Concerning the Unity of God⁸¹⁹

819 Περὶ Θεοῦ Μοναρχίας.  The word μοναρχία, as used by Plato (Polit. 291 C), Aristotle (Polit. III. xiv. 11.  εἶδος μοναρχίας βασιλικῆς), Philo Judæus (de Circumcisione, § 2; de Monarchia, Titul.), means “sole government.”  Compare Tertullian (adv. Praxean. c. iii.):  “If I have gained any knowledge of either language, I am sure that Μοναρχία has no other meaning than ‘single and individual rule.’”  Athanasius (de Decretis Nicænæ Synodi, § 26) has preserved part of an Epistle of Dionysius, Bishop of Rome (259–269, a.d.), against the Sabellians:  “It will be natural for me now to speak against those who divide, and cut into pieces, and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Monarchia, making it, as it were, three powers and divided hypostases, and three Godheads;” (ibid.):  “It is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion to sever and divide the Monarchia into three origins (ἀρχάς).”  We see here the sense which Μοναρχία had acquired in  Christian Theology:  it meant the “Unity of God,” as the one principle and origin of all things.  “By the Monarchy is meant the doctrine that the Second and Third Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity are ever to be referred in our thoughts to the First, as the Fountain of Godhead” (Newman, Athanas. de Decretis Nic. Syn. § 26, note h).  Justin Martyr (Euseb. H.E. IV. 18), and Irenæus (ibid. V. 20), had each written a treatise περὶ Μοναρχίας.  On the history of Monarchianism see, in this Series, Athanasius, Prolegomena, p. xxiii. sqq.

Isaiah xlv. 16, 17. (Sept.)

Sanctify yourselves unto Me, O islands.  Israel is saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation; they shall not be ashamed, neither shall they be confounded for ever, &c.

1.  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ⁸²⁰

820 2 Cor. i. 3.

821 This clause is omitted in some mss.  Various forms of the Doxology were adopted in Cyril’s time by various parties in the Church.  Thus Theodoret (Hist. Eccles. II. c. 19) relates that Leontius, Bishop of Antioch, a.d. 348–357, observing that the Clergy and the Congregation were divided into two parties, the one using the form “and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,” the other “through the Son, in the Holy Ghost,” used to repeat the Doxology silently, so that those who were near could hear only “world without end.” The form which was regarded as the most orthodox, and adopted in the Liturgies ran thus:  “Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, now and ever, and to the ages of the ages.”  See Suicer’s Thesaurus, Δοξολογία.

2.  Now though the mind is most rapid in its thoughts, yet the tongue needs words, and a long recital of intermediary speech.  For the eye embraces at once a multitude of the ‘starry quire;’ but when any one wishes to describe them one by one, which is the Morning-star, and which, the Evening-star, and which each one of them, he has need of many words.  In like manner again the mind in the briefest moment compasses earth and sea and all the bounds of the universe; but what it conceives in an instant, it uses many words to describe⁸²²

822 Irenæus II. xxviii. 4:  “But since God is all mind, all reason, all active Spirit, all light, and always exists as one and the same, such conditions and divisions (of operation) cannot fittingly be ascribed to Him.  For our tongue, as being made of flesh, is not able to minister to the rapidity of man’s sense, because that is of a spiritual nature; for which reason our speech is restrained (suffocatur) within us, and is not at once expressed as it has been conceived in the mind but is uttered by successive efforts, just as the tongue is able to serve it.”

823 Tertullian, Apologeticus, § 17:  “That which is infinite is known only to itself.  This it is which gives some notion of God, while yet beyond all our conceptions—our very incapacity of fully grasping Him affords us the idea of what He really is.  He is presented to our minds in His transcendent greatness, as at once known and unknown.”  Cf. Phil. Jud. de Monarch. i. 4:  Hooker, Eccles. Pol. I. ii. 3:  “Whom although to know be life, and joy to make mention of His name; yet our soundest knowledge is to know that we know Him not as He is, neither can know Him.”

824 Ps. xxxiv. 3.

3.  A great and honourable man was Abraham, but only great in comparison with men; and when he came before God, then speaking the truth candidly he saith, I am earth and ashes⁸²⁵

825 Gen. xviii. 27.

826 The opinion of Aristarchus of Samos, as stated by Archimedes (Arenarius, p. 320, Oxon), was that the sphere of the fixed stars was so large, that it bore to the earth’s orbit the same proportion as a sphere to its centre, or more correctly (as Archimedes explains) the same proportion as the earth’s orbit round the sun to the earth itself.  Compare Cat. xv. 24.

827 Is. xl. 22.

4.  If any man attempt to speak of God, let him first describe the bounds of the earth.  Thou dwellest on the earth, and the limit of this earth which is thy dwelling thou knowest not:  how then shalt thou be able to form a worthy thought of its Creator?  Thou beholdest the stars, but their Maker thou beholdest not:  count these which are visible, and then describe Him who is invisible, Who telleth the number of the stars, and calleth them all by their names⁸²⁸

828 Ps. cxlvii. 4.

829 Job xxxvi. 27:  ἀριθμηταὶ δὲ αὐτῷ σταγόνες ὑετοῦ.  R.V. For He draweth up the drops of water.

830 Ecclus. iii. 21, 22.

5.  But some one will say, If the Divine substance is incomprehensible, why then dost thou discourse of these things?  So then, because I cannot drink up all the river, am I not even to take in moderation what is expedient for me?  Because with eyes so constituted as mine I cannot take in all the sun, am I not even to look upon him enough to satisfy my wants?  Or again, because I have entered into a great garden, and cannot eat all the supply of fruits, wouldst thou have me go away altogether hungry?  I praise and glorify Him that made us; for it is a divine command which saith, Let every breath praise the Lord⁸³¹

831 Ps. cl. 6.

832 John i. 18.  They are the Evangelist’s own words.

6.  What then, some man will say, is it not written, The little ones’ Angels do always behold the face of My Father which is in heaven⁸³³

833 Matt. xviii. 10.

834 John vi. 46.

835 1 Cor. ii. 10.

836 Matt. xi. 27.

837 The Benedictine and earlier printed texts read ὁ γεννηθεὶς [ἀπαθῶς πρὸ τῶν χρόνων αἰωνίων]:  but the words in brackets are not found in the best mss.  The false grammar betrays a spurious insertion, which also interrupts the sense.  On the meaning of the phrase ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἀπαθῶς, see note on vii. 5:  οὐ πάθει πατὴρ γενόμενος.

7.  For devotion it suffices us simply to know that we have a God; a God who is One, a living⁸³⁸

838 Gr. ὄντα, ἀεὶ ὄντα.

839 Iren. II. xiii. 3:  “He is altogether like and equal to Himself; since He is all sense, and all spirit, and all feeling, and all thought, and all reason, and all hearing, and all ear, and all eye, and all light, and all a fount of every good,—even as the religious and pious are wont to speak of God.”

840 μονοειδῆ.  A Platonic word.  Phædo, 80 B:  τῷ μὲν θείω καὶ ἀθανάτῳ καὶ νοητῷ καὶ μονοειδεῖ καὶ ἀδιαλύτῳ καὶ ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔχοντι ἑαυτῷ ὁμοιότατον εἶναι ψυχήν.  See Index, “Hypostasis.”

841 Iren. II. xxxv. 3:  “If any object that in the Hebrew language different expressions occur, such as Sabaoth, Elöe, Adonai, and all other such terms, striving to prove from these that there are different powers and Gods, let them learn that all expressions of this kind are titles and announcements of one and the same Being.”

842 See the passages of Irenæus quoted above, § 2 note 4, and § 7 note 3.

843 John v. 37.

844 Deut. iv. 15.

8.  There have been many imaginations by many persons, and all have failed.  Some have thought that God is fire; others that He is, as it were, a man with wings, because of a true text ill understood, Thou shalt hide me under the shadow of Thy wings⁸⁴⁵

845 Ps. xvii. 8.

846 Matt. xxiii. 37.

847 Zech. iv. 10.

848 Matt. v. 48.

849 Philo Judæus (Leg. Alleg. I. 14. p. 52).  Θεοῦ γὰρ οὐδὲ ὁ σύμπας κόσμος ἀξίον ἂν εἴη χωρίον καὶ ἐνδιαίτημα, ἐπεὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ τήπος.  So Sir Isaac Newton, at the end of the Principia, asserts that God by His eternal and infinite existence constitutes Time and Space:  “Non est duratio vel spatium, sed durat et adest, et existendo semper et ubique spatium et durationem constituit.”

850 Is. lxvi. 1.

9.  One He is, everywhere present, beholding all things, perceiving all things, creating all things through Christ:  For all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made⁸⁵¹

851 John i. 3.

852 The sacred name (הוהי) was not pronounced, but Adonai was substituted.

853 Job xi. 7 (R.V.):  Canst thou by searching find out God?  Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?  Cyril seems to have understood τὰ ἔσχατα as “the least,” not as “the utmost.”

854 1 Cor. ii. 9.

855 Rom. xi. 33.

10.  God then being thus great, and yet greater, (for even were I to change my whole substance into tongue, I could not speak His excellence:  nay more, not even if all Angels should assemble, could they ever speak His worth), God being therefore so great in goodness and majesty, man hath yet dared to say to a stone that he hath graven, Thou art my God⁸⁵⁶

856 Is. xliv. 17.

857 The cat was sacred to the goddess Pasht, called by the Greeks Bubastis, and identified by Herodotus (ii. 137) with Artemis or Diana.  Cats were embalmed after death, and their mummies are found at various places, but especially at Bubastis (Herod. ii. 67). “The Dogs are interred in the cities to which they belong, in sacred burial-places” (Herod. ii. 67), but chiefly at Cynopolis (“City of Dogs”) where the dog-headed deity Anubis was worshipped. Mummies of wolves are found in chambers excavated in the rocks at Lycopolis, where Osiris was worshipped under the symbol of a wolf.

858 The lion was held sacred at Leontopolis (Strabo, xvii. p. 812).

859 “In the neighbourhood of Thebes there are sacred serpents perfectly harmless to man.  These they bury in the temple of Zeus, the god to whom they are sacred.”  (Herod. ii. 74.) At Epidaurus in Argolis the serpent was held sacred as the symbol of Æsculapius.  Clement of Alexandria (Exhort. c. ii.) gives a fuller list of animals worshipped by various nations.  Compare also Clement. Recogn. V. 20.

860 Juvenal Sat. xv. 7. Illic aeluros, hic piscem fluminis, illic Oppida tota canem venerantur, nemo Dianam. Possum et caepe nefas violare et frangere morsu.

861 Ps. civ. 15.

862 Gen. i. 11.

863 Ps. civ. 15.

11.  Whence came the polytheistic error of the Greeks⁸⁶⁴

864 The early Creeds of the Eastern Churches, like that which Eusebius of Cæsarea proposed at Nicæa, expressly declare the unity of God, in opposition both to the heathen Polytheism, and to the various heresies which introduced two or more Gods.  See below in this Lecture, §§ 12–18; and compare Athan. (contra Gentes, § 6, sqq.)

865 Clement of Alexandria (Exhort. cap. ii. § 37), quotes a passage from a hymn of Callimachus, implying the death of Zeus: “For even thy tomb, O king, The Cretans fashioned.” Adonis, or “Thammuz yearly wounded,” was said to live and die in alternate years.

866 By the word “falls” (ἀποπτώσεις) Cyril evidently refers to the story of Hephæstus, or Vulcan, to which Milton alludes (Paradise Lost, I. 740):— “Men call’d him Mulciber, and how he fell From heaven they fabled, thrown by angry Jove Sheer o’er the crystal battlements:  from morn To noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve, A summer’s day.”

867 The “thunder-strokes” refer to “Titan heaven’s first-born, With his enormous brood” (Par. Lost, I. 510).  Cf. Virgil, Æn. vi. 580:— “Hic genus antiquum Terræ, Titania pubes, Fulmine dejecti fundo volvuntur in imo.” Ibid. v. 585:— “Vidi et crudeles dantem Salmonea pœnas, Dum flammas Jovis et sonitus imitatur Olympi.” Clem. Alex. (Exhort. II. § 37):—“Æsculapius lies struck with lightning in the regions of Cynosuris.”  Cf. Virg. Æn. vii. 770 ss.

Of Heresies.

12.  And not among the heathen only did the devil make these assaults; for many of those who are falsely called Christians, and wrongfully addressed by the sweet name of Christ, have ere now impiously dared to banish God from His own creation.  I mean the brood of heretics, those most ungodly men of evil name, pretending to be friends of Christ but utterly hating Him.  For he who blasphemes the Father of the Christ is an enemy of the Son.  These men have dared to speak of two Godheads, one good and one evil⁸⁶⁸

868 The theory of two Gods, one good and the other evil, was held by Cerdo, and Marcion (Hippolytus, Refut. omnium Hær. VII. cap. 17:  Irenæus, III. xxv. 3, quoted in note on Cat. iv. 4).  The Manichees also held that the Creator of the world was distinct from the Supreme God (Alexander Lycop. de Manichæorum Sententiis, cap. iii.).

13.  Heretics have dared to say that there are two Gods, and of good and evil two sources, and these unbegotten.  If both are unbegotten it is certain that they are also equal, and both mighty.  How then doth the light destroy the darkness?  And do they ever exist together, or are they separated?  Together they cannot be; for what fellowship hath light with darkness? saith the Apostle⁸⁶⁹

869 2 Cor. vi. 14.  Cyril’s description applies especially to the heresy of Manes.  See § 36, note 3, at the end of this Lecture; also Cat. xi. 21. and Cat. xv. 3.

14.  The inventor of all heresy was Simon Magus⁸⁷⁰

870 So Irenæus (I. xxiii. 2) says that “from this Simon of Samaria all kinds of heresies derive their origin.”

871 Acts viii. 18–21.

872 1 John ii. 19.

873 Irenæus (I. xxiii. 2):  “Having purchased from Tyre, a city of Phœnicia, a certain harlot named Helena, he used to carry her about with him, declaring that this woman was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all, by whom in the beginning he conceived in his mind the creation of Angels and Archangels.”

874 Cf. Epiphan. (Hæres. p. 55, B):  “He said that he was the Son and had not really suffered, but only in appearance (δοκήσει).”

875 Irenæus (I. xxiii. 1):  “He taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, and descended in Samaria as the Father, but came to other nations as the Holy Spirit.” Cyril here departs from his authority by substituting Mount Sinai for Samaria, and thereby falls into error.  Simon had first appeared in Samaria, being a native of Gitton:  moreover in claiming to be the Father he meant to set himself far above the inferior Deity who had given the Law on Sinai, saying that he was “the highest of all Powers, that is the Father who is over all.”

876 “Justin Martyr in his first Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius, writes thus (c. 26):  ‘There was one Simon a Samaritan, of the village called Gitton, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty feats of magic by the art of dæmons working in him.  He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured among you with a statue, which statue was set up in the river Tiber between the two bridges, and bears this inscription in Latin: Simoni Deo Sancto; which is, To Simon the holy God. “The substance of this story is repeated by Irenæus (adv. Hær. I. xxiii. 1), and by Tertullian (Apol. c. 13), who reproaches the Romans for installing Simon Magus in their Pantheon, and giving him a statue and the title ‘Holy God.’ “In a.d. 1574, a stone, which had formed the base of a statue, was dug up on the site described by Justin, the Island in the Tiber, bearing an inscription—‘Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum, &c.’  Hence it has been supposed that Justin mistook a statue of the Sabine God, ‘Semo Sancus,’ for one of Simon Magus.  See the notes in Otto’s Justin Martyr, and Stieren’s Irenæus. “On the other hand Tillemont (Memoires, t. ii. p. 482) maintains that Justin in an Apology addressed to the emperor and written in Rome itself cannot reasonably be supposed to have fallen into so manifest an error.  Whichever view we take of Justin’s accuracy concerning the inscription and the statue, there is nothing improbable in his statement that Simon Magus was at Rome in the reign of Claudius.”  (Extracted by permission from the Speaker’s Commentary, Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans, p. 4.)

15.  As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right⁸⁷⁷

877 “Justin says not one word about St. Peter’s alleged visit to Rome, and his encounter with Simon Magus.”  But “Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (c. a.d. 325), quotes Justin Martyr’s story about Simon Magus (E. H. ii. c. 13), and then, without referring to any authority, goes on to assert (c. 14) that ‘immediately in the same reign of Claudius divine Providence led Peter the great Apostle to Rome to encounter this great destroyer of life,’ and that he thus brought the light of the Gospel from the East to the West’ (ibidem). Eusebius probably borrowed this story “from the strange fictions of the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, and Apostolic Constitutions.”  See Recogn. III. 63–65; Hom. I. 15, III. 58; Apost. Constit. VI. 7, 8, 9.  Cyril’s account of Simon’s death is taken from the same untrustworthy sources.

878 Matt. xviii. 19.

879 Ib. xvi. 19.

880 It is certain that S. Paul was not at Rome at this time.  This story of Simon Magus and his ‘fiery car’ is told, with variations, by Arnobius (adv. Gentes, II. 12), and in Apost. Constit. VI. 9.

881 2 Cor. xii. 2; 4.

16.  For Cerinthus⁸⁸²

882 Cerinthus taught that the world was not made by the supreme God, but by a separate Power ignorant of Him.  See Irenæus, Hær. I. xxvi., Euseb. E.H. iii. 28, with the notes in this Series.

883 Menander is first mentioned by Justin M. (Apolog. I. cap. 26):  “Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetæa, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art.  He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die.”  Irenæus (I. xxiii. 5) adds that Menander announced himself as the Saviour sent by the Invisibles, and taught that the world was created by Angels.  See also Tertullian (de Animâ, cap. 50.)

884 Carpocrates, a Platonic philosopher, who taught at Alexandria (125 a.d. circ.), held that the world and all things in it were made by Angels far inferior to the unbegotten (unknown) Father (Iren. I. xxv. 1; Tertullian, Adv. Hær. cap. 3).

885 Irenæus, I. 26:  “Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.”

886 On Marcion, see note 5, on Cat. iv. 4.

887 John xvii. 25.

888 Luke xii. 28.

889 Matt. v. 45.

890 Marcion accepted only St. Luke’s Gospel, and mutilated that (Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. iv. 2).  He thus got rid of the testimony of the Apostles and eye-witnesses, Matthew and John, and represented the Law and the Gospel as contradictory revelations of two different Gods.  For this Cyril calls him ‘a second inventor of mischief,’ Simon Magus (§ 14) being the first.

17.  He again was succeeded by another, Basilides, of evil name, and dangerous character, a preacher of impurities⁸⁹¹

891 Basilides was earlier than Marcion, being the founder of a Gnostic sect at Alexandria in the reign of Hadrian (a.d. 117–138).  His doctrines are described by Irenæus (I. xxvii. 3–7), and very fully by Hippolytus (Refut. omn. Hær. VII. 2–15).  The charge of teaching licentiousness attaches rather to the later followers of Basilides than to himself or his son Isidorus (Clem. Alex. Stromat. III. cap. 1).  Basilides wrote a Commentary on the Gospel in 24 books (Exegetica), of which the 23rd is quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Stromat. IV. cap. 12), and against which Agrippa Castor wrote a refutation.  Origen (Hom. I. in Lucam.) says that Basilides wrote a Gospel bearing his own name.  See Routh, Rell. Sacr. I. p. 85; V. p. 106:  Westcott, History of Canon of N.T. iv. § 3.

892 “The doctrines of Valentinus are described fully by Irenæus (I. cap. i.) from whom S. Cyril takes this account.  Valentinus, and Basilides, and Bardesanes, and Harmonious, and those of their company admit Christ’s conception and birth of the Virgin, but say that God the Word received no addition from the Virgin, but made a sort of passage through her, as through a tube, and made use of a phantom in appearing to men.”  (Theodoret, Epist. 145.)

893 Luke iii. 23.

18.  And even this is still little compared with the impieties which follow.  For the last of the deities being, as he dares to speak, both male and female, this, he says, is Wisdom⁸⁹⁴

894 Irenæus I. ii. 2.

895 1 Cor. i. 24.

896 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.

19.  But hear whom they say Christ Jesus to be, that thou mayest detest them yet more.  For they say that after Wisdom had been cast down, in order that the number of the thirty might not be incomplete, the nine and twenty Æons contributed each a little part, and formed the Christ⁸⁹⁷

897 The account in Irenæus (I. ii. 6) is rather different:  “The whole Pleroma of the Æons, with one design and desire, and with the concurrence of the Christ and the Holy Spirit, their Father also setting the seal of His approval on their conduct, brought together whatever each one had in himself of the greatest beauty and preciousness; and uniting all these contributions so as skilfully to blend the whole, they produced, to the honour and glory of Bythus, a being of most perfect beauty, the very star of the Pleroma, and its perfect fruit, namely Jesus.” 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.

898 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.

899 2 John 10; 11:  “Neither bid him God speed” (A.V.):  “give him no greeting” (R.V.).

900 Ephes. v. 11.

20.  Hate all heretics, but especially him who is rightly named after mania⁹⁰¹

901 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.

902 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.

903 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.

904 Leo the Great (Serm. xv. cap. 4) speaks of the madness of the later Manichees as including all errors and impieties:  “all profanity of Paganism, all blindness of the carnal Jews, the illicit secrets of the magic art, the sacrilege and blasphemy of all heresies, flowed together in that sect as into a sort of cess-pool of all filth.”  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.”

905 Matt. iii. 7.

906 Ib. xxvi. 49.

21.  Now, lest I seem to accuse him without reason, let me make a digression to tell who this Manes is, and in part what he teaches:  for all time would fail to describe adequately the whole of his foul teaching.  But for help in time of need⁹⁰⁷

907 Heb. iv. 16.

22.  There was in Egypt one Scythianus⁹⁰⁸

908 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.”

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

910 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.

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

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

913 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.:  “Scythianus thought of making an excursion into Judæa, with the purpose of meeting all those who had a reputation there as teachers; but it came to pass that he suddenly departed this life, without having been able to make any progress.”

23.  But Terebinthus, his disciple in this wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy⁹¹⁴

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

915 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.”

916 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.”

917 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).

918 See below, § 33.

24.  The books, however, which were the records of his impiety, remained; and both these and his money the widow inherited.  And having neither kinsman nor any other friend, she determined to buy with the money a boy named Cubricus⁹¹⁹

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

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

25.  He dared too to say that he was the Paraclete, though it is written, But whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, hath no forgiveness⁹²¹

921 Mark iii. 29.

922 Prov. xxx. 21, 22.

26.  Now as there are very many wicked things which I tell thee of him, remember first his blasphemy, secondly his slavery (not that slavery is a disgrace, but that his pretending to be free-born, when he was a slave, was wicked), thirdly, the falsehood of his promise, fourthly, the murder of the child, and fifthly, the disgrace of the imprisonment.  And there was not only the disgrace of the prison, but also the flight from prison.  For he who called himself the Paraclete and champion of the truth, ran away:  he was no successor of Jesus, who readily went to the Cross, but this man was the reverse, a runaway.  Moreover, the King of the Persians ordered the keepers of the prison to be executed:  so Manes was the cause of the child’s death through his vain boasting, and of the gaolers’ death through his flight.  Ought then he, who shared the guilt of murder, to be worshipped?  Ought he not to have followed the example of Jesus, and said, If ye seek Me, let these go their way⁹²³

923 John xviii. 8.

924 Jonah i. 12.

27.  He escapes from the prison, and comes into Mesopotamia:  but there Bishop Archelaus, a shield of righteousness, encounters him⁹²⁵

925 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).

926 Ps. v. 9.

927 Deut. iv. 24.

928 Luke xii. 49.

929 1 Sam. ii. 6.

930 Matt. xxv. 41.

931 Is. xlv. 7.

932 Matt. x. 34.

28.  Then Manes answers him:  “And what sort of God causes blindness?  For it is Paul who saith, In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the Gospel should shine unto them⁹³³

933 2 Cor. iv. 4, νοήματα, “thoughts.”

934 2 Cor. iv. 3.

935 Matt. vii. 6.

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

937 Matt. xiii. 15.

938 Ib. xxv. 29; Luke viii. 18.

29.  “But if some are right in their interpretation, we must say as follows⁹³⁹

939 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.

940 νοήματα, 2 Cor. iv. 4.

941 Matt. xiii. 13.

942 Mark iv. 34.

943 See the note at the end of Procatechesis.

30.  By such and many other arguments the serpent was overthrown:  thus did Archelaus wrestle with Manes and threw him.  Again, he who had fled from prison flees from this place also:  and having run away from his antagonist, he comes to a very poor village, like the serpent in Paradise when he left Adam and came to Eve.  But the good shepherd Archelaus taking forethought for his sheep, when he heard of his flight, straightway hastened with all speed in search of the wolf.  And when Manes suddenly saw his adversary, he rushed out and fled:  it was however his last flight.  For the officers of the King of Persia searched everywhere, and caught the fugitive:  and the sentence, which he ought to have received in the presence of Archelaus, is passed upon him by the king’s officers.  This Manes, whom his own disciples worship, is arrested and brought before the king.  The king reproached him with his falsehood and his flight:  poured scorn upon his slavish condition, avenged the murder of his child, and condemned him also for the murder of the gaolers:  he commands him to be flayed after the Persian fashion.  And while the rest of his body was given over for food of wild beasts, his skin, the receptacle of his vile mind, was hung up before the gates like a sack⁹⁴⁴

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

31.  This man has had three disciples, Thomas, and Baddas, and Hermas.  Let none read the Gospel according to Thomas⁹⁴⁵

945 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.”

946 In the Disputation, § 9, Turbo describes these transformations:  “Reapers must be transformed into hay, or beans, or barley, or corn, or vegetables, that they may be reaped and cut.  Again if any one eats bread, he must become bread, and be eaten.  If one kills a chicken, he will be a chicken himself.  If one kills a mouse, he also will be a mouse.”

32.  Let those children of sloth, the Manicheans, make answer; who without labouring themselves eat up the labourers’ fruits:  who welcome with smiling faces those who bring them their food, and return curses instead of blessings.  For when a simple person brings them anything, “Stand outside a while,” saith he, “and I will bless thee.”  Then having taken the bread into his hands (as those who have repented and left them have confessed), “I did not make thee,” says the Manichee to the bread:  and sends up curses against the Most High; and curses him that made it, and so eats what was made⁹⁴⁷

947 See Turbo’s confession, Disput. § 9:  “And when they are going to eat bread, they first pray, speaking thus to the bread:  ‘I neither reaped thee, nor ground thee, nor kneaded thee, nor cast thee into the oven:  but another did these things and brought thee to me, and I am not to blame for eating thee.’  And when he has said this to himself, he says to the Catechumen, ‘I have prayed for thee,’ and so he goes away.”

33.  These are great faults, but still small in comparison with the rest.  Their Baptism I dare not describe before men and women⁹⁴⁸

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

949 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.

950 ῾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.

951 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.”

34.  Of these things the Church admonishes and teaches thee, and touches mire, that thou mayest not be bemired:  she tells of the wounds, that thou mayest not be wounded.  But for thee it is enough merely to know them:  abstain from learning by experience.  God thunders, and we all tremble; and they blaspheme.  God lightens, and we all bow down to the earth; and they have their blasphemous sayings about the heavens⁹⁵²

952 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.

35.  But may the Lord deliver us from such delusion:  and may there be given to you a hatred against the serpent, that as they lie in wait for the heel, so you may trample on their head.  Remember ye what I say.  What agreement can there be between our state and theirs?  What communion hath light with darkness⁹⁵³

953 2 Cor. vi. 14.

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

955 Matt. v. 28.

956 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).

36.  Make thou thy fold with the sheep:  flee from the wolves:  depart not from the Church.  Hate those also who have ever been suspected in such matters:  and unless in time thou perceive their repentance, do not rashly trust thyself among them.  The truth of the Unity of God has been delivered to thee:  learn to distinguish the pastures of doctrine.  Be an approved banker⁹⁵⁷

957 This saying is quoted three times in the Clementine Homilies as spoken by our Lord.  See Hom. II. § 51; III. § 50; XVIII. § 20:  “Every man who wishes to be saved must become, as the Teacher said, a judge of the books written to try us.  For thus He spake:  Become experienced bankers.  Now the need of bankers arises from the circumstance that the spurious is mixed up with the genuine.” 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.)

958 1 Thess. v. 21, 22.

959 Compare § 13 of this Lecture, where Cyril seems to refer especially to the heresy of Manes, as described in the Disputatio Archelai, cap. 6:  “If you are desirous of being instructed in the faith of Manes, hear it briefly from me.  That man worships two gods, unbegotten, self-originate, eternal, opposed one to the other.  The one he represents as good, and the other as evil, naming the one Light, and the other Darkness.”

E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH