14 Prwto/tokon. 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. 62l): "The same cannot be both Only-begotten and Firstborn, except in different relations; - that is, Only-begotten, because of His generation from the father, as has been said; and First-born, because of His condescension to the creation, and His making the many His brethren." See Mr. Robertson's discussion of the word prwto/tokoj (Athan. p. 344, in this series), and Bp. Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. iii. 5-8).
15 Ex. iv. 22.
16 Deut. xiv. 1.
17 Ps. lxxxii. 6.
18 e'n pa=sin o!moioj. See the note on iv. 7. That the phrase was not equivalent to o 9moou/sioj, and did not adequately express the relation of the Son to the Father is clearly shewn by Athanasius (de Synodis, cap. iii. § 53).
19 The additions which the Benedictione Editor has here made to the earlier text, as represented by Milles, may be conveniently shewn in brackets. a'lla\ Ui 9o\j [tou= Patro\j * e'ca 9rxh=j e'gennh/qh, u 9pera/nw pa/shj a'rxh=j kai\ ai'w/nwn tugxa/nwn] *, Uio=j tou= Patro\j [e'n pa=sin]_ o!moij twj gegennhko/ti : [a 9i/dioj e'c a'i!di/on Patro/j,] * zwh\ e'k zwh=j gegennhme/noj. . . . kai\ Qeo\j e'k Qeou=, [kai\ du/namij e'k duna/mewj]_.
* Codd. Coisl. Ottob. Mon. 2.
_ Coisl. Ottob. Roe, Casaub Mon. 1, 2.
_ Coisl. Ottob. Mon. 1, 2.
20 Matt. i. 1.
21 Heb. ix. 26.
22 See § 4, note 3.
24 to\ me\n kata\ to\n Dabi/d. . . . to\ de\ kata\ th\n Qeo/thta.
25 Isa. liii. 8. Compare § 7, below.
26 John iv. 24.
27 Ps. ii. 7.
28 Ps. cx. 3. "From the womb of the morning thou hast the dew of thy youth" (R. V.). There is a remarkable various reading in Codd. Roe, Casaub. To/ ei\ su/, a 9xronon kai\ a'i/dion: to\ de\ oh/meron pro/sqaton, a'll0 ou'k a'i\dion, oi'keioume/nou tou= Patro\j kai\ th\n ka\tw ge/nnhsin. Kai\ pa/lin li/gei: 0Ek gastro\j pro\ e 9wsqo/rou gege/nnhka/ se: tou=to mo/non th=j Qeo/thtoj: Pi/steuson, k. t. l. The words "Thou art My Son," are thus referred to the eternal generation, and "This day" to the birth in time: whereas in the received text, followed in our translation, sh/neron refers to the timeless and eternal generation of the Son. The former interpretation of Ps. ii. 7 is found in many Fathers, as for example in Tertullian (adv. Prax. vii. xi.), and Methodius (Conviv. Virg. VIII. cap. ix.): "He says `thou art,0' and not `thou hast become,0' shewing that He had not recently attained to the position of Son. . . . But the expression, `This day have I begotten Thee,0' signifies that He willed that existing already before the ages in heaven He should also be begotten for the world, that is that He who was before unknown should be made known.0' The same interpretation was held by many Fathers, some referring sh/reron to the Nativity, as Cyprian (adv. Judaeos Testim. ii. 8), others to the Baptism (Justin M. Dialog. cap. lxxxviii.; Tertullian. adv. Marcion. iv. 22). Athanasius (c. Arian. iv. § 27), has a long discussion on the question whether Ps. cx. 3, e'k gastro\j pro\e 9wsqo/rou gege/nnhka/ se, refers to the eternal generation of the Son, or th His Nativity.
29 John iii. 16.
30 Ib. iii. 18; v. 24.
31 Ib. iii. 36.
32 Ib. i. 14.
33 Luke iv. 34.
34 fu/sei kai\ ou 9 qe/sei. Cf. § 2, note 4.
35 1 John v. 1.
36 John iv. 24. Cf. § 5.
37 gegennhme/noj 'na/rxwj. Cf. § 5, note 4.
38 of@ xro/noj. Bened. c. Codd. Roe, Casaub. Coisl. o@ xro/noij Ottob. Mon. I. 2. A With the latter reading, the meaning will be - "if He did not bestow from the beginning, as thou sayest, what He bestowed in after times." Cyril does not here address his auditor, but an imaginary opponent, - "O man."
Compare Athan. (de Synodis, § 26).
39 The Arians appear to have made use of a dilemma: If God begat with will and purpose, these preceded the begetting, and so h\n pote o!te ou'k h\n, there was a time when the Son was not: if without will and purpose, then He begat in ignorance and of necessity. The answer is fully given by Athanasius (c. Arian. iii. 58-67, pp. 425-431 in this Series).
40 Athanasius (ad Episcopos Aegypti, § 13), referring to 1 John v. 20, This is the true (a 9lhqino/j) God, writes: "But these men (the Arians), as if in contradiction to this, allege that Christ is not the true God, but that He is only called God, as are other creatures, in regard of His participation in the Divine nature." Again (c. Arian. iii. 9) , "He gave us to know that of the true Father He is the true Offspring (a'lhqino\sn ge/nnhma).
41 1 Cor. iv. 15.
42 John i. 12, 13.
43 Matt. iii. 17.
44 Compare Athanasius (de Sententiâ Dionysii, § 23): "the mind creates the word, being manifested in it, and the word shews the mind, having originated therein." Tertullian (adv. Prax. vii.): "You will say what is a word but a voice and sound of the mouth, and (as the Grammarians teach) air when struck against, intelligible to the ear, but for the rest a sort of void, empty, and incorporeal thing." Cf. Athan. (de Synodis, § 12): a'nupo/staton.
45 e'nupo/staton. ibid. So the Spirit is described in Cat. xvii. 5 "not uttered or breathed by the mouth and lips of the Father and the Son, nor dispersed into the air, but personally subsisting (e'nupo/staton)."
46 e'n u 9posta/sei.
47 John i. 1.
48 John viii. 38.
49 Matt. xi. 27; John v. 22.
50 Job xii. 8.
51 In saying that the earth, the sun, and the heavens know not their Maker, Cyril is simply using figurative language like that of the passage of Job just quoted. There is no reason to suppose that he accepted Origen's theory (de Pricipiis, II. cap. 7), that the heavenly bodies are living and rational beings, capable of sin.
52 Isa. li. 6: the heavens shall vanish away like smoke.
53 Ps. cxlviii. 4.
54 John i. 3.
55 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11.
56 I have followed the reading of Codd. Coisl. Roe, Casaub. Mon. A., which is approved though not adopted by the Benedictine Editor. The common text is manifestly interpolated: "And the Holy Spirit of God testifies in the Scriptures, that He who was begotten without beginning is God. For what man knoweth, &c." This insertion of 1 Cor. ii. 11 interrupts the argument, and is a useless repetition of the allusion to the same passage in § 12.
57 John v. 26.
58 Ib. v. 23.
59 Ib. v. 21.
60 See iv. 8, note 8, on the Sabellian doctrine, and Athanas. (de Synodis, § 16, note 10 in this series).
61 The doctrine of Sabellius might be expressed in two forms, either the Father became the Son, or the Son became the Father. Both forms are here denied. The Jerusalem Editor thinks there is an alluision to the Arian argument mentioned by Athanasius (c. Arian. Or. I. cap. vi. 22): "If the Son is the Father's offspring and Image, and is like in all things to the Father, then it necessarily holds that as He is begotten so He begets, and He too becomes father of a son." But the close connexion of the two clauses is in favour of the reference to the Sabellian ui\opatori/a.
62 a'ge/nnhtoi. The context shews that this, not a'ge/nhtoi, is here the right form. Athanasius seems to have used a'ge/nnhtoj in both senses "Un-begotten," as here, and "unoriginate." "Their further question `whether the Unoriginate be one or two,0' shews how false are their views." Compare Bp. Lightfoot's Excursus on Ignatius, Ephes. § 7, and Mr. Robertson's notes on Athanasius in this Series.
63 See above, § 8, note 3.
64 Athan. (c. Arian. I. ix. 31) "speaking against the Lord, `He is of nothing,0' and `He was not before His generation.0'"
65 1 Cor. xi. 3.
66 Matt. i. 23.
67 Baruch iii. 35-37. The last verse was understood by Cyril, as by many of the Greek and Latin Fathers, to be a prophecy of the Incarnation: but in reality it refers to "knowledge" (e'pioth/mh, v. 36), and should be translated "she was seen upon earth." See notes on the passage in the Speaker's Commentary.
68 Heb. i. 8.
69 Ib. i. 9. See x. 14, note 9.
70 Isa. xlv. 14, 15: "They shall make supplication unto thee, saying, surely God is in thee." The words are addressed to Jerusalem as the city of God. Cyril applies them to the Son, misled by the Septuagint.
71 John xiv. 11.
72 Athanasius (c. Arian. Or. iv. § 9), arguing for the o 9moou/sion says: "These are two, because there is Father and Son, that is the Word; and one, because one God. For if this is not so, He would have said, I am the Father, or, I and the Father am."
73 See iv. 8, notes 7 and 8.
74 Pss. xxxiii. 9; cxlviii. 5. S. Cyril explains the creative "Fiat" in Gen. i. as addressed by the Father to the Son.
75 We learn from Socrates (Eccl. Hist. I. 24), that after the Nicene Council "those who objected to the word o 9moou/sioj conceived that those who approved it favoured the opinion of Sabellius." Marcellus of Ancyra, who was deposed on a charge of Sabellianism, and who did not in fact make clear the distinct personality of the Son, had been warmly supported by the friends of Athanasius. Cyril apparently fears to incur their censure, if he too strongly condemned the Sabellian view.
76 Cyril here rejects both the opposite errors, Arianism, "There was a time when the Son was not," and Sabellianism, "a Son who is the Father."
77 John xiv. 9.
78 See above, § 4, note 9.
79 a'para/llaktoi. The word was used by the Orthodox Bishops at Nicaea, who said that "the Word must be described as the True power and Image of the Father, in all things like the Father and Himself incapable of change." See the notes of Dr. Newman and Mr. Robertson on Athanasius (de Decretis, § 20).
80 John xiv. 9.
81 See iv. 8, note 8.
82 John xx. 17.
83 Compare Cate. vii. 7. The Jerusalem Editor observes that the expression "My God" is understood by the Fathers generally as spoken by Christ in reference to His human nature, but Cyril applies this, as well as the other expression "My Father, "to the Divine nature. So Hilary (de Trinit. iv. 53): "idcirco Deus ejus est, quia ex eo natus in Deum est." Compare Epiphanius (Haer. lxix. 55).
84 Ecclus iii. 22.
85 Micah v. 2; on the various readings o'lgiosto\j ei\, mh\ o'l, ei\ ou'k o'l. ei\, found in the Mss. of Cyril, see the Commentaries on the quotation of the passage in Matt. ii. 6.
86 Codd. Roe, Casaub. have a different reading - "Think not then of His having now been born in Bethlehem, and (nor) suppose Him as the Son of Man to be altogether recent, but worship, &c." This is rightly regarded by the Benedictine and other Editors as an interpolation intended to avoid the apparent tendency of Cyril's language in the received text to separate the Virgin's Son from the Eternal Word. Had Cyril so written after the Nestorian controversy arose, he would have appeared to favour the Nestorian formula that "Mary did not give birth to the Deity." Compare Swainson (Nicene Creed, Ch. ix. § 7.) What Cyril really means is that we are not to think of Christ simply as man, but to worship Him as God.
87 Compare § 4, note 3.
88 John viii. 56.
89 Ib. viii. 58.
90 Ib. xvii. 5.
91 John xvii. 24.
92 Col. i. 16.
93 Compare Cat. vi. 13, and xv. 3: "Here let converts from the Manichees gain instruction, and no longer make those lights their gods; nor impiously think that this sun which shall be darkened is Christ."
94 The creation of the world was ascribed to Angels by the Gnostics generally. e. g.. by Simon Magus (Irenaeus, adv. Haeres. I. xxiii. § 2). , Meander (ibid. § 5), Saturninus (ibid. xxiv. 1), Basilides (ibid. § 3), Carpocrates (ibid. xxv. 1).
95 John i. 3.
96 On the doctrine of Creation by the Son as held by Cyril, see the reference to the Introduction in the Index, Creation.