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 8)
mindful of the scourging at night.”
Clem. Alex. (Stromat. VI. 11):
“The same is true also of Astronomy, for being engaged in the investigation of the heavenly bodies, as to the form of the universe, and the revolution of the heaven, and the motion of the stars, it brings the soul nearer to the Creative Power, and teaches it to be quick in perceiving the seasons of the year, the changes of the atmosphere, and the risings of the stars; since navigation also and husbandry are full of benefit from this science.”
Compare Lactantius (De Irâ Dei, cap. xiii.).
Gen. i. 14.
Job xxxviii. 28.
Whewell, Astronomy, p. 88: “Clouds are produced by aqueous vapour when it returns to the state of water.” p. 89:
“Clouds produce rain. In the formation of a cloud the precipitation of moisture probably forms a fine watery powder, which remains suspended in the air in consequence of the minuteness of its particles: but if from any cause the precipitation is collected in larger portions, and becomes drops, these descend by their weight and produce a shower.”
Compare Aristotle, Meterologica, I. ix. 3; Ansted, Physical Geography, p. 210.
Job xxxvii. 22: “Out of the north cometh golden splendour” (R.V.).
Job xxxviii. 37.
Job xxxvii. 16: “Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds?” In the Septuagint διάκρισιν νεφῶν may mean “the separate path of the clouds” (Vulg. “semitas nubium,”) or “the dissolving,” as in Aristotle (Meteorol. I. vii. 10: διακρίνεσθαι καὶ διαλύεσθαι τὸ διάτμίζον ὑγρὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθους τῆς θερμῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως, ὥστε μὴ συνίστασθαι ῥαδίως εἰς ὕδωρ. “The moist vapour is separated and dissolved by the great heat of the evaporation, so that it does not easily condense into water.” Cf. Plato, Sophistes 243 B: διακρίσεις καὶ συγκρίσεις.
Job xxxviii. 37 (according to the Septuagint): “And who is he that numbereth the clouds by wisdom, and bent down the heaven to the earth?” A.V., R.V. “Or who can pour out the bottles of heaven?”
Job xxvi. 8: “He bindeth up the waters in His thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.”
Ps. cxxxv. 7.
Job xxxviii. 28.
Ps. cxlvii. 16: “He scattereth the hoar frost like ashes.” The Hebrew דוׂפכּ is rendered by πάχνη, “hoar frost,” in Job xxxviii. 29, but here by ὀμιχλη, “mist.”
Job xxxvii. 10: “the breadth of the waters is straitened” (Marg. R.V. “congealed”). The word οἰακίζει in the Septuagint means to “steer,” Lat. “gubernare” to “turn as by a helm.”
Ps. civ. 15.
There is a similar passage on the various effects of water in Cat. xvi. 12. Chrysostom (de Statuis, Hom. xii. 2), Epiphanius (Ancoratus, p. 69), and other Fathers, appear to reproduce both the thoughts and words of Cyril.
For καῦσιν, “burning,” Morel and Milles, with Cod. Coisl., read καῦστιν, a rare word explained by Hesychius as the “growth” or “foliage” of the vine: but this is fully expressed in what follows, and the reading καῦσιν is confirmed by Virgil (Georg. ii. 408): “Primus devecta cremato sarmenta” (Reischl).
For the construction of ἵνα with the Indicative ἵπτανται, see Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 401. Winer (Gram. N. T. III. sect. xli. c).
Ps. civ. 25.
Gr. ὑπόστασιν, literally “substance.”
Job xxxviii. 11.
Ib. xxxix. 26.
Gen. i. 24.
Instead of φωνῆς (Milles), or πηγῆς (Bened. Roe, Casaub.) the recent Editors have restored τῆς γῆς with the Jerusalem and Munich mss., and Basil.
Gr. κινήσεις “movements,” “impulses.” Aristotle (Historia Animalium. IX. vii. 1) remarks that many imitations of man’s mode of life may be observed in the habits of other animals.
Jer. v. 8.
Prov. vi. 6. Instead of the epithet “laborious” (γεωργότατος ) some mss. have “agile” or “restless” (γοργότατος).
After the description of the ant, Prov. vi. 6–8, there follows in the Septuagint a similar reference to the bee:
“Or go to the bee, and learn how industrious she is, and how comely she makes her work, and the produce of her labours kings and commons adopt for health, and she is desired and esteemed by all, and though feeble in strength has been exalted by her regard for wisdom.”
The interpolation is supposed to be of Greek origin, as containing “idiomatic Greek expressions which would not occur to a translator from the Hebrew” (Delitzsch).
Ps. cxix. 103.
Compare Bacon (Natural Hist. 965):
“I would have trial made of two other kinds of bracelets, for comforting the heart and spirits: one of the trochisch of vipers, made into little pieces of beads; for since they do great good inwards (especially for pestilent agues), it is like they will be effectual outwards, where they may be applied in greater quantity. There would be trochisch likewise made of snakes; whose flesh dried is thought to have a very good opening and cordial virtue.”
Ib. 969: “The writers of natural magic commend the wearing of the spoil of a snake, for preserving of health.” Thomas Jackson (On the Creed, VIII. 8, § 4): “The poisonous bitings of the scorpion are usually cured by the oil of scorpions.”
Shakespeare (Richard III. Act. i. Sc. ii.). Glo. “Thine eyes, sweet lady, have infected mine.” Anne. “Would they were basilisks to strike thee dead.” Compare Bacon (De Augmentis, VII. cap. ii): “The fable goes of the basilisk, that if he see you first, you die for it, but if you see him first, he dies.” Bacon refers to Pliny (Nat. Hist. viii. 33).
Job x. 11.
Xenophon (Memor. Socratis. I. cap. iv):
“And moreover does not this also seem to thee like a work of providence, that, whereas the sight is weak, the Creator furnished it with eyelids for doors, which are opened whenever there is need to use the sight, but are closed in sleep.”
Wisdom xiii. 5.
Ps. civ. 24.
Lecture X.
1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. Cyril omits the clause: as there be gods many and lords many.
1 John ii. 23.
Ib. x. 9.
Ib. xiv. 6.
Matt. xi. 27.
John iii. 36.
Matt. iii. 17.
Ps. ii. 7.
τὸ πολυώνυμον, a word used by the Greek Poets of their gods, as by Homer (Hymn to Demeter, 18, 32) of Zeus, Κρόνου πολυώνυμος υἱός. Cf. Soph. Ant. 1115; Æschyl. Prom. V. 210.
John x. 7, 9. Cyril calls Christ a “spiritual,” or “rational” (λογική) door, and applies the same term to His sheep, below. Origen (In Evang. Joh. Tom. i. cap. 29): Θύρα ὁ Σωτηρ ἀναγέγραπται, ibid. φιλάνθρωπος δὲ ὢν…ποιμὴν γινεται.
John xiv. 6.
Ib. i. 29; Is. liii. 7, 8; Acts viii. 32.
John x. 11.
Matt. x. 10, 16.
Gen. xlix. 9; Apoc. v. 5.
1 Pet. v. 8.
Ps. cxviii. 22.
Is. xxviii. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 4–6.
The reading of the earlier Editions ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων is free from all difficulty, and so the more likely to have been substituted for what is at first sight more difficult ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον, the reading of Cod. Coislin. adopted by the Benedictine and subsequent Editors. The idea of a super-human Priesthood to which the Son in His Divine nature was anointed by the Father from eternity is repeated by Cyril in § 14 of this Lecture, and in Cat. xi. 1, 14. See Index, “Priesthood,” and the reference there given to a fuller consideration of the subject in the Introduction.
Ps. lxxxviii. 5.
John v. 27. Comparing what Cyril says here with Cat. iv. 15, and xv. 10, we see that he means to explain why Christ is called the “Son of Man” when “He cometh again from heaven,” and “no more from earth.” The preceding clause refers to His first coming in the flesh, as differing in the manner of His conception and birth from other men.
Cf. Athanas. (c. Arian. II. xv. 14), “That very Word who was by nature Lord, and was then made man, hath by means of a servant’s form been made Lord of all and Christ.”
Cf. Irenæus (III. xvi. 8):
“All therefore are outside the Dispensation, who under pretence of knowledge understand that Jesus was one, and Christ another, and the Only-begotten another (from whom again is the Word), and the Saviour another.”
The Cerinthians, Ebionites, Ophites, and Valentinians are mentioned by Irenæus as thus separating the Christ from Jesus.
Cf. Athanas. (Epist. X.): “Since He is rich and manifold, He varies Himself according to the individual capacity of each soul.”
1 Cor. ix. 22.
ἐκ προκοπῆς. We learn from Athanasius (c. Arian. i. 37, 38, 40), that from St. Paul’s language Philipp. ii. 9: “Wherefore also God highly exalted Him, &c.,” and from Ps. xlv. 7: “Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows,” the Arians argued that Christ first received Divine honour as Son and Lord as the reward of His obedience as Man. Athanasius replies (c. 40):
“He was not from a lower state promoted; but rather, existing as God, He took the form of a servant, and in taking it was not promoted but humbled Himself. Where then is there here any reward of virtue, or what advancement (προκοπή) and promotion in humiliation?”
The same doctrine had been previously held by the disciples of Paul of Samosata, who said that Christ was not originally God, but after His Incarnation was by advance (ἐκ προκοπῆς) made God, from being made by nature a mere man: see Athanas. (de Decretis, § 24, c. Arian. i. 38). S. Cyril refers to the error and uses the same word, in xi. 1, 7, 13, 15, 17, and xiv. 27.
καταχρηστικῶς, i.e. in a secondary or metaphorical sense. Cf. vii. 5.
νεύματι, “command” or “bidding,” as expressed by nodding the head.
Origen (De Principiis, I. ii. 10) had argued that “even God cannot be called omnipotent, unless there exist those over whom He may exercise His power,” and therefore creation must have been eternal, or God could not have been eternally Omnipotent. In other passages Origen declares it an impiety to hold that matter is co-eternal with God (De Princip. II. i. 4), and yet maintains that there were other worlds before this, and that there was never a time when there was no world existing. Methodius, in a fragment of his work On things Created, preserved by Photius, and quoted by Bishop Bull (Def.
Fid. Nic. II. xiii. 9), argues against these theories of Origen, that in John i. 2 the words “The same was in the beginning with God” indicate the authority (τὸ ἐξουσιαστικόν) of the Word which He had with the Father before the world came into existence; since from all eternity God the Father, together with His Word, possessed the Almighty power whereby whenever He would He could create worlds to rule over. Dean Church remarks that “On the other hand Tertullian, contra Hermog. 3, considering the attributes in question to belong not to the Divine Nature, but Office, denies that God was Almighty (Lord?)
from eternity; while the Greeks affirmed this (vid. Cyril Alex. in Joann. xvii. 8, p. 963; Athan. Orat. ii. 12–14), as understanding by the term the inherent but latent attribute of doing what He had not yet done, τὸ ἐξουσιαστικόν.” Cleopas, the Jerusalem Editor, regards the passage as directed against Paul of Samosata, who asserted that Christ had become God, and received His kingdom and Lordship only after His Incarnation, and remarks:—“S. Cyril evidently regards the Lordship of Jesus Christ as twofold: one that which from eternity belonged to Him as God, which he calls natural, according to which ‘He was ever both Lord and King, as being by nature God’ (Cyril Alex. in Johann. cap. xvii.); and the other the Lordship in time relative to the creatures, by which He exercises dominion over the works created by Him, as being their Maker.“
Luke ii. 11.
Among those who denied the Divine præ-existence of Christ Cleopas enumerates Ebion, Carpocrates, Theodotus, Artemon, Paul of Samosata, Marcellus, and Photinus.
Gen. i. 26.
Ib. i. 27.
Ib. xix. 24.
1 Cor. x. 4.
Heb. xi. 27.
Heb. xi. 26. Quoting from memory Cyril mistakes the order of the two sentences.
Ex. xxxiii. 13. Cyril means that even before His Incarnation Christ was seen as far as was possible by Prophets such as Moses. This view was held by many of the Fathers before Cyril. See Justin M. (Tryph. § 56 ff.); Tertull. (adv. Praxean, § 16); Euseb. (Demonstr. Evang. V. 13–16).
Ex. xxxiii. 20.
Matt. xvii. 2.
Ex. xxxiii. 17. Gr. λόγον, “word,” in imitation of the Hebrew idiom.
Ex. xxxiii. 22.
Ex. xxxiii. 19. Literally “will call in the name of the Lord (Jehovah):” compare Gen. iv. 26.
Ex. xxxiv. 5–7. For “keeping righteousness and shewing mercy,” the Hebrew has only “keeping mercy.”
Ex. xxxiv. 8.
Ib. xxxiv. 9.
Ps. cx. 1. Heb. “An oracle of Jehovah unto my lord.” Cyril’s argument is based upon the common mistake of supposing that Κύριος represents the same Hebrew word in both parts of the sentence.
1 Cor. xv. 27, 28.
Cyril evidently alludes to Philip. ii. 6, “Who being in the form of God thought it not a prize to be on an equality with God:” for the right interpretation of which passage, see Dean Gwynn’s notes in the Speaker’s Commentary.
Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22. On this text Athanasius wrote a special treatise (In illud ‘Omnia,’ &c.), against the arguments of Arius, Eusebius, and their fellows, who said,—“If all things were delivered (meaning by ‘all’ the Lordship of Creation), there was once a time when He had them not. But it He had them not, He is not of the Father, for if He were, He would on that account have had them always.” Again (contr. Arian. Orat. III. cap. xxvii. § 36), Athanasius argues: “Lest a man, perceiving that the Son has all that the Father hath, from the exact likeness and identity of what He hath, should wander into the