The library · Edition and sources
Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures
Edwin Hamilton Gifford; NPNF2-07 (1894) · Edition commentary
Reading appearance
Accessibility options
Saved in this browser and shared between texts. Labels and line patterns remain in every theme.
About this reading layout
Source wording, punctuation, paragraph boundaries and supplied line breaks are retained. Long prose also has editorial reading breaks at sentence boundaries. Substantial passages already enclosed in double quotation marks are set apart; this does not identify their source or establish a connection.
These added breaks are reading aids, not claims about the original manuscript’s layout. Poetry is lineated only where the downloaded text supplies line breaks. References and edition notes remain with their text.
Translator and historical edition notes (part 14)
ἀναγνωσμάτων a term including the portions of Scripture (περικοπαί) appointed for the Epistle and Gospel as well as the daily lessons from the Old and New Testaments.
The section Luke xxiv. 36–53, which in the Eastern Church is the Gospel for Ascension Day, is also one of the “eleven morning Gospels of the Resurrection (εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμὰ ἑωθινά), which were read in turn, one every Sunday at Matins.” Dictionary of Chr. Antiq. “Lectionary.” This Lecture being delivered on Monday, the Section in question had been read on the preceding day.
μάλιστα μὲν…ἐξαιρέτως δέ.
Ps. xlvii. 5.
Ps. xxiv. 7: Lift up, O gates, your heads. The order of the Hebrew words misled the Greek Translators.
Ps. lxviii. 18. On the reading ἀνέβη, found in a few mss. of the Septuagint, see Tischendorf’s note on Eph. iv. 8.
Amos ix. 6: (R.V.) It is He that buildeth His chambers in the heaven. (A.V.) His stories. Marg. ascensions, or spheres. Sept. τὴν ἀνάβασιν αὐτοὐ.
Bel and the Dragon, v. 33: Compare Ezek. viii. 3.
Heb. xi. 5.
2 Kings ii. 11.
Ps. lxviii. 17: χιλιάδες εὐθηνούντων. The Hebrew means literally “thousands of repetition,” i.e. many thousands: εὐθηνεῖν, “to abound.”
Sept. ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. In 1 Macc. ii. 58 the mss. vary between ἕως and ὡς, but the latter (says Fritzsche)
“is an alteration made to agree with 2 Kings ii. 11. But there the reference is to the intended exaltation of Elijah into heaven, and therefore ὡς is rightly used (Kühner, Gramm. § 604, note; Jelf, § 626, Obs. 1), while here the thing is referred to as an accomplished historical fact.”
The distinction here drawn by Cyril is therefore hypercritical, as is seen below in § 26, where he writes, ᾽Ηλίας μὲν γὰρ ἀνελήφθη εἰς οὐρανόν.
Matt. xvi. 19.
2 Cor. xii. 2, 4.
See Cat. iv. 7; xi. 17. The clause, καὶ καθίσαντα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός, does not occur in the original form of the Nicene Creed, but is found in the Confession of Faith contained in Const. Apost. c. 41, in the four Eusebian Confessions of Antioch (341, 2 a.d.), and in the Macrostichos (344 a.d.). An equivalent clause is found in the brief Confession of Hippolytus (circ. 220 a.d.) Contra Hæres. Noeti, c. 1: “καὶ ὄντα ἐν δεξίᾳ τοῦ Πατρός,” and in Tertullian, De Virgin. Veland. c. 1: “Regula quidem Fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis,.…sedentem nunc ad dextram Patris:” de Præscriptione, c 13: “Regula est autem fidei.…sedisse ad dexteram Patris:” adversus Praxean, c. 2: “sedere ad dexteram Patris.”
ἐκ προκοπῆς. Cf. Cat. x. 5, note 8.
ἀφ᾽ οὗπερ ἔστιν, (ἔστι δὲ ἀεὶ γεννηθείς). In both clauses ἔστιν is emphatic.
Is. vi. 1.
John i. 18.
Ps. xciii. 2.
Ps. cx. 1.
Matt. xxii. 43.
Acts ii. 34.
Matt. xxvi. 64.
1 Pet. iii. 22.
Rom. viii. 34.
Eph. i. 19, 20.
Col. iii. 1.
Heb. i. 3.
Ib. v. 13.
Ib. x. 12.
Ib. xii. 2. On Cyril’s omission of Mark xvi. 19. see Westcott and Hort.
τὴν ἔνσαρκον παρουσίαν. Cf. § 27.
1 Thess. iv. 17.
Col. ii. 5.
Ps. vii. 9.
Isa. viii. 18; Heb. ii. 13.
Lecture XV.
Ps. lxxii. 6. See xii. 9; and § 10, below.
Ps. civ. 2.
Heb. xii. 2.
Cyril’s contrast of the two Advents seems to be partly borrowed from Justin M. (Apol. i. 52; Tryph. 110). See also Tertullian (Adv. Judæos, c. 14); Hippolytus (De Antichristo, 44).
Matt. xxi. 9; xxiii. 39.
Ib. xxvi. 63.
Ps. l. 21.
Mal. iii. 1–3.
The Benedictine Editor by omitting λέγει, obtains the sense, He cometh, even the Lord Almighty. But λέγει is supported by the mss. of Cyril, as well as by the Septuagint and Hebrew.
Mal. iii. 5.
1 Cor. iii. 12.
Titus ii. 11. The Benedictine Editor adopts τοῦ Σωτῆρος instead of ἡ σωτήριος against the authority of the best mss. of Cyril.
νῦν παρεδόθη. Cyril means that at the beginning of this present Lecture he had delivered to the Catechumens those articles of the Creed which he was going to explain. Compare Cat. xviii. 21, where we see that Cyril first announces (ἐπαγγέλλω) the words which the learners repeat after him (ἀπαγγέλλω). The clause, Whose Kingdom shall have no end, was not contained in the original form of the Creed of Nicæa, a.d. 325, but its substance is found in many earlier writings. Compare Justin M. (Tryph. § 46: καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος βασιλεία); Const.
Apost. vii. 41; the Eusebian Confessions 1st and 4th Antioch, and the Macrostich, a.d. 341, 342, 344. Bp. Bull asserts that the Creed of Jerusalem, containing this clause, was no other than the ancient Eastern Creed, first directed against the Gnostics of the Sub-Apostolic age (Judicium Eccl. Cathol. vi. 16).
The Benedictine Editor suggests that Cyril
“is refuting those who said that the Universe was to perish utterly, an opinion which seems to be somehow imputed to Origen by Methodius, or Proclus, in Epiphanius (Hæres. lxiv. 31, 32).”
On Origen’s much controverted opinions concerning the beginning and end of the world, see Huet. Origeniana, II. 4–6: and Bp. Westcott, Dictionary of Christian Biography, “Origen,” pp. 137, 138.
Hos. iv. 2.
Is. xxxiv. 4.
Matt. xxiv. 29.
Ps. cii. 25, 26; Heb. i. 10–12.
Is. lvii. 1.
Joel ii. 31.
Cat. vi. 13; xi. 21.
Matt. xxiv. 35.
Acts i. 7.
Matt. xxiv. 42, 44; Ib. v. 3.
Ib. vv. 3 and 4.
Cat. vi. 14, 16.
Matt. xxiv. 6. The war with Sapor II., King of Persia, which broke out immediately on the death of Constantine, and continued throughout the reign of Constantius, was raging fiercely at the date of these Lectures, the great battle of Singara being fought in the year 348 a.d.
Luke xxi. 11. Jerome in the Chronicon mentions a great earthquake in 346 a.d., by which Dyrrachium was destroyed, and Rome and other cities of Italy greatly injured (Ben. Ed.). Cyril substitutes χειμῶνες for σημεῖα, the better reading in Luke xxi. 11.
Matt. xxiv. 42.
ἑκκλησιαστικός, when applied to persons, means either, as here, an orthodox member of the Church in contrast to a heretic, pagan, or Jew (Origen, in Job xx. 6), or more particularly a Cleric as opposed to a layman (Cat. xvii. 10).
Matt. xxiv. 10.
“S. Cyril here describes the state of the Church, when orthodoxy was for a while trodden under foot, its maintainers persecuted, and the varieties of Arianism, which took its place, were quarreling for the ascendancy. Gibbon quotes two passages, one from a pagan historian of the day, another from a Father of the Church, which fully bear out S. Cyril’s words. What made the state of things still more deplorable, was the defection of some of the orthodox party, as Marcellus, into opposite errors: while the subsequent secessions of Apollinaris and Lucifer show what lurking disorders there were within it at the time when S. Cyril wrote.
(Vid. infr. 9.) The passages referred to are as follows: ‘The Christian Religion,’ says Ammianus, ‘in itself plain and simple, he (Constantius) confounded by the dotage of superstition. Instead of reconciling the parties by the weight of his authority, he cherished and propagated, by vain disputes, the differences which his vain curiosity had excited. The highways were covered with troops of Bishops, galloping from every side to the assemblies, which they called synods; and while they laboured to reduce the whole sect to their own particular opinions, the public establishment of the posts was almost ruined by their hasty and repeated journeys.’
Hist. xxi. 16. S. Hilary of Poictiers thus speaks of Asia Minor, the chief seat of the Arian troubles: ‘It is a thing equally deplorable and dangerous, that there are as many creeds as opinions among men, as many doctrines as inclinations, and as many sources of blasphemy as there are faults among us; because we make creeds arbitrarily, and explain them as arbitrarily. The Homoousion is rejected and received and explained away by successive synods. The partial or total resemblance of the Father and of the Son is a subject of dispute for these unhappy divines.
Every year, nay, every moon, we make new creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we defend those who repent, we anathematize those whom we defended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves, or our own in that of others; and reciprocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other’s ruin,’ ad Constant. ii. 4, 5. Gibbon’s translations are used, which, though diffuse, are faithful in their matter. What a contrast do these descriptions present to Athanasius’ uniform declaration, that the whole question was really settled at Nicæa, and no other synod or debate was necessary!”
—(R.W.C.). Compare, for example, the account of the seditions in Antioch and in Constantinople, in Socrates, Eccles. Hist. i. 24; i., 12–14, and Athanas. Hist. Arianorum, passim.
Matt. xxiv. 12.
Matt. xxiv. 14.
Ib. v. 15.
Ib. v. 23.
2 Thess. ii. 3–10.
The prediction was supposed by earlier Fathers to refer to a personal Antichrist whom they expected to come speedily. See Justin M. (Tryph. § 110: ὁ τῆς ἀποστασίας ἄνθρωπος; ib. § 32: “He who is to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High is already at the doors.” Iren. Hær. V. 25. Cyril in this passage regards the heresies of his time as the apostasy in general, but looks also for a personal Antichrist: (§§ 11, 12).
υἱοπατορία . On this contemptuous name for Sabellianism, see Cat. iv. 8; xi. 16. The Third (Eusebian) Confession, or Third of Antioch, a.d. 341, anathematizes any who hold the doctrines of Marcellus of Ancyra or Sabellius, or Paul of Samosata (Athan. de Synodis, § 24 note 10, p. 462, in this Series, and Mr. Robertson’s Prolegomena, p. xliv.). In the Ecthesis, or Statement of Faith, § 2, Athanasius writes: “Neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but (a sole and?) not the same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son.” As to Marcellus, see Athanasius, Hist. Arian. § 6 (p. 271), and the letter of Julius in the Apologia c. Arian. § 32 (p. 116): also notes 3, 4 on § 27 below.
See Athanasius, De Synod. § 15: “Arius and those with him thought and professed thus: ‘God made the Son out of nothing, and called Him His Son:’” and Expos. Fidei, § 2:
“We do not regard as a creature, or thing made, or as made out of nothing, God the Creator of all, the Son of God, the true Being from the true Being, the Alone from the Alone, inasmuch as the like glory and power was eternally and conjointly begotten of the Father.”
The 4th (Eusebian) Confession, or 4th of Antioch, a.d. 342, ends thus: “Those who say that the Son was from nothing,.…the Catholic Church regards as aliens.”
Athan. Adversus Arianos, Or. i. 1:
“One heresy and that the last which has now risen as forerunner of Antichrist, the Arian as it is called, considering that other heresies, her elder sisters, have been openly proscribed, in her craft and cunning affects to array herself in Scripture language, like her father the devil, and is forcing her way back into the Church’s paradise, &c.”
The supposed date of this Oration is 8 or 10 years later than that of Cyril’s Lectures.
2 Tim. iv. 3.
A reading supported by the best mss. and approved by the Benedictine Editor gives a different sense, “and rather choose to seem than resolve to be,” inverting the proverb “esse quam videri.”
In the passage quoted above in note 5 the Arian heresy is called a “forerunner” (πρόδρομος) of Antichrist.
φαντασιοκοπῶν, a rare word, rendered “frantic” in Ecclus. iv. 30: its more precise meaning seems to be “making a false show,” which is here applied to a false Christ, and again in § 14 to the father of lies who makes a vain show of false miracles.
Matt. xxiv. 23.
Ps. lxxii. 6. Cf. § 1, note 1.
Matt. xxiv. 27.
Matt. xxiv. v. 30.
ἐν εἰδωλολατρείᾳ may mean either “in idol-worship,” or “among idolaters,” the abstract being used for the concrete, as in Rom. iii. 30: δικαιώσει περιτομήν.
ἐφόδιον, “provision for a journey,” is here equivalent in meaning to ἀφορμή, “a starting point,” or “favourable occasion.”
Antichrist is described by Hippolytus (De Christo et Antichristo, § 57, as “a son of the devil, and a vessel of Satan,” who will rule and govern “after the manner of the law of Augustus, by whom the Roman empire was established, sanctioning everything thereby.” Cf. Iren. Hær. V. 30, § 3; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Antichrist:
“The sharp precision with which St. Paul had pointed to ‘the man of sin,’ ‘the lawless one,’ ‘the adversary,’ ‘the son of perdition,’ led men to dwell on that thought rather than on the many ψευδόχριστοι of whom Christ Himself had spoken.”
τὸν ᾽Ηλειμυένον, Aquila’s rendering of חישמ, adopted by the Jews in preference to τὸν Χριστόν, from hatred of the name Christ or Christian. Hippolytus, ubi supra, § 6: “The Saviour came into the world in the Circumcision, and he (Antichrist) will come in the same manner:” ib. § 14: “As Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so Antichrist is to spring from the tribe of Dan.” This expectation was grounded by Hippolytus on Gen. xlix. 17.
The fourth kingdom in the prophecy of Daniel (vii. 7, 23) was generally understood by early Christian writers to be the Roman Empire; and its dissolution was to be speedily followed by the end of the world. See § 13 below; Irenæus, V. 26; and Hippolytus, ubi supra, §§ 19, 28.