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 9)
impiety of Sabellius, considering Him to be the Father, therefore He has said, Was given unto Me, and I received, and Were delivered to Me, only to shew that He is not the Father, but the Father’s Word, and the Eternal Son, who, because of His likeness to the Father, has eternally what He has from Him, and because He is the Son, has from the Father what eternally He hath.”
Luke ii. 10, 11.
Acts x. 36.
Matt. iv. 11.
Isa. xix. 1. “Behold, the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud, and cometh unto Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at His presence.” The prophecy was supposed by many of the Fathers to have been fulfilled by the flight into Egypt. Cf. Athanas. (Ep. LXI. ad Maximum, § 4): “As a child He came down to Egypt, and brought to nought its idols made with hands:” and (de Incarn. § 36): “Which of the righteous men or kings went down into Egypt, so that at his coming the idols of Egypt fell?” On the passage of Isaiah see Delitzsch, and Kay (Speaker’s Commentary).
Matt. ii. 13.
Ib. xxviii. 7.
1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.
Compare Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. I. cap. iii.), a passage which Cyril seems to have followed in his explanation of the names ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ.’
For the common reading ἐγκρίτοις πάντων Cod. Mon. I. has ἐκκρίτοις π. which is required both by the construction and the sense. The change may have been caused by the occurrence of ἐγκρίτων just below.
Eusebius (u.s):
“His successor, therefore, who had not hitherto borne the name Jesus, but had been called by another name, Auses, which had been given him by his parents, he now called Jesus, bestowing the name upon him as a gift of honour far greater than any kingly diadem.”
Auses is a common corruption of the name Oshea. See the note on the passage of Eusebius in this series.
Eusebius: “He consecrated a man high-priest of God, in so far as that was possible, and him he called Christ.” Cf. Lev. iv. 5, 16; vi. 22: ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ Χριστός
Heb. v. 4, 5, 6. Cyril omits from his quotation the reference to Ps. ii. 7: “Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee.”
Josh. iii. 1.
Ib. xiv. 1.
Matt. xxi. 31.
Matt. xxiv. 2.
Isa. lxii. 11: “Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him.”
τὸ κυριοκτόνον τῶν ᾽Ιουδαίων.
Matt. i. 20.
The Anathema appended to the Creed of Nicæa condemns those who said πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν. On this Eusebius of Cæsarea (Epist. § 9) remarks:
“Moreover to anathematize ‘Before His generation He was not,’ did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all, that the Son of God was before the generation according to the flesh.”
Isa. xlix. 1.
Ib. xlix. 2.
τυφλῶν αἰσθητῶν.
John v. 14, 8.
Mark ix. 24.
Compare the fragment of the Apology of Quadratus presented to Hadrian 127 a.d., preserved by Eusebius (H.E. IV. iii.):
“But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:—those that were healed, and those that arose from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after His death they were alive for a long while, so that some of them survived even to our times.”
See the notes on the passage of Eusebius, in this series.
1 John ii. 22.
Heb. vii. 24.
On the opinion that Christ was from all eternity the true High Priest of the Creation, see Index, Priesthood, and the reference there given to the Introduction. Cf. x. 4: xi. 1. Athan (c. Arian. Or. ii. 12, J. H. N.).
The word ‘synaxis’ was used by the early Christians to distinguish their assemblies from the Jewish ‘synagogue,’ a word formed from the same root and more regularly. ‘Synaxis’ came to be used more especially of a celebration of the Eucharist. See Suicer, Thesaurus, Σύναξις.
σκευαστῷ, Ex. xxx. 22–25: “a perfume compounded (μυρεψικόν ) after the art of the perfumer” (R.V.).
Heb. vii. 21.
Ib. vi. 18.
Ps. cxxxii. 17. The “lamp for the Anointed” was commonly applied by the Fathers to John the Baptist. Compare John v. 35, and Bishop Westcott’s note there.
2 Pet. i. 19. The supposed reference in the Psalm to the lamp of prophecy is mentioned by Eusebius (Demonstr. Evang. IV. cap. 16).
2 Cor. iv. 7. The reference of the ‘lamp’ to Christ’s Incarnation is mentioned by Eusebius (u.s.) and other Fathers.
Amos. iv. 13: “and declareth unto man what is his thought.” For ו&x#o@”־המ, ‘what is his thought,’ the LXX. read וׂחישִֹמְ, ‘His Anointed,’ τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτοῦ.
Luke iv. 41.
John iv. 29.
Heb. ix. 11.
οὐκ ἐπολιτεύετο, “was not in citizenship,” “not naturalised.” Cf. Sueton. Nero. cap. 16: “Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae et maleficae.”
τὸ ξένον.
Isa. lxv. 15, 16. The LXX. here depart from the meaning of the Hebrew: “He shall call His servants by another name: so that he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth” (R.V.).
2 Cor. xiii. 3.
Ib. iv. 5.
Acts ix. 21.
1 Cor. xv. 9.
1 Tim. i. 13.
Matt. v. 17.
1 Tim. i. 14.
ἡ θεοτόκος— Deipara. Gibbon (Chap. xlvii. 34) says,
“It is not easy to fix the invention of this word, which La Croze (Christianisme des Indes, tom. i. p. 16) ascribes to Eusebius of Cæsarea and the Arians. The orthodox testimonies are produced by Cyril (of Alexandria) and Petavius (Dogmat. Theolog. tom. v. L. v. cap. 15, p. 254, &c.), but the veracity of the Saint is questionable, and the epithet of θεοτόκος so easily slides from the margin to the text of a Catholic ms.”
This passage is justly described as “Gibbon’s calumny” by Dr. Newman: see his notes on the title θεοτόκος (Athan. c. Arian. Or. ii. cap. 12, n.; Or. iii. capp. 14, 29, 33). The word is certainly used by Origen (Deut. xxii. 13, Lommatzch. Tom. x. p. 378): “She that is already betrothed is called a wife, as also in the case of Joseph and the Theotokos.” Cf. Archelaus (Disput. cum Mane, cap. xxxiv. “qui de Maria Dei Genetrice natus est”); Eusebius (de Vita Constantini, III. cap. 43: “The pious Empress adorned with rare memorials the place of the travail of the Theotokos”). For other examples see Suicer’s Thesaurus, θεοτόκος, Pearson, Creed, Art. iii. notes l, m, n, o, and Routh, Reliq. Sacr. ii. p. 332.
“Chrysostom describing the flourishing state of the Church in Egypt in those times, says: ‘Egypt welcomes and saves Him when a fugitive and plotted against, and receives a beginning as it were of its appropriation to Him, in order that when it shall hear Him proclaimed by the Apostles, it may in their day also be honoured as having been first to welcome Him’”
(Cleopas).
Luke ii. 29, 30.
Mark i. 24.
See Cat. iv. 10, note 7.
The Bordeaux Pilgrim, who visited the Holy Places of Jerusalem, a.d. 333, c. speaks of this palm-tree as still existing. The longevity of the palm was proverbial: cf. Aristot. (De Longitudine Vitæ, c. iv. 2).
The same Pilgrim (as quoted by the Benedictine Editor) says, “There is also the rock where Judas Iscariot betrayed Christ.” Compare Cat. xiii. 38.
See Index, Golgotha.
See the passage of the Introduction referred to in Index, Sepulchre.
See Cat. ii. 15, note 8, and xiii. 25, 34, 38. On the supernatural character of the darkness mentioned in the Gospels see Meyer, Commentary, Matt. xxvii. 45. An eclipse of the sun was of course impossible, as the moon was full. Mr. J. R. Hind (Historical Eclipses, “Times,” 19th July, 1872) states that the solar eclipse, mentioned by Phlegon the freedman of Hadrian, which occurred on Nov. 24, a.d. 29, and was partial at Jerusalem, is “the only solar eclipse that could have been visible at Jerusalem during the period usually fixed for the ministry of Christ.” He adds,
“The Moon was eclipsed on the generally received date of the Crucifixion, 3 April, a.d. 33. I find she had emerged from the earth’s dark shadow a quarter of an hour before she rose at Jerusalem (6:36 p.m.), but the penumbra continued upon her disc for an hour afterwards.”
Thus the “darkness from the sixth hour unto the ninth” cannot be explained as the natural effect of an eclipse either solar or lunar.
This clause is omitted in Codd. Mon. 1, 2, Roe, Casaub., and is probably repeated from the preceding line: such repetitions, however, are not uncommon in Cyril’s style.
Ps. xxiv. 7. The first clause is mistranslated by the LXX. from whom Cyril quotes.
Acts v. 15.
Ib. xix. 12.
The persecution of the Christians in Persia by Sapor II. is described at length by Sozomen (E.H. II. cc. ix.–xv., in this Series). It commenced in a.d. 343, and was going on at the date of these Lectures and long after. “During fifty years the Cross lay prostrate in blood and ashes” (Dict. Bib. ‘Sassanidæ’). Compare Neander, Church History, Tom. III. p 148, Bohn.)
The Goths here mentioned are the Gothi minores dwelling on the north of the Danube, where Ulfilas, “the Apostle of the Goths” (311–381), converted many of his countrymen to Christianity. After suffering severe persecution, he was allowed by the Constantius to take refuge with his Arian converts in Mœsia and Thrace. This migration took place in 348 a.d., the same year in which Cyril’s Lectures were delivered.
See Index, Exorcism.
Matt. v. 16.
Lecture XI.
Compare x. 11, 15; xvi. 13: xxi. 1.
ἐκ προκοπῆς. See x. 5. note 8.
Compare x. 14, note 9.
θετόν. Athanasius (de Sententiâ Dionysii, § 23), represents Arius as saying that the Word “is not by nature (κατὰ φύσιν) and in truth Son of God, but is called Son, He too, by adoption (κατὰ θέσιν), as a creature.” Again (c. Arian. Orat. iii. 19), he says, “This is the true God and the Life eternal, and we are made sons through Him by adoption and grace (θέσει καὶ χάριτι).” Cf. vii. 10, and § 4, below.
The mss. all read αὐτὸν Χριστόν which might mean “Christ and no other.” But Χριστόν is probably a gloss introduced from the margin.
Compare the passages in which Cyril quotes Ps. ii. 7, as Cat. vii. 2; x. 2; xi. 5; xii. 18.
“It was one of the especial rights of a father to choose the names for his children, and to alter them if he pleased” (Dict. Greek and Roman Antiq. “Nomen. 1 Greek.”) The right to the name given by the father is the subject of one of the Private Orations of Demosthenes (Πρὸς Βοιωτὸν περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος).
Matt. xiii. 16.
Compare iv. 7: “God of God begotten;” xiii. 3 and 13: “God the Son of God.” Here however, the mss. vary, and the reading of Cod. Coisl. Υἱῷ Θεοῦ μονογενεῖ is approved by the Benedictine Editor, though not adopted. The confusion of Υἱῷ and Θεῷ is like that in John i. 18.
ὁ πρωτοστάτης τῶν ᾽Αποστόλων καὶ τῆς ᾽Εκκλησίας κορυφαῖος κήρυξ. Cf. ii. 19.
Matt. xvi. 17.
Athanasius (de Synodis, § 15) quotes a passage from the Thalia of Arius, in which he says:
“We praise Him as without beginning, because of Him who has a beginning: and adore Him as eternal, because of Him who in time has come to be. He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of things created.”
It is important, therefore, to notice the sense in which Cyril here calls the Son ἄναρχος. The word has two meanings, which should be clearly distinguished, (i) unoriginate, (ii) without beginning in time. The former referring to origin, or cause, can properly be applied to the One true God, or to God the Father only, as it is used by Clement of Alexandria (Protrept. cap. v. § 65: τὸν πάντων ποιητὴν…ἀγνοοῦντες, τὸν ἄναρχον Θεόν. [Strom. IV. cap. xxv. § 164: ὁ Θεὸς δὲ ἄναρχος ἀρχὴ τῶν ὅλων παντελὴς ἀρχῆς ποιητικός].
[Stromat. V. cap. xiv. § 142: ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀνάρχου]. Methodius (ob. 312 a.d. circ.) in a fragment (On things created, § 8, English Trans. Clark’s Ante-Nic. Libr.) comments thus on John i. 1–3: “And so after the peculiar unbeginning beginning, who is the Father, He (the Word) is the beginning of other things, ‘by whom all things are made.’” In this sense Cyril has said (iv. 4) that God alone is “unbegotten, unoriginate:” and in xi. 20 he explains this more fully,—
“Suffer none to speak of a beginning of the Son in time (χῥονικὴν ἀρχήν), but as a timeless beginning acknowledge the Father. For the Father is the beginning of the Son, timeless, incomprehensible, without beginning.”
From a confusion of the two meanings the word came to be improperly applied in the sense of “unoriginate” to the Son, and to the Spirit; and this improper usage is condemned in the 49th Apostolic Canon, which Hefele regards as amongst the most ancient Canons, and taken from the Apostolic Constitutions, vi. 11:
“If any Bishop or Presbyter shall baptize not according to our Lord’s ordinance into the Father, and Son, and Spirit, but into three Unoriginates, or three Sons, or three Paracletes let him be deposed.”
(ii.) Athanasius frequently calls the Son ἄναρχος in the sense of ‘timeless,’ as being the co-eternal brightness (ἀπαύγασμα) of the Eternal Light: see de Sent. Dionys. §§ 15, 16, 22;
“God is the Eternal Light, which never either began or shall cease: accordingly the Brightness is ever before Him, and co-exists with Him, without beginning and ever-begotten (ἄναρχον καὶ ἀειγενές).”
εἰς προκοπὴν υἱοθεσίας. Cf. § 2, note 4.
Πρωτότοκον. The word occurs in Heb. i. 6, which had been read in the Lesson before this Lecture. The exact dogmatic sense of the word is carefully explained by Athanasius (c. Arian. Or. ii. 62): “The same cannot be both Only-begotten and Firstborn, except in different relations;—that is, Only-begotten, because of His generation from