Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Life of S. Cyril.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Introduction.
————————————
Chapter I.—Life of S.
Cyril.
The works of S. Cyril of Jerusalem owe much of their
peculiar interest and value to the character of the times in which he
wrote. Born a few years before the outbreak of
Arianism in a.d. 318, he lived to see
its suppression by the Edict of Theodosius, 380, and to take part in
its condemnation by the Council of Constantinople in the following
year.
The story of Cyril’s life is not told in
detail by any contemporary author; in his own writings there is little
mention of himself; and the Church historians refer only to the
events of his manhood and old age. We have thus no direct
knowledge of his early years, and can only infer from the later
circumstances of his life what may probably have been the nature of his
previous training. The names of his parents are quite unknown;
but in the Greek Menæa, or monthly catalogues of Saints, and in
the Roman Martyrology for the 18th day of March, Cyril is said to have
been “born of pious parents, professing the orthodox Faith, and
to have been bred up in the same, in the reign of
Constantine.” This account of his parentage and education
derives some probability from the fact that Cyril nowhere speaks as one
who had been converted from paganism or from any heretical sect.
His language at the close of the viith Lecture seems rather
to be inspired by gratitude to his own parents for a Christian
education: “The first virtuous observance in a Christian is
to honour his parents, to requite their trouble, and to provide with
all his power for their comfort: for however much we may repay
them, yet we can never be to them what they as parents have been to
us. Let them enjoy the comfort we can give, and strengthen us
with blessings.”
One member only of Cyril’s family is
mentioned by name, his sister’s son Gelasius, who was appointed
by Cyril to be Bishop of Cæsarea on the death of Acacius,
a.d. 366 circ.
Cyril himself was probably born, or at least
brought up, in or near Jerusalem, for it was usual to choose a Bishop
from among the Clergy over whom he was to preside, a preference being
given to such as were best known to the people generally1
.
That Cyril, whether a native of Jerusalem or not,
had passed a portion of his childhood there, is rendered probable by
his allusions to the condition of the Holy Places before they were
cleared and adorned by Constantine and Helena. He seems to speak
as an eye-witness of their former state, when he says that a few years
before the place of the Nativity at Bethlehem had been wooded2
| 2 Cat. xii. 20. The wood
had been cleared away about sixteen years before this Lecture was
delivered. | , that the place where Christ was crucified and
buried was a garden, of which traces were still remaining3
, that the wood of the Cross had been
distributed to all nations4
| 4 Cat. iv. 10; x. 19;
xiii. 4. Gregor. Nyss. Baptism of Christ, p. 520, in this
Series: “The wood of the Cross is of saving efficacy for
all men, though it is, as I am informed, a piece of a poor tree, less
valuable than most trees are.” | , and that before the
decoration of the Holy Sepulchre by Constantine, there was a cleft or
cave before the door of the Sepulchre, hewn out of the
rock itself, but now no
longer to be seen, because the outer cave had been cut away for the
sake of the recent adornments5
.
This work was undertaken by Constantine after the
year 326 a.d.6
| 6 Eusebius; Vita
Const. iii. 29 ff. | ; and if Cyril spoke
from remembrance of what he had himself seen, he could hardly have been
less than ten or twelve years old, and so must have been born not
later, perhaps a few years earlier, than 315 a.d.
The tradition that Cyril had been a monk and an
ascetic was probably founded upon the passages in which he seems to
speak as one who had himself belonged to the order of Solitaries, and
shared the glory of chastity7
| 7 Cat. xii. 1, 33, 34.
Compare iv. 24, note 8. | . We need not,
however, suppose that the “Solitaries” (μονάζοντες)of
whom he speaks were either hermits living in remote and desert places,
or monks secluded in a monastery: they commonly lived in cities,
only in separate houses, and frequented the same Churches with ordinary
Christians. To such a life of perpetual chastity, strict
asceticism, and works of charity, Cyril may probably, in accordance
with the custom of the age, have been devoted from early youth.
A more important question is that which relates to the
time and circumstances of his ordination as Deacon, and as Priest,
matters closely connected with some of the chief troubles of his later
life.
That he was ordained Deacon by Macarius, Bishop of
Jerusalem, who died in 334 or 335, may be safely inferred from the
unfriendly notice of S. Jerome, Chron. ann. 349 (350
a.d.): “Cyril having been ordained
Priest by Maximus, and after his death permitted by Acacius, Bishop of
Cæsarea, and the other Arian Bishops, to be made Bishop on
condition of repudiating his ordination by Maximus, served in the
Church as a Deacon: and after he had been paid for this impiety
by the reward of the Episcopate (Sacerdotii), he by various
plots harassed Heraclius, whom Maximus when dying had substituted in
his own place, and degraded him from Bishop to
Priest.”
From this account, incredible as it is in the main, and
strongly marked by personal prejudice, we may conclude that Cyril had
been ordained Deacon not by Maximus, but by his predecessor Macarius;
for otherwise he would have been compelled to renounce his
Deacon’s Orders, as well as his Priesthood.
Macarius died in or before the year 335; for at
the Council of Tyre, assembled in that year to condemn Athanasius,
Maximus sat as successor to Macarius in the See of Jerusalem8
| 8 Hefele, History of
Councils, ii. 17; Sozom. H. E. ii. 25. | . This date is confirmed by the fact that
after the accession of Maximus, a great assembly of Bishops was held at
Jerusalem in the year 335, for the dedication of the Church of the Holy
Resurrection9
| 9 Euseb. Vita
Const. iv. 43. | .
It thus appears that Cyril’s ordination as Deacon
cannot be put later than 334 or the beginning of 335.
Towards the close of the latter year the Bishops
who had deposed Athanasius at the Council of Tyre proceeded to
Jerusalem “to celebrate the Tricennalia of
Constantine’s reign by consecrating his grand Church on Mount
Calvary10
| 10 Robertson,
Prolegomena to Athanasius, p. xxxix. | .” On that occasion
“Jerusalem became the gathering point for distinguished prelates
from every province, and the whole city was thronged by a vast
assemblage of the servants of God……In short, the whole of
Syria and Mesopotamia, Phœnicia and Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, and
Libya, with the dwellers in the Thebaid, all contributed to swell the
mighty concourse of God’s ministers, followed as they were by
vast numbers from every province. They were attended by an
imperial escort, and officers of trust had also been sent from the
palace itself, with instructions to heighten the splendour of the
festival at the Emperor’s expense11
.” Eusebius proceeds to
describe the splendid
banquets, the lavish distribution of money and clothes to the naked and
destitute, the offerings of imperial magnificence, the
“intellectual feast” of the many Bishops’ discourses,
and last, not least, his own “various public orations pronounced
in honour of this solemnity.” Among the Clergy taking part
in this gorgeous ceremony, the newly ordained Deacon of the Church of
Jerusalem would naturally have his place. It was a scene which
could not fail to leave a deep impression on his mind, and to influence
his attitude towards the contending parties in the great controversy by
which the Church was at this time distracted. He knew that
Athanasius had just been deposed, he had seen Arius triumphantly
restored to communion in that august assembly of Bishops “from
every province,” with his own Bishop Maximus, and Eusebius of
Cæsarea, the Metropolitan, at their head. It is much to the
praise of his wisdom and steadfastness that he was not misled by the
notable triumph of the Arians to join their faction or adopt their
tenets.
In September, 346, Athanasius returning from his
second exile at Trèves passed through Jerusalem. The aged
Bishop Maximus, who had been induced to acquiesce in the condemnation
of Athanasius at Tyre, and in the solemn recognition of Arius at
Jerusalem, had afterwards refused to join the Eusebians at Antioch in
341, for the purpose of confirming the sentence passed at Tyre, and now
gave a cordial welcome to Athanasius, who thus describes his
reception12
| 12 Apolog. contra
Arian. § 57. | : “As I passed through Syria, I met
with the Bishops of Palestine, who, when they had called a Council at
Jerusalem, received me cordially, and themselves also sent me on my way
in peace, and addressed the following letter to the Church and the
Bishops13
| 13 Cf. Athan. Hist.
Arian. § 25. | .” The letter congratulating the
Egyptian Bishops and the Clergy and people of Alexandria on the
restoration of their Bishop is signed first by Maximus, who seems to
have acted without reference to the Metropolitan Acacius, successor of
Eusebius as Bishop of Cæsarea, and a leader of the Arians, a
bitter enemy of Athanasius. Though Cyril in his writings never
mentions Athanasius or Arius by name, we can hardly doubt that, as
Touttée suggests14
| 14 Introductory note to
Cyril’s Letter to Constantius, § x. | , he must at this time
have had an opportunity of learning the true character of the questions
in dispute between the parties of the great heresiarch and his greater
adversary.
We have already learned from Jerome that Cyril was
admitted to the Priesthood by Maximus. There is no evidence of
the exact date of his ordination: but we may safely assume that
he was a Priest of some years’ standing, when the important duty
of preparing the candidates for Baptism was intrusted to him in or
about the year 34815
| 15 On the exact date of the
Lectures, see below, ch. ix. | . There appears to
be no authority for the statement (Dict. Chr. Antiq.
“Catechumens,” p. 319 a), that the Catecheses
of Cyril of Jerusalem were delivered by him partly as a Deacon, partly
as a Presbyter16
| 16 See more below on the
office of “Catechist,” ch. ii. § 2. | .”
At the very time of delivering the lectures, Cyril
was also in the habit of preaching to the general congregation on the
Lord’s day17
, when the candidates
for Baptism were especially required to be present18
. In the Church of Jerusalem it was still
the custom for sermons to be preached by several Presbyters in
succession, the Bishop preaching last. From Cyril’s
Homily on the Paralytic (§ 20) we learn that he preached
immediately before the Bishop, and so must have held a distinguished
position among the Priests. This is also implied in the fact,
that within three or four years after delivering his Catechetical
Lectures to the candidates for Baptism, he was chosen to succeed
Maximus in the See of Jerusalem.
The date of his consecration is approximately determined
by his own letter to Constantius concerning the appearance of a
luminous cross in the sky at Jerusalem. The letter was written on
the 7th of May, 351, and is described by Cyril as the first-fruit of
his Episcopate. He must therefore have been consecrated in 350,
or early in 351.
Socrates and
Sozomen agree in the assertion that Acacius, Patrophilus the Arian
Bishop of Scythopolis, and their adherents ejected Maximus and put
Cyril in his place19
| 19 Socr. H. E.
ii. 38; Soz. iv. 20. The Bishops of Palestine, except two or
three, had received Athanasius most cordially a few years before
(Athan. Hist. Arian. § 25). | . But according to
the statement of Jerome already quoted20
Maximus, when
dying, had not only nominated Heraclius to be his successor, which,
with the consent of the Clergy and people was not unusual, but had
actually established him as Bishop in his stead (in suum locum
substituerat). The two accounts are irreconcileable, and both
improbable. Touttée argues not without reason, that the
consecration of Heraclius, which Jerome attributes to Maximus, would
have been opposed to the right of the people and Clergy to nominate
their own Bishop, and to the authority of the Metropolitan and other
Bishops of the province, by whom the choice was to be confirmed and the
consecration performed, and that it had moreover been expressly
forbidden seven years before by the 23rd Canon of the Council of
Antioch.
Still more improbable is the charge that Cyril had
renounced the priesthood conferred on him by Maximus, and after serving
in the Church as a Deacon, had been rewarded by the Episcopate, and
then himself degraded Heraclius from Bishop to Priest. As a
solution of these difficulties, it is suggested by Reischl21
that Cyril had been designated in the lifetime
of Maximus as his successor, and after his decease had been duly and
canonically consecrated, but had incurred the calumnious charges of the
party opposed to Acacius and the Eusebians, because he was supposed to
have bound himself to them by accepting consecration at their
hands. This view is in some measure confirmed by the fact that
“in the great controversy of the day Cyril belonged to the
Asiatic party, Jerome to that of Rome. In the Meletian schism
also they took opposite sides, Cyril supporting Meletius, Jerome being
a warm adherent of Paulinus22
| 22 Dict. Chr. Biogr.
“Cyrillus,” p. 761: and for the Meletian Schism, see
“Meletius,” “Paulinus,”
“Vitalius.” | ,” by whom he had
been recently ordained Priest. It is also worthy of notice that
Jerome’s continuation of the Chronicle of Eusebius was written at
Constantinople in 380–381, the very time when the many injurious
charges fabricated by Cyril’s bitter enemies were most
industriously circulated in popular rumour on the eve of a judicial
inquiry by the second general Council which met there in 381, under the
presidency of Meletius, Cyril, and Gregory of Nazianzum23
. Had Jerome written of Cyril a year or
two later, he must have known that these calumnies had been
emphatically rejected by the Synod of Constantinople (382) consisting
of nearly the same Bishops who had been present at the Council of the
preceding year. In their Synodical letter24
| 24 Theodoret, Hist.
Eccl. v. 9. | to Pope
Damasus they wrote: “And of the Church in Jerusalem, which
is the Mother of all the Churches, we notify that the most reverend and
godly Cyril is Bishop: who was long ago canonically appointed by
the Bishops of the Province, and had many conflicts in various places
against the Arians.”
The beginning of Cyril’s Episcopate was
marked by the appearance of a bright Cross in the sky, about nine
o’clock in the morning of Whitsunday, the 7th of May, 351
a.d. Brighter than the sun, it hung over
the hill of Golgotha, and extended to Mount Olivet, being visible for
many hours. The whole population of Jerusalem, citizens and
foreigners, Christians and Pagans, young and old, flocked to the
Church, singing the praises of Christ, and hailing the phænomenon
as a sign from heaven confirming the truth of the Christian
religion.
Cyril regarded the occasion as favourable for announcing
to the Emperor Constantius the commencement of his Episcopate; and in
his extant letter described the sign as a proof of God’s favour
towards the Empire and its Christian ruler. The piety of his
father Constantine had been rewarded by the discovery of the true Cross
and the Holy places: and now the greater devotion of the Son had
won a more signal manifestation of Divine approval. The letter ends with a prayer that God may
grant to the Emperor long to reign as the protector of the Church and
of the Empire, “ever glorifying the Holy and Consubstantial
Trinity, our true God.” The word ὁμοούσιον,
it is alleged, had not at this time been accepted by Cyril, and its use
has therefore been thought to cast doubt upon the genuineness of this
final prayer, which is nevertheless maintained by the Benedictine
Editor25
| 25 Epist. ad
Constantium—Monitum, § x. | . The letter as a whole is certainly
genuine, and the phenomenon is too strongly attested by the historians
of the period to be called in question. While, therefore, we must
reject Cyril’s explanation, we have no reason to suspect him of
intentional misrepresentation. A parhelion, or other remarkable
phenomenon, of which the natural cause was at that time unknown, might
well appear “to minds excited by the struggle between the
Christian Faith and a fast-declining heathenism to be a miraculous
manifestation of the symbol of Redemption, intended to establish the
Faith and to confute its gainsayers26
| 26 Dict. Chr. Biogr.
p. 761. | .”
The first few years of Cyril’s episcopate
fell within that so-called “Golden Decade,” 346–355,
which is otherwise described as “an uneasy interval of suspense
rather than of peace27
.” Though
soon to be engaged in a dispute with Acacius concerning the privileges
of their respective Sees, Cyril seems to have been in the interval
zealous and successful in promoting the peace and prosperity of his own
Diocese.
We learn from a letter of Basil the Great that he
had visited Jerusalem about the year 357, when he had been recently
baptized, and was preparing to adopt a life of strict asceticism.
He speaks of the many saints whom he had there embraced, and of the
many who had fallen on their knees before him, and touched his hands as
holy28
,—signs, as Touttée suggests, of a
flourishing state of religion and piety. Cyril’s care for
the poor, and his personal poverty, were manifested by an incident, of
which the substantial truth is proved by the malicious use to which it
was afterwards perverted. “Jerusalem and the neighbouring
region being visited with a famine, the poor in great multitudes, being
destitute of necessary food, turned their eyes upon Cyril as their
Bishop. As he had no money to succour them in their need, he sold
the treasures and sacred veils of the Church. It is said,
therefore, that some one recognised an offering of his own as worn by
an actress on the stage, and made it his business to inquire whence she
had it, and found that it had been sold to her by a merchant, and to
the merchant by the Bishop29
.”
This was one of the charges brought against Cyril
in the course of the disputes between himself and Acacius, which had
commenced soon after he had been installed in the Bishopric of
Jerusalem. As Bishop of Cæsarea, Acacius exercised
Metropolitan jurisdiction over the Bishops of Palestine. But
Cyril, as presiding over an Apostolic See, “the Mother of all the
Churches,” claimed exemption from the jurisdiction of
Cæsarea, and higher rank than its Bishop. It is not alleged,
nor is it in any way probable, that Cyril claimed also the jurisdiction
over other Bishops. The rights and privileges of his See had been
clearly defined many years before by the 7th Canon of the Council of
Nicæa: “As custom and ancient tradition shew that the
Bishop of Ælia ought to be honoured, let him have precedence in
honour, without prejudice to the proper dignity of the Metropolitical
See.” Eusebius30
, in reference to a
Synod concerning the time of Easter, says: “There is still
extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine (about
200 a.d.), over whom Theophilus, Bishop of
Cæsarea, and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem,
presided.” If one Synod only is here meant, it would appear
that the Bishop of Cæsarea took precedence of the Bishop of
Jerusalem, which would be the natural order in a Synod held at
Cæsarea. Bishop Hefele, however, takes a different
view31
: “According to the
Synodicon, two Synods were held in Palestine on the
subject of the Easter
controversy: the one at Jerusalem presided over by Narcissus, and
composed of fourteen Bishops; and the other at Cæsarea, comprising
twelve Bishops, and presided over by Theophilus.” In
confirmation of this view we may observe that when next Eusebius
mentions Narcissus and Theophilus, he reverses the previous order, and
names the Bishop of Jerusalem first.
However this may have been, Acacius, who as an
Arian was likely to have little respect for the Council of Nicæa,
seems to have claimed both precedence and jurisdiction over
Cyril. From32
Socrates we learn that
Cyril was frequently summoned to submit to the judgment of Acacius, but
for two whole years refused to appear. He was therefore deposed
by Acacius and the other Arian Bishops of Palestine on the charge of
having sold the property of the Church, as before mentioned.
Socrates, who confesses that he does not know for what Cyril was
accused, yet suggests that he was afraid to meet the
accusations33
. But Theodoret, a
more impartial witness, says34
that Acacius took
advantage of some slight occasion (ἀφορμάς) and deposed
him. Sozomen35
also describes the
accusation as a pretext (ἐπὶ
προφάσει
τοιᾷδε), and the deposition as
hastily decreed, to forestall any countercharge of heresy by Cyril
(φθάνει
καθελών). The
deposition was quickly followed by Cyril’s expulsion from
Jerusalem, and a certain Eutychius was appointed to succeed
him36
| 36 There is much
uncertainty and confusion in the names of the Bishops who succeeded
Cyril on the three occasions of his being deposed. His successor
in 357 is said by Jerome to have been a certain Eutychius, probably the
same who was afterwards excommunicated at Seleucia (Dict. Chr.
Biogr. Eutychius 13). The subject is discussed at length by
Touttée (Diss. I. vii.). | . Passing by Antioch, which at this time,
357–358, was left without a Bishop by the recent decease of the
aged Arian Leontius Castratus37
| 37 See the account of
his remarkable career in the Dict. Chr. Biogr. | , Cyril took refuge in
Tarsus with its Bishop the “admirable Silvanus,” “one
of the Semi-Arians,” who, as Athanasius testifies, agreed almost
entirely with the Nicene doctrine, only taking offence at the
expression ὁμοούσιος,
because in their opinion it contained latent Sabellianism38
| 38 Athan. De
Synodis, c. xii.; Hefele, ii. 262. | .” Cyril now sent to the Bishops
who had deposed him a formal notice that he appealed to a higher Court
(μεῖζον
ἐπεκαλέσατο
δικαστήριον
), and his appeal was approved by the Emperor Constantius39
| 39 Socrates, H.
E. ii. 40. | . Acasius, on learning the place of
Cyril’s retreat, wrote to Silvanus announcing his
deposition. But Silvanus out of respect both to Cyril, and to the
people, who were delighted with his teaching, still permitted him to
exercise his ministry in the Church. Socrates finds fault with
Cyril for his appeal: “In this,” he says, “he
was the first and only one who acted contrary to the custom of the
Ecclesiastical Canon, by having recourse to appeals as in a civil
court.” The reproach implied in this statement is
altogether undeserved. The question, as Touttée argues, is
not whether others had done the like before or after, but whether
Cyril’s appeal was in accordance with natural justice, and the
custom of the Church. On the latter point he refers to the case
of the notorious heretic Photinus, who after being condemned in many
Councils appealed to the Emperor, and was allowed to dispute in his
presence with Basil the Great as his opponent. Athanasius
himself, in circumstances very similar to Cyril’s, declined to
appear before Eusebius and a Synod of Arian Bishops at Cæsarea, by
whom he was condemned a.d. 334, and appealed
in person to Constantine, requesting either that a lawful Council of
Bishops might be assembled, or that the Emperor would himself receive
his defence.40
| 40 Athan. contr.
Arianos Apol. c. 36: Hefele, ii. p. 27, note. | ”
In justification of Cyril’s appeal it is enough to
say that it was impossible for him to submit to the judgment of Acacius
and his Arian colleagues. They could not be impartial in a matter
where the jurisdiction of Acacius their president, and his unsoundness
in the Faith, were as much in question as any of the charges brought
against Cyril. He took the only course open to him in requesting
the Emperor to remit his case to the higher jurisdiction of a greater Council, and in giving
formal notice of this appeal to the Bishops who had expelled him.
While the appeal was pending, Cyril became
acquainted with “ the learned Bishop, Basil of Ancyra “
(Hefele), with Eustathius of Sebaste in Armenia, and George of
Laodicea, the chief leaders of the party “usually (since
Epiphanius), but with some injustice, designated Semi-Arian41
| 41 Robertson,
Prolegomena ad Athanas. ii. § 8 (2) c. | .” One of the charges brought
against Cyril in the Council of Constantinople (360, a.d.) was, as we shall see, that he held communion with
these Bishops.
Cyril had not long to wait for the hearing of his
appeal. In the year 359 the Eastern Bishops met at Seleucia in
Isauria, and the Western at Ariminum. Constantius had at first
wished to convene a general Council of all the Bishops of the Empire,
but this intention he was induced to abandon by representations of the
long journeys and expense, and he therefore directed the two Synods
then assembled at Ariminum and at Seleucia “the Rugged” to
investigate first the disputes concerning the Faith, and then to turn
their attention to the complaints of Cyril, and other Bishops against
unjust decrees of deposition and banishment42
.
This order of proceeding was discussed, and after much controversy
adopted on the first day of meeting, the 27th of September43
. On the second day Acacius and his
friends refused to remain unless the Bishops already deposed, or under
accusation, were excluded. Theodoret relates that “ several
friends of peace tried to persuade Cyril of Jerusalem to withdraw, but
that, as he would not comply, Acacius left the assembly44
.” Three days afterwards, according
to Sozomen, a third meeting was held at which the demand of Acacius was
complied with; “for the Bishops of the opposite party were
determined that he should have no pretext for dissolving the Council,
which was evidently his object in order to prevent the impending
examination of the heresy of Aëtius and of the accusations which
had been brought against him and his partisans45
.” A creed put forward by Acacius
having been rejected, he refused to attend any further meetings, though
repeatedly summoned to be present at an investigation of his own
charges against Cyril.
In the end Acacius and many of his friends were deposed
or excommunicated. Some of these, however, in defiance of the
sentence of the Council, returned to their dioceses, as did also the
majority who had deposed them.
It is not expressly stated whether any formal
decision on the case of Cyril was adopted by the Council: but as
his name does not appear in the lists of those who were deposed or
excommunicated, it is certain that he was not condemned. It is
most probable that the charges against him were disregarded after his
accuser Acacius had refused to appear, and that he returned, like the
others, to his diocese. But he was not to be left long in
peace. Acacius and some of his party had hastened to
Constantinople, where they gained over to their cause the chief men
attached to the palace, and through their influence secured the favour
of Constantius, and roused his anger against the majority of the
Council. But what especially stirred the Emperor’s wrath
were the charges which Acacius concocted against Cyril:
“For,” he said that “the holy robe which the Emperor
Constantine of blessed memory, in his desire to honour the Church of
Jerusalem, had presented to Macarius, the Bishop of that city, to be
worn when he administered the rite of Holy Baptism, all fashioned as it
was with golden threads, had been sold by Cyril, and bought by one of
the dancers at the theatre, who had put it on, and while dancing had
fallen, and injured himself, and died. With such an ally as this
Cyril,” he said, “they undertake to judge and pass sentence
upon the rest of the world46
| 46 Theodoret, H.
E. ii. 23. | .”
Ten deputies who at the close of the Council of Seleucia
had been appointed to report its proceedings to the Emperor, “met,
on their arrival at the Court, the deputies of the Council of Ariminum,
and likewise the partisans of Acacius47
. After much
controversy and many intrigues, a mutilated and ambiguous Creed adopted
at Ariminum in which the ὁμοούσιος of
Nicæa was replaced by “like to the Father that begat Him
according to the Scriptures,” and the mention of either
“essence” (οὐσία) or
“subsistence” (ὑπόστασις)
condemned48
| 48 Athan. de.
Syn. § 30, where this Creed is given in full. | , was brought forward and approved by the
Emperor. “After having, on the last day of the year 359,
discussed the matter with the Bishops till far into the night49
, he at length extorted their
signatures….It is in this connexion that Jerome says:
Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus est50
.” Early in the following year, 360
a.d., through the influence of Acacius a new
Synod was held at Constantinople, in which, among other Semi-Arian
Bishops, Cyril also was deposed on the charge of having held communion
with Eustathius of Sebaste, Basil of Ancyra, and George of
Laodicea. Cyril, as we have seen, had become acquainted with
these Bishops during his residence at Tarsus in 358, at which time they
were all zealous opponents of Acacius and his party, but differed
widely in other respects.
George of Laodicea was a profligate in morals, and
an Arian at heart, whose opposition to Acacius and Eudoxius was
prompted by self-interest rather than by sincere conviction. He
had been deposed from the priesthood by Alexander, Bishop of
Alexandria, both on that ground of false doctrine, and of the open and
habitual irregularities of his life. Athanasius styles him
“the most wicked of all the Arians,” reprobated even by his
own party for his grossly dissolute conduct51
.
Basil of Ancyra was a man of high moral character,
great learning, and powerful intellect, a consistent opponent both of
the Sabellianism of Marcellus, and of every form of Arian and
Anomœan heresy, a chief among those of whom Athanasius
wrote52
, “We discuss the matter with them as
brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about
the word (ὁμοούσιος)….Now
such is Basil who wrote from Ancyra concerning the Faith” (358
a.d., the same year in which Cyril met him at
Tarsus).
Eustathius is described as a man unstable in
doctrine, vacillating from party to party, subscribing readily to
Creeds of various tendency, yet commanding the respect even of his
enemies by a life of extraordinary holiness, in which active
benevolence was combined with extreme austerity. “He was a
man,” says Mr. Gwatkin53
, “too active to
be ignored, too unstable to be trusted, too famous for ascetic piety to
be lightly made an open enemy.”
S. Basil the Great, when travelling from place to
place, to observe the highest forms of ascetic life, had met with
Eustathius at Tarsus, and formed a lasting friendship with a man whom
he describes as “exhibiting something above human
excellence,” and of whom, after the painful dissensions which
embittered Basil’s later life, that great saint could say, that
from childhood to extreme old age he (Eustathius) had watched over
himself with the greatest care, the result of his self-discipline being
seen in his life and character54
| 54 Basil, Epist.
244. Compare Newman, Preface to Catechetical Lectures, p.
iv. | .
Of any intimate friendship between Cyril, and
these Semi-Arian leaders, we have no evidence in the vague charges of
Acacius: their common fault was that they condemned him in the
Synod of Seleucia. The true reason of Cyril’s deposition,
barely concealed by the frivolous charges laid against him, was the
hatred of Acacius, incurred by the refusal to acknowledge the
Metropolitan jurisdiction of the See of Cæsarea. The
deposition was confirmed by Constantius, and followed by a sentence of
banishment. The place of Cyril’s exile is not mentioned;
nor is it known whether he joined in the protest of the other deposed
Bishops, described by S. Basil, Epist. 75. His banishment
was not of longer continuance than two years. Constantius died on
the 3rd of November, 361, and the accession of Julian was soon
followed by the recall of all
the exiled Bishops, orthodox and heretical, and the restoration of
their confiscated estates55
. Julian’s
object, according to Socrates, was “ to brand the memory of
Constantius by making him appear to have been cruel towards his
subjects.” An equally amiable motive imputed to him is
mentioned by Sozomen: “It is said that he issued this order
in their behalf not out of mercy, but that through contention among
themselves the Church might be involved in fraternal strife56
| 56 Sozom. H. E.
v. c. 5. Compare Gibbon, Ch. xxiii.: “The impartial
Ammianus has ascribed this affected clemency to the desire of fomenting
the intestine divisions of the Church.” | .” Cyril, returning with the other
Bishops, seems to have passed through Antioch on his way home, and to
have been well received by the excellent Bishop Meletius.
It happened that the son of a heathen priest
attached to the Emperor’s Court, having been instructed in his
youth by a Deaconess whom he visited with his mother, had secretly
become a Christian. On discovering this, his father had cruelly
scourged and burnt him with hot spits on his hands, and feet, and
back. He contrived to escape, and took refuge with his friend the
Deaconess. “‘She dressed me in women’s
garments, and took me in her covered carriage to the divine
Meletius. He handed me over to the Bishop of Jerusalem, at that
time Cyril, and we started by night for Palestine.’ After
the death of Julian, this young man led his father also into the way of
truth. This act he told me with the rest57
| 57 Theodoret, H.
E. iii. 10. | .”
The next incident recorded in the life of S. Cyril
is his alleged prediction of the failure of Julian’s attempt to
rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem. “The vain and ambitious
mind of Julian,” says Gibbon, “might aspire to restore the
ancient glory of the Temple of Jerusalem. As the Christians were
firmly persuaded that a sentence of everlasting destruction had been
pronounced against the whole fabric of the Mosaic law, the Imperial
sophist would have converted the success of his undertaking into a
specious argument against the faith of prophecy and the truth of
revelation.” Again he writes: “The Christians
entertained a natural and pious expectation, that in this memorable
contest, the honour of religion would be vindicated by some signal
miracle58
.” That such an expectation may
have been shared by Cyril is not impossible: but there is no
satisfactory evidence that he ventured to foretell any miraculous
interposition. According to the account of Rufinus59
, “lime and cement had been brought, and
all was ready for destroying the old foundations and laying new on the
next day. But Cyril remained undismayed, and after careful
consideration either of what he had read in Daniel’s prophecy
concerning the ‘times,’ or of our Lord’s predictions
in the Gospels, persisted that it was impossible that one stone should
ever there be laid upon another by the Jews.” This account
of Cyril’s expectation, though probable enough in itself, seems
to be little more than a conjecture founded on his statement
(Cat. xv. 15), that “Antichrist will come at the time when
there shall not be left one stone upon another in the Temple of the
Jews.” That doom was not completed in Cyril’s time,
nor did he expect it to be fulfilled until the coming of the Jewish
Antichrist, who was to restore the Temple shortly before the end of the
world. It was impossible for Cyril to see in Julian such an
Antichrist as he has described; and therefore, without any gift or
pretence of prophecy, he might very well express a firm conviction that
the attempted restoration at that time must fail. Though Gibbon
is even more cynical and contemptuous than usual in his examination of
the alleged miracles, he does not attempt to deny the main facts of the
story60
| 60 See Gibbon’s remarks
on the testimony of Ammianus, “a contemporary and a Pagan,”
and on the explanation from natural causes suggested by Michaelis. | : with their miraculous character we are
not here concerned, but only with Cyril’s conduct on so
remarkable an occasion.
In the same year, a.d.
363, Julian was killed in his Persian campaign on the 26th of June, and
was succeeded by Jovian, whose universal tolerance, and personal
profession of the Nicene faith, though discredited by the looseness of
his morals, gave an interval of comparative rest to the Church. In his
reign Athanasius was recalled, and Acacius and his friends subscribed
the Nicene Creed, with an explanation of the sense in which they
accepted the word ὁμοούσιον61
| 61 Socr. iii. 25; Sozom. vi.
4. | . As Cyril’s name is not mentioned
in any of the records of Jovian’s short reign of seven months, we
may infer that he dwelt in peace at Jerusalem.
Jovian died on the 17th of February, 364, and was
succeeded by Valentinian, who in the following March gave over the
Eastern provinces of the Empire to his brother Valens. During the
first two years of the new reign we hear nothing of Cyril: but at
the beginning of the year 366, on the death of his old enemy Acacius,
Cyril assumed the right to nominate his successor in the See of
Cæsarea, and appointed a certain Philumenus62
| 62 Epiphanius,
Hær. 73, § 37. | . Whether this assumption of authority
was in accordance with the 7th Canon of Nicæa may be
doubted: Cyril’s choice of his nephew was, however, in
after times abundantly justified by the conduct and character of
Gelasius, who is described by Theodoret as a man “distinguished
by the purity of his doctrine, and the sanctity of his life,” and
is quoted by the same historian as “the admirable,” and
“the blessed Gelasius63
| 63 Hist. Eccl.
V. 8; Dialog. i. iii. | .”
Epiphanius relates64
that
“after these three had been set up, and could do nothing on
account of mutual contentions,” Euzoius was appointed by the
Arians, and held the See until the accession of Theodosius in
a.d. 379, when he was deposed, and Gelasius
restored. In the meantime Cyril had been a third time deposed and
driven from Jerusalem, probably in the year 367. For at that time
Valens, who had fallen under the influence of Eudoxius, the Arian
Bishop of Constantinople, by whom he was baptized, “wrote to the
Governors of the provinces, commanding that all Bishops who had been
banished by Constantius, and had again assumed their sacerdotal offices
under the Emperor Julian, should be ejected from their
Churches65
| 65 Sozom. vi. 12.
Cf. Tillemont, Mémoires, Tom. viii. p. 357: “As
Cyril was, no doubt, then persecuted only on account of his firmness in
the true Faith, the title of Confessor cannot be refused to
him.” | .” Of this third and longest
banishment we have no particulars, but we may safely apply to it the
words of the Synod at Constantinople, 382, that Cyril “ had
passed through very many contests with the Arians in various
places.”
The terrible defeat and miserable death of Valens
in the great battle against the Goths at Adrianople (a.d. 378) brought a respite to the defenders of the Nicene
doctrine. For Gratian “disapproved of the late persecution
that had been carried on for the purpose of checking the diversities in
religious Creeds, and recalled all those who had been banished on
account of their religion66
.” Gratian
associated Theodosius with himself in the Empire on the 19th of
January, 379; and “at this period,” says Sozomen67
, “all the Churches of the East, with the
exception of that of Jerusalem, were in the hands of the
Arians.” Cyril, therefore, had been one of the first to
return to his own See. During his long absence the Church of
Jerusalem had been the prey both of Arianism and of the new heresy of
Apollinarius, which had spread among the monks who were settled on
Mount Olivet. Egyptian Bishops, banished for their orthodoxy,
having taken refuge in Palestine, there found themselves excluded from
communion. Jerusalem was given over to heresy and schism, to the
violent strife of rival factions, and to extreme licentiousness of
morals.
Gregory of Nyssa, who had been commissioned by a
Council held at Antioch in 378 to visit the Churches in Arabia and
Palestine, “because matters with them were in confusion, and
needed an arbiter,” gives a mournful account both of the
distracted state of the Church, and of the prevailing corruption.
“If the Divine grace were more abundant about Jerusalem than
elsewhere, sin would not be so much the fashion among those who live
there , but as it is, there is no form of uncleanness that is not
perpetrated among them; rascality, adultery, theft, idolatry,
poisoning, quarrelling, murder, are rife.” In a
letter68
| 68 Greg. Nyss.
Epist. xvii. in this Series. | written after his return to Cæsarea in Cappadocia he asks,
“What means this opposing array of new Altars? Do we
announce another Jesus? Do we produce other Scriptures?
Have any of ourselves dared to say “Mother of Man” of the
Holy Virgin, the Mother of God?
In the year a.d. 381
Theodosius summoned the Bishops of his division of the Empire to meet
in Council at Constantinople, in order to settle the disputes by which
the Eastern Church had been so long distracted, and to secure the
triumph of the Nicene Faith over the various forms of heresy which had
arisen in the half-century which had elapsed since the first General
Council. Among the Bishops present were Cyril of Jerusalem, and
his nephew Gelasius, who on the death of Valens had regained possession
of the See of Cæsarea from the Arian intruder Euzoius. Cyril
is described by Sozomen69
as one of three
recognised leaders of the orthodox party, and, according to Bishop
Hefele70
, as sharing the presidency with the Bishops of
Alexandria and Antioch. This latter point, however, is not
clearly expressed in the statement of Sozomen. Socrates writes
that Cyril at this time recognised the doctrine of ὁμοούσιον,
having retracted his former opinion: and Sozomen says that he had
at this period renounced the tenets of the Macedonians which he
previously held71
| 71 Socrat. v. 8; Sozom. vii.
7. | . Touttée
rightly rejects these reproaches as unfounded: they are certainly
opposed to all his teaching in the Catechetical Lectures, where the
doctrine of Christ’s unity of essence with the Father is fully
and frequently asserted, though the term ὁμοούσιος is not
used, and the co-equal Deity of the Holy Ghost is everywhere
maintained.
We find no further mention of Cyril in the
proceedings of the Council itself. As consisting of Eastern
Bishops only, its authority was not at first acknowledged, nor its acts
approved in the Western Church. The two Synods held later in the
same year at Aquileia and at Milan, sent formal protests to Theodosius,
and urged him to summon a General Council at Alexandria or at
Rome. But instead of complying with this request, the Emperor
summoned the Bishops of his Empire to a fresh Synod at Constantinople,
and there in the summer of 382 very nearly the same Bishops were
assembled who had been present at the Council of the preceding
year. Their Synodical letter addressed to the Bishops assembled
at Rome is preserved by Theodoret72
and in it we read
as follows: “Of the Church in Jerusalem, the Mother of all
the Churches, we make known that Cyril the most reverend and most
beloved of God is Bishop; and that he was canonically ordained long ago
by the Bishops of the province, and that he has very often fought a
good fight in various places against the Arians.” Thus
justice was done at last to one whose prudence, moderation, and love of
peace, had exposed him in those days of bitter controversy to
undeserved suspicion and relentless persecution. His
justification by the Council is the last recorded incident in
Cyril’s life. We are told by Jerome that he held
undisturbed possession of his See for eight years under
Theodosius. The eighth year of Theodosius was a.d. 386, and in the Roman Martyrology, the 18th of March
in that year is marked as “The birthday (‘Natalis,’
i.e. of his heavenly life) of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, who after
suffering many wrongs from the Arians for the sake of the Faith, and
having been several times driven from his See, became at length
renowned for the glory of sanctity, and rested in peace: an
Ecumenical Council in a letter to Damasus gave a noble testimony to his
untarnished faith.”E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
