148 th\n e!nsarkon parousi/an. Cf. § 27.
4 Cyril's contrast of the two Advents seems to be partly borrowed form Justin M. (Apol. i. 52; Tryph. 110). See also Tertullian (Adv. Judaeos, c. 14); Hippolytus (De Antichristo, 44).
9 The Benedictine Editor by omitting le/gei, obtains the sense, He cometh, even the Lord Almighty. But le/gei is supported by the Mss. of Cyril, as well as by the Septuagint and Hebrew.
12 Titus ii. 11. The Benedictine Editor adopts tou= Swth=roj instead of h 9 swth/rioj against the authority of the best Mss. of Cyril.
13 nu=n paredo/qh. 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 (e'pagge/llw) the words which the learners repeat after him (a'pagge/llw).
The clause, Whose Kingdom Shall Have No End, was not contained in the original form of the Creed of Nicaea, A.D. 325, but its substance is found in many earlier writings. Compare Justin M. (Tryph. § 46: kai\ au'tou= e 9stin h 9 ai'w/nioj basilei/a); Const. Apost. vii. 41; the Eusebian Confessions 1st and 4th Antioch, and the Macrosich, 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 SubApostolic age (Judicium Eccl. Cathol. vi. 16).
14 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 (Hoeres. 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, Dictionarry of Christian Biography, "Origen," pp. 137, 138.
18 Ps. cii. 25, 26; Heb. i. 10-12.
24 Matt. xxiv. 42, 44; Ib. v. 3.
27 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.
28 Luke xxi. 11. Jerome in the Chronicon mentions a great earthquake in 346 A.D., by which Dyrachium was destroyed, and Rome and other cities of Italy greatly injured (Ben. E.).
Cyril substitutes xeimw=nejfor shmei=a, the better reading in Luke xxi. 11.
30 e'kklhsiastiko/j, 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).
32 "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, on e 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, 0' 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. 0' 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, 0' 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 Nicaea, 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.
38 The prediction was supposed by earlier Fathers to refer to a personal Antichrist whom they expected to come speedily. See Justin M. (Tryph. § 110: o 9 th=j a'postasi/aj a!nqrwpoj; ib. § 32: "He who is to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High is already at the doors." Iren. Hoer. 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).
39 ui 9opatori/a. 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.
40 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 0'" 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 form 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."
41 Athan. Aaversus 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.
43 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 "ese quam videri."
44 In the passage quoted above in note 5 the Arian heresy is called a "forerunner" (pro/dromoj) of Antichrist.
45 fantasiokopw=n, 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.
47 Ps. lxxii. 6. Cf. § 1, note 1.
50 se'n ei'dwlolatrei/a may mean eithe "in idol-worship," or "among idolaters," the abstract being used for the concrete, as in Rom. iii. 30: dikaiw/sei peritomh/n.
51 e'fo/dion, "provision for a journey," is here equivalent in meaning to a'formh/, "a starting point," or "favourable occasion."
52 Antichirst 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. Hoer. V. 30, § 3; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Antichrist: "The sharp precision with which St. Paul had pointed to `the man of sin, 0' `the lawless one. 0' `the adversary, 0' `the son of perdition, 0' led men to dwell on that thought rather than on the many yeudo/xristoi of whom Christ Himself had spoken. 0'
53 to\u 0Hleimue/non, Aquila's rendering of xy#$m
, adopted by the Jews in preference to to\n Xristo/n, 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.
54 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; Irenaeus, V. 26; and Hippolytus, ubi supra, §§ 19, 28.
55 Dan. vii. 24: and he shall put down three kings (R. V.).
56 The Jerusalem Editor quotes as iron Hippolytus a similar description of Antichrist (§ 23): "In his first steps he will be gentle, loveable, quiet, pious, pacific, hating injustice, detesting gifts, not allowing idolatry, &c." But the treatise is a forgery of unknown date, apparently much later than Cyril.
57 Iren. V. 28, § 2: "Since the demons and apostate spirits are at his service, he through their means performs wonders, by which he leads the inhabitants of the earth astray."
58 Iren. V. 25, § 4: "He shall remove his kingdom into that city (Jerusalem), and shall sit in the Temple of God, leading astray those who worship him as if he were Christ."
According to the genuine treatise of Hippolytus Antichrist was to restore the kingdom of the Jews (De Antichristo, § 25), to collect the Jews out of every country of the Dispersion, making them his own, as though they were his own children, and promising to restore their country, and establish again their kingdom and nation, in order that he may be worshipped by them as God (§ 54), and he will lead them on to persecute the saints, i.e. the Christians (§ 56). compare the elaborate description of Antichrist and his cruelty in Lactantius, Div. Inst. vii. 17; Epit. § 71.
59 2 Thess ii. 8. Cf. Iren. V. 25, § 3: Hippol. § 64.
60 e'kklhsiazome/nwn. Cf. Cat. iv. 35,36, where Cyril distinguishes the Scriptures a#j kai\ e'n 0Ekklhsi/a meta\ parrhsi/aj a'naginw/skomen from osa e'n 0Ekklhsi/aij mh= anaginw/sketai.
61 Dan. vii. 23: (r.v.) shall be diverse from all the kingdoms.
62 Irenaeus (V. 26) identifies the fourth kingdom with "the empire which now rules." Hippolytus, de Antichristo, § 25: "A fourth beast dreadful and terrible: it had iron teeth and claws of brass. And who are these but the Romans?"
64 Dan. v. 25. Dean Church compares Rev. xvii. 11; And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. See Also Iren. V. 26, § 1.
65 2 Thes. ii. 9. Lactantius (a.d. 300 circ), Div. Inst. vii. 17: "that king. . . . will also be a prophet of lies; and he will constitute and call himself God, and will order himself to be worshipped as the Son of God; and power will be given him to do signs and wonders, by the sight of which he may entice men to adore him." Cf. Epilome, lxxi.
66 "Vid. Iren. Hoer V. 26, 2" (R.W.C.). The passage is quoted by Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. iv. 18), from a lost work of Justin M. Against Marcion: "Justin well said that before the coming of the Lord Satan never dared to blaspheme God, as not yet knowing his own condemnation, because it was started by the prophets in parables and allegories. But after our Lord's advent having learnt plainly from His words and those of the Apostles that everlasting fire is prepared for him, . . . . he by means of such men as these blasphemes the Lord who brings the judgment upon him, as being already condemned."
S. Cyril seems to expect that Antichrist will be an incarnation of Satan, as did Hippolytus (de Antichr. § 6): "The Saviour appeared in the form of man, and he too will come in the form of a man."
68 See § 12, notes 3, 4, and Hippolytus, ubi supra: "The Saviour raised up and shewed His holy flesh like a temple; and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem." "Cyril wrote this before Julian's attempt to rebuild the Jewish Temple" (R. W. C..).
69 Matt. xxiv. 2. Cyril refers the whole prophecy to the time of Christ's second coming at the end of the world, not regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple by Titus as fulfilling any part of the prediction.
70 Dan. vii. 21. Here again Cyril follows Hippolytus, § 25. "And under this (horn) was signified none other than Antichrist.