.----This charge against Eusebius, the late Professor Lee has endeavoured to disprove in the preface to his translation of the Theophania, a Syriac version of which was discovered among the Nitrian MSS. His translation is, however, inaccurate to the last degree; and the treatise in question leaves no doubt that Eusebius was the precursor of Arian doctrines.
4. Θεὸς καὶ ὑιός , God the Son; as Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ is used by S. Cyril for God the Father. In the more ancient Syriac MSS. the conjunction in these phrases is constantly retained, while in those of a later date the tendency is to omit it.
5. Mai translates contrary to the Greek "Unigenitius Dei."----S. Cyril's reading Θεός , agrees as usual with the Vatican MS., and is also supported by many of the fathers, and by the Oriental versions.
6. Eunomius taught, that the Father and Son are unequal, both in degree and kind, whence his followers were called ἀνόμοιοι . He flourished about A. D. 360, and was a disciple of Aetius. St. Athanasius often refers to him in his treatise against the Arians. For a fuller account of him, cf. Newman's Arians, c. iv. sect. 4.
7. For a very full and accurate discussion of the sense in which our Lord is both μονογενής and πρωτότοκος , the reader may consult S. Cyril's eighth Paschal Homily.
8. Mai more correctly perhaps reads τῆς ἀνίας κέντρον .
9. The Peschito has also this reading, though manifestly wrong.
10. The passage which follows occurs also in MS. 12, 154, with no variae lectiones: as does also the subsequent explanation of Is. viii. 3.
11. The Syriac translator has here misinterpreted S. Cyril, who does not say that our Lord was free from the emotions natural to bodies, but κινήματος καὶ ῥοπῆς τῆς ἡμᾶς ἀποφερούσης ἐφ̕ ἁ μὴ θέμις , that is, from that corruption of our nature which suggests sin to us, and inclines us to seek it. (James i. 14.) S. Cyril's main argument here is used by him with great force in his treatise De Incarnat. Dom. c. xi., wherein he shews, that our Lord took the flesh holy and perfectly pure, "to convict sin of injustice, and to destroy the power of death. For as long as sin sentenced only the guilty to death, no interference with it was possible, seeing that it had justice on its side. But when it subjected to the same punishment Him Who was innocent, and guiltless, and worthy of crowns of honour and hymns of praise, being convicted of injustice, it was by necessary consequence stripped of its power."
12. This reading is supported by several MSS., two Scholia, and S. Augustine; but is rejected by St. Paul, Heb. i. 6.
13. Mai reads ἡ ἀλήθεια , 'the reality.'
14. The Fathers constantly refer this name, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, to our Lord, and explain it of the overthrow of Satan. Another instance of S. Cyril's use of it will be found in his 17th Paschal Homily, as follows: The prophetess is the holy Virgin: and the name given to the child suiteth not man, but God: for, saith He, call His name. Spoil quickly: hastily plunder. For at His birth the heavenly and supernatural infant, while yet in swaddling bands and on His mother's bosom, because of His human nature, stripped forthwith Satan of his goods by His ineffable might as God: for the Magi came from the East to worship Him, &c.
15. Several passages referred by Mai to this homily are not found in the Syriac, as was to be expected, the Catenists having made use not only of the Commentary, but also of S. Cyril's other works, especially the Julian books, besides the possibility of interpolations, and passages erroneously ascribed to him. The first omitted extract from B. is to shew that the shepherds typified the pastors of the Church, as also Christ the chief shepherd, Who came to seek the lost flock: while Bethlehem, the house of bread, His birthplace, is the Church, "where daily the mystical bread of life is sacrificed." The second passage (from what MS. is uncertain) gives a physical interpretation of the butter which the Emmanuel ate, unworthy of Cyril, and at variance with the spiritual interpretation of the prophecy given above. Thirdly, there are a series of extracts from I. taken chiefly from the Commentary on Isaiah. Conf. Vol. II. 134. 200. (Ed. Aub.) And, lastly, an extract from B., to the effect that probably it was an archangel who brought the message, accompanied by his usual attendants. The first passage is remarkable, both as speaking of a daily communion, and for its application of the word ἱερουργεῖται to the "mystical bread of life." The Fathers generally use this word in the same manner as St. Paul, Rom. xv. 16., for the discharge of any religious duty, and in this sense it will be found to occur more than once in the course of the Commentary. Other examples may be seen in Suicer's Thesaurus under ἱερουργέω , and the only instance he gives of its application to the Lord's supper is from Zonaras, a writer of the twelfth century. It occurs, however, in Philostorgii Hist. Eccl. ix. 4., and is there referred by Valesius to the Lord's supper, but this interpretation is far from certain. For the historian is speaking of the heretic Eunomius, who, he says, retired to a small estate situated on the seashore near Chalcedon, οὐδὲ ἱερουργίας ἐξ οὗ τῆς Κυζίκου μετέστη οὐ μὲν οὖν ἐς ὅσον ἐνεβίω χρόνον ἥψατο . This Valesius translates by "ne saera quidem mysteria unquam celebravit;" but it rather means, that "he entirely abstained from all the duties of his sacred office." In support of his rendering Valesius quotes from Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Lib. IV. ... where, however, as Wernsdorf shews, by a comparison with other passages of Eusebius, that historian, in his usual rhetorical style, thus described the prayers for the safety of the Emperor, and the Church militant, which, as in our service, preceded the celebration of the Eucharist. The probability, therefore, is, that this extract is incorrectly referred to S. Cyril.
16. The original Greek of both the third and fourth Sermons has been preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris; and that of the fourth only at Trinity College, Cambridge. The former has been printed by Aubert in his collected edition of S. Cyril's Works, Vol. V. part ii. p. 385., where the two Sermons are incorporated into one.
17. From this it appears that these homilies were delivered extemporaneously, which accounts for a certain amount of repetition in them, especially of favorite texts.