Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures

(Theodoret, Epist. 145.)

Luke iii. 23.

Irenæus I. ii. 2.

1 Cor. i. 24.

Irenæus, l. c., and Hippolytus, who gives an elaborate account of the doctrines of Valentinus (L. VI. capp. xvi.–xxxii.), both represent Sophia, “Wisdom,” as giving birth not to Satan, but to a shapeless abortion, which was the origin of matter. According to Irenæus (I. iv. 2), Achamoth, the enthymesis of Sophia, gave birth to the Demiurge, and “from her tears all that is of a liquid nature was formed.” In Tertullian’s Treatise against the Valentinians chap. xxii., Achamoth is said as by Cyril to have given birth to Satan: but in chap. xxiii. Satan seems to be identified (or interchanged) with the Demiurge.

The account in Irenæus (I. ii. 6) is rather different:

Tertullian, Against the Valentinians, chap. 12, gives a sarcastic description of this strange doctrine, deriving his facts (chap. 5) from Justin, Miltiades, “Irenæus, that very exact inquirer into all doctrines,” and Proculus.

This statement does not agree with Irenæus (I. vii. 1), who says that the Valentinians represented the Saviour, that is Jesus, as becoming the bridegroom of Achamoth or Sophia.

2 John 10, 11: “Neither bid him God speed” (A.V.): “give him no greeting” (R.V.).

Ephes. v. 11.

Eusebius in his brief notice of the Manichean heresy (Hist. Eccles. vii. 31) plays, like S. Cyril, upon the name Manes as well suited to a madman.

Marcus Aurelius Probus, Emperor a.d. 276–282, from being an obscure Illyrian soldier came to be universally esteemed the best and noblest of the Roman Emperors.

Routh (R.S. V. p. 12) comes to the conclusion that the famous disputation between Manes and Archelaus took place between July and December, a.d. 277. Accordingly these Lectures, being “full 70 years” later, could not have been delivered before the Spring of a.d. 348.

Leo the Great (Serm. xv. cap. 4) speaks of the madness of the later Manichees as including all errors and impieties:

Leo summoned those whom they called the “elect,” both men and women, before an assembly of Bishops and Presbyters, and obtained from these witnesses a full account of the execrable practices of the sect, in which, as he declares, “their law is lying, their religion the devil, their sacrifice obscenity.”

Matt. iii. 7.

Ib. xxvi. 49.

Heb. iv. 16.

Cyril takes his account of Manes from the “Acta Archelai et Manetis Disputationis,” of which Routh has edited the Latin translation together with the Fragments of the Greek preserved by Cyril in this Lecture and by Epiphanius. There is an English translation of the whole in Clark’s “Ante-Nicene Christian Library.”

The Saracens are mentioned by both Pliny and Ptolemy. See Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography.

There is no mention of Aristotle in the Acta Archelai, but Scythianus is stated (cap. li.) to have founded the sect in the time of the Apostles, and to have derived his duality of Gods from Pythagoras, and to have learned the wisdom of the Egyptians.

These four books are stated by Archelaus (Acta, cap. lii.), to have been written for Manes by his disciple Terebinthus.

In allusion to this name the history of the Disputation is called (Acta, cap. i.) “The true Treasure.”

The true reading of this sentence, προαιρούμενον τὸν Σκυθιανόν, instead of τὸν πρόειρῃμένον Σκ., has been restored by Cleopas from the ms. in the Archiepiscopal library at Jerusalem. This reading agrees with the statement in Acta Archel. cap. li.:

This statement agrees with the reading of the Vatican ms. of the Acta Archelai, “omnibus quæcunque ejus fuerunt congregratis.”

In the Acta there is no mention of Palestine, but only that he “set out for Babylonia, a province which is now held by the Persians.”

Clem. Alex. (Strom. i. 15): “Some also of the Indians obey the precepts of Boutta, and honour him as a god for his extraordinary sanctity.”

Cf. Acta Arch. cap. lii.: “A certain Parcus, however, a prophet, and Labdacus, son of Mithras, charged him with falsehood.” On the name Parcus and Labdacus, see Dict. Chr. Biogr., “Barcabbas,” and on the Magian worship of the Sun-god Mithras, see Rawlinson (Herodot. Vol. I. p. 426).

See below, § 33.

Cf. Acta Arch. cap. liii. “A boy about seven years old, named Corbicius.”

See a different account in Dict. Chr. Biogr., “Manes.”

Mark iii. 29.

Prov. xxx. 21, 22.

John xviii. 8.

Jonah i. 12.

The account of the discussion in this and the two following chapters is not now found in the Latin Version of the “Disputation,” but is regarded by Dr. Routh as having been derived by Cyril from some different copies of the Greek. The last paragraph of § 29, “These mysteries, &c.,” is evidently a caution addressed to the hearers by Cyril himself (Routh, Rell. Sac. V. 199).

Ps. v. 9.

Deut. iv. 24.

Luke xii. 49.

1 Sam. ii. 6.

Matt. xxv. 41.

Is. xlv. 7.

Matt. x. 34.

2 Cor. iv. 4, νοήματα, “thoughts.”

2 Cor. iv. 3.

Matt. vii. 6.

Matt. xiii. 13. Both A.V. and R.V. follow the better reading: “because seeing they see not, &c.”

Matt. xiii. 15.

Ib. xxv. 29; Luke viii. 18.

Instead of the reading of the Benedictine and earlier editions, εἰ δὲ δεῖ καὶ ὥς τινες ἐξηγοῦνται τοῦτο εἰπεῖν, the mss. Roe and Casaubon combine δει και ως into the one word δικαιως, which is probably the right reading. Something, however, is still wanted to complete the construction, and Petrus Siculus (circ. a.d. 870) who quotes the passage in his History of the Manichees, boldly conjectures ἔστι καὶ οὕτως εἰπεῖν. A simpler emendation would be—εἰ δὲ δικαίως τινὲς ἐξηγοῦνται, δεῖ τουτο εἰπεῖν—which both completes the construction and explains the reading δεῖ καὶ ὡς.

νοήματα, 2 Cor. iv. 4.

Matt. xiii. 13.

Mark iv. 34.

See the note at the end of Procatechesis.

Disput. § 55. Compare the account of Manes in Socrates, Eccles. Hist. I. 22, in this series.

The Gospel of Thomas, an account of the Childhood of Jesus, is extant in three forms, two in Greek and one in Latin: these are all translated in Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library. The work is wrongly attributed by Cyril to a disciple of Manes, being mentioned long before Hippolytus (Refutation of all Heresies, V. 2) and by Origen (Hom. I. in Lucam): “There is extant also the Gospel according to Thomas.”

In the Disputation, § 9, Turbo describes these transformations:

See Turbo’s confession, Disput. § 9:

On the rites of Baptism and Eucharist employed by the Manichees, see Dict. Chr. Biogr., Manicheans.

The original runs: Οὐ τολμῶ εἰπεῖν, τίνι ἐμβάπτοντες τὴν ἰσχάδα, διδόασι τοῖς ἀθλίοις. διὰ συσσήμων δὲ μόνον δηλούσθω. ἄνδρες γὰρ τὰ ἐν τοῖς ἐνυπνιασμοῖς ἐνθυμείσθωσιν, καὶ γυναῖκες τὰ ἐν ἀφέδροις. Μιαίνομεν ἀληθας τὸ στόμα κ.τ.λ.

῾Ο μὲν γὰρ πορνεύσας, πρὸς μίαν ὥραν δ ἐπιθυμίαν τελεῖ τὴν πρᾶξιν· καταγινώσκων δὲ τῆς πράξεως ὡς μιανθεὶς οἶδε λουτροῦ ἐπιδεόμενος, καὶ γινώσκει τῆς πρὰξεως τὸ μυσαρόν. ῾Ο δὲ Μανιχαῖος θυσιαστηρίου μέσον, οὗ νομίζει, τίθησι ταῦτα, καὶ μιαίνει καὶ τὸ στόμα καὶ τὴν γλῶτταν. παρὰ τοιούτου στόματος, ἄνθρωπε κ.τ.λ.

οὗ νομίζει. The Manichees boasted of their superiority to the Pagans in not worshipping God with altars, temples, images, victims, or incense (August. contra Faustum XX. cap. 15). Yet they used the names, as Augustine affirms (l. c. cap. 18): “Nevertheless I wish you would tell me why you call all those things which you approve in your own case by these names, temple, altar, sacrifice.”

Κᾀκεῖνοι περὶ οὐρανῶν τὰς δυσφήμους ἔχουσι γλώσσας. ᾽Ιησοῦς λέγει περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, ῞Οστις τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους, καὶ βρέχει ἐπὶ πονηροὺς καὶ ἀγαθούς. κᾀκεῖνοι λέγουσιν, ὅτι οἱ ὑετοὶ ἐξ ἐρωτικῆς μανίας γίνονται, καὶ τολμῶσι λέγειν, ὅτι ἐστί τις παρθένος ἐν οὐρανῷ εὐειδὴς μετὰ νεανίσκου εὐειδοῦς, καὶ κατὰ τὴν τῶν καμηλῶν ἢ λύκων καιρὸν, τοὺς τῆς αἰσχρᾶς ἐπιθυμίας καιροὺς ἔχειν, καὶ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ χειμῶνος καιρὸν, μανιωδῶς αὐτὸν ἐπιτρέχειν τῇ παρθένῳ, καὶ τὴν μὲν φεύγειν φασί, τὸν δὲ ἐπιτρέχειν, εἶτα ἐπιτρέχοντα ἱδροῦν, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἱδρώτων αὐτοῦ εἶναι τὸν ὑετόν. Ταῦτα γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς τῶν Μανιχαίων βιβλίοις· ταῦτα ἡμεῖς ἀνέγνωμεν, κ.τ.λ.

2 Cor. vi. 14.

Gr. ἐπιστήμη. See note on Introductory Lect. § 4.

Matt. v. 28.

σεμνότατος is the reading of the chief mss. But the printed editions have σεμνότητος, comparing it with such phrases as στόμα ἀθεότητος (vi. 15), and μετάνοια τῆς σωτηρίας (xiv. 17).

This saying is quoted three times in the Clementine Homilies as spoken by our Lord. See Hom. II. § 51; III. § 50; XVIII. § 20:

On the same saying, quoted as Scripture in the Apostolic Constitutions (II. § 36), Cotelerius suggests that in oral tradition, or in some Apocryphal book, the proverb was said to come from the Old Testament, and was added by some transcriber as a gloss in the margin of Matt. xxv. 27, or Luke xix. 23. Dionysius of Alexandria, Epist. VII., speaks of “the Apostolic word, which thus urges all who are endowed with greater virtue, ‘Be ye skillful money-changers,’” referring apparently as here to 1 Thess. v. 21, 22, “try all things, &c.” (See Euseb. E.H. VII. ch. 6 in this series: Suicer. Thesaurus, Τραπεζίτης: and Resch. (Agrapha, pp. 233–239.)

1 Thess. v. 21, 22.

Compare § 13 of this Lecture, where Cyril seems to refer especially to the heresy of Manes, as described in the Disputatio Archelai, cap. 6:

Lecture VII.

See Lecture VI. 1, and 5.

(Suicer, Thesaurus, Μοναρχία.)

Ps. ii. 7.

Ib. ii. 2.

John xiv. 6.

Ib. x. 9.

Ps. lxxxix. 26, 27.

vv. 29, 36, 37.

Ps. cx. 3: “From the womb of the morning thou hast the dew of thy youth” (R.V.).

Ps. lxxii. 5.

Compare Athanasius (de Sententiâ Dionyssi, § 17):

καταχρηστικῶς. A technical term in Grammar, applied to the use of a word in a derived or metaphorical sense. See Aristotle’s description of the various kinds of metaphor, Poet. § xxi. 7–16. The opposite to καταχρηστικῶς is κυρίως, as used in a parallel passage by Athanasius, Oratio i. contra Arianos, § 21 fin. “It belongs to the Godhead alone, that the Father is properly (κυρίως) Father, and the Son properly Son.”

“And in Them, and Them only, does it hold, that the Father is ever Father, and the Son ever Son.” (Athan., as above.)